Month: August 2009

Summary Justice

Izaac has introduced a new weekly feature. One sentence summaries of books of the Bible.

In the spirit of this feature comes this site offering one sentence summaries of heaps of movies. Like these…

FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF: Amoral narcissist makes world dance for his amusement.
BLADE: Obsessed loner stalks minority group.
FIGHT CLUB: Deranged sociopath guides yuppies to their deaths.
STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE: Religious extremist terrorists destroy government installation, killing thousands.
STAR WARS: EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: Boy is abused by midget, kisses sister, attempts patricide.
STAR WARS: RETURN OF THE JEDI: Handicapped mass murderer kills septugenarian, is lauded.

How not to lose friends and alienate bloggers

There is a better way.

  1. Find a blog/article about a topic you’re passionate about online.
  2. Read and comprehend the original post.
  3. Think about a reasonable response.
  4. Write your response, erring on the side of grace and caution.
  5. Read to see if other people have commented since your last comment.
  6. Reread your comment.
  7. Make sure it’s loving in its tone, and not offensive.
  8. Post it.
  9. Realise that other people aren’t like you and don’t necessarily want their comment pages spammed. Post once per response.

How to lose friends and alienate bloggers

  1. Find a blog/article about a topic you’re passionate about online.
  2. Barely read/comprehend the original post – just find key words and points that invoke your bloodlust.
  3. Get indignant.
  4. Post a comment about why the person is wrong.
  5. Only read the follow up comments that talk directly to your point.
  6. Argue with those comments using much hyperbolic subjectivity, little objectivity in order to demonstrate why you are right while continuing to ignore the context.
  7. Read back what you, and they wrote.
  8. Feel guilty.
  9. Post a contrite apology on that discussion and a list of things that alienate people so others will learn from your mistakes.
  10. Hope that the people from the other blog also read yours so that they see said list.

The regional solution

I’ve ranted and raved a little bit previously about how Sydney is oversaturated with good, evangelical ministers. It’s not entirely true. Sydney needs good evangelical ministers. It’s the lifeblood of evangelical work in Australia. But it would be incredibly nice to have them donate some blood elsewhere occasionally.

I’d be really interested to see how a model like the one education departments around the country would work when applied to ministry – where graduates have to go out into rural and regional areas to serve and earn their stripes before heading to the city. I think the Anglican system precludes this a little – so it’s a great opportunity for the Pressies with our statewide system of governance.

Sam, from thefountainside, posted something yesterday about some of the unhelpful tactics us country people use when we’re trying to lure people away from the bright lights of Sydney. I can understand his frustration – and he suggests a much better way to appeal to people when it comes to serving God – the glorification of God. I’m with him on that.

What I’m not with him on is the idea that staying in Sydney is not the default position of most Sydney based students, particularly Sydney based students who are from Sydney. This is largely anecdotal and based purely on the handful of people I know – but looking at the people in ministry, that I know of, the vast majority of evangelical ministers serving outside of Sydney were not from Sydney originally. There must be a little bit to this. Because every country area I’ve lived in, and every country church I know of, feels this frustration to a degree.

Jesus called for his followers to go “to the world” with the gospel. The world includes, but is not limited to, Sydney.

I’ve said far more than I should, far more aggressively than I should, over at thefountainside (and I’ve apologised – this issue makes my blood boil like one of those berserkers who goes nuts at the first signs of battle) – and I should have posted this here much sooner. But here’s a little summary of my thinking.

  1. Sydney has an abundance of evangelical churches – I said there that they’re like 7/11. Almost on every corner. There’s even pseudo-emergent independent church plants catering for every cultural need. Sure, Sydney needs the gospel. But curious Sydneysiders have ample opportunity to wander down to their local Anglican church and be almost guaranteed to hear the Bible taught.
  2. Nobody argues that city ministry is not important. That’s why it’s the default. Because it is important. If you’re committed to urban ministry there are plenty of urban centres outside of Sydney with only a little, or no, evangelical ministry occurring. I used the word myopia to describe the Sydney focus – and I stand by that. Sure, Sydney is big. But there are other cities crying out for gospel workers without the existing base to produce them. For these cities to turn around they need workers to go and start things up.
  3. I like the idea of ministry graduates doing a country placement before moving to the city. I think both the country and the city benefit from that model. It’s also the model the Government chooses for education. It works pragmatically. Apparently pragmatism is on the nose a little bit though.
  4. It takes a special person, with special passion, and a special calling, to leave Sydney. In Sydney, or in any big city, the need is more obvious. There are myriad gospel opportunities literally at your doorstep. I can see how wanting to meet those needs would be a compelling calling. But all ministry glorifies Jesus.
  5. People won’t go to rural areas if they aren’t asked, shown the need and encouraged to glorify God by doing so. People should make these calls – and they should do so with whatever means are at their disposal.

Sweet Relief

“If people can change chocolate, they can change the world,” joked Miss Abraham. Well, i dont think it’s a joke, because i think changing chocolate for the better is changing the world and making it a better place. This quote came from a news article which was emailed to me at 7.50am from someone who knows the importance of chocolate. It’s about how Cadbury, mirroring Coke’s ‘New Coke/Coke Classic’ situation of the 1980s, has changed its recipe back to their old recipe. I had to write a blog about it:

1. because i loved old Cadbury.

2. because i had an awesome pun to use as the title and that’s what blogging is all about.

I disliked the new recipe and disliked Cadbury for making me eat it (at least they were generous enough to put it in smaller portions so the pain was short lived…). But this makes me love Cadbury again – they listened to the customer and the customer is (mostly) always right. Sure, its a little bit embarassing for them, and sure they’re still saying they substituted cocoa butter with palm oil for smoothness (and not cheapness), and they did downsize their products without downsizing the price, and they did sell rubbish products for a few months, but now they’re giving the customer what the customer wants and all will be forgotten (especially if they through in a couple more gorilla suits and kids with funny eyebrows, or maybe even a gorilla with funny eyebrows – now that would be advertising genius)

This time i let all the other customers fight cadbury on my behalf and things got changed. Seeing their efforts be rewarded makes me feel empowered. So, I have made a new (belated financial) year’s resolution – everytime i don’t like a product i am sending an email to customer services. Obviously it works. And even if the company don’t change the product back to how it was in the good old days, but if the company knows whats good for them they will know if they repond to my complaint i will love them more. So, I might at least get a cheque for $3.45 as a refund for my snakes alive complaint (they only have 2 blue snakes – not good enough!!!). And, any cheques received this year wont be cashed, they’ll be kept as trophies because for some reason that would be highly satisfying.

I’ll keep you posted.

The Links Effect

Are you missing my daily links posts? Me too. It means posting links requires heaps more effort on my part. But there’s so much good stuff out there.

Izaac* has been fighting the good fight – collating suggestions for a response to atheist university students who are postering campuses around Sydney.

Ben came out of the hip-hop closet and let us all know about his history as an MC in a hip-hop posse.

There’s a pretty interesting discussion happening as a follow up to my abortion post over at the Fountainside.

Simone* has pointed her readers to another blog (Jean in all honesty) which is discussing the use of childcare for Christian parents. I refrained from commenting there because I’m a guy, and not a parent, but Simone’s husband Andrew* has put up a post where us guys can feel comfortable chiming in.

CafeDave is a little blog about cafes and marketing – so you can see why I’d like it – Dave posted his responses to the Jesus All About Life campaign as reported by Steve Kryger’s (very helpful) Communicate Jesus and discussed by a pack of raving atheists on mumbrella – atheists who can’t seem to distinguish the activities of churches from “tax payer funded activities” simply because churches receive certain tax exemptions. Churches are not for profit community organisations – no not for profit community organisations pay tax, and plenty of them (my employer included) advertise.

Recent new reader/first time commenter Drew has a blog. It’s worth reading. I particularly like his insights into the use of a blog as a tool for getting things done – including getting things off one’s mind. I read quite a few of his posts last night while watching NCIS.

Ali has a biting insiders view on what’s wrong with legal writing – I must agree, having started a law degree and been told that it’s all about plain writing and then sitting through hours of lectures, reading case notes and hearing lawyers talk, I can completely understand the sentiment behind the quote she shared.

Tim* had a go at me for giving up fast food. I should have a go at him for giving up grammar. But he makes some interesting points.

Dan* used his gloriously designed blog to reflect on a recent lecture on Christian ethics and the reconciliation debtate in two parts.

Byron Smith – whose name sounds suspcisciously like Bryson Smith – has posted a really helpful reflection on parenting that covers one of those little topics I’m toying with as future post fodder – the idea that indoctrinating your child is abusive. It’s not. As a Christian it’s the most loving thing you can do for your child.

I’m thinking about writing quite a few pieces on parenting – and this is not any kind of announcement – but I’m also struck by Queensland’s new surrogacy laws. On one hand they open up great possibilities for offering to formally adopt children from those considering an abortion, and on the other, they turn “parenting” into a right and privelige for everybody – rather than a responsibility and natural outcome of being part of the archetypal family unit. I’m not a fan of that part, but it’s not enough of an objection for me to not be a fan of the whole thing. My inner pragmatist realises that gay couples – particularly women – can have children whenever they want already, and this is, on the whole, designed to protect their child, and the biological father.

And for those of you wondering which of my posts from the last few days I’d bother reading if I were you it would be these:

* Denotes people I know in the real world…

NB: The photo at the stop is completely unrelated to the post, it was just text heavy and I hadn’t posted it before. It’s from Lucinda. You should go there. I would have put up a photo of a can of Lynx, if I had one.

That is all.

My oath

Our WCF classes have proven to be fun and exciting. Which is a surprise. We were up to Chapter 22 tonight – “Of Lawful Oaths and Vows” – it’s pretty controversial, because it prima facie contradicts instructions from Jesus in Matthew 5, and James, in James 5.

Things got heated. In a pretty good way – but raising a couple of points that I’ll post separately…

I’ve got to say that at this stage I’m with the Westminster assembly on this one. I think oaths are ok – despite the face value instructions not to swear them.

Let me explain.

In Matthew 5 Jesus is talking to the Pharisees – who have completely, and terribly, misunderstood the heart of the law. That’s the problem Jesus has with their approach to everything – from adultery to generosity.

Their problem with oaths is that they’re swearing but trying to get out on technicalities. So they swear on heaven, on Jerusalem, on anything and everything but God, because it gives them a way out. So Jesus tells them that’s not on – but he doesn’t rule out swearing an oath by God – nor does he in Matthew 23, where the issue comes up again. In fact, a natural reading of Matthew 23 (verses 16-22) is to see Jesus encouraging the Pharisees to swear their oaths by God rather than working around the issue with stupid technicalities.

Deuteronomy 6:13 tells Israel to take their oaths “in his name” – not in the name of the kingdom, Jerusalem or the hairs on one’s head.

My understanding of the Matthew passage is that the Pharisees are to aim for honesty (let your yes be yes) so that complicated oaths with easy technical get out clauses are not needed. And when Jesus says “anything more is of the devil” it would seem to be referring to anything designed to obfuscate.

Then the James 5 passage is a direct quote of this one, so should be understood the same way.

I can understand the other side of the argument – but I’ve got to say I’d be pretty comfortable swearing an oath on God’s name to tell the truth provided I then did, and pretty uncomfortable if I swore that and didn’t so not swearing seems to be the safer option anyway…

What say you?

Personality plus

I’ve been watching lots of people do the Myers-Briggs test on Facebook. Personality types fascinate me, but I’m pretty skeptical of most online testing of this nature. Still, my results are generally pretty similar so I must be one of these:

Robyn on the other hand, is the exact opposite.

Any other enlightened ENFPs out there? Have you done the test? Was it accurate?

Dear Lurker

Ben is very wise. He says I shouldn’t try to scare you out of hiding. But I’ve always been a little hot headed and impetuous. So I’m going to temporarily ignore his wise advice and try to attract further lurkers out of the shadows.

Over in the comments thread on that post – one Mr Rodeo Clown – informed me that he lurks occasionally but isn’t a regular because he is intimidated by the frequency of posts.

I read a fair few of your posts, but I’m hesitant to add such a prolific poster to my RSS, as I already have more to read than I really have time for.

I tend to use st-eutychus as a buffet to feed on once I’ve exhausted my reader.

I guess that makes me the Sizzler of the blog world – which is fitting, because this is one of my most popular posts of all time.

What say you, humble lurker, would you read more if I wrote less?

More graphically speaking

Graphjam is fun. More fun on PCs than Macs – for some reason I couldn’t save the ones I made yesterday to graphjam’s servers. Today, on the other hand, I’ve managed to put one there for the world to see.

This is what it looks like.

If the awesomely persuasive power of graphs isn’t enough to get you people commenting, I don’t know what is…

Plane Truths

Have you ever wondered why cheap airlines are so much cheaper than the others? They must cut corners right? Of course they do. Some of the corners are more obvious than others. But they make cuts just about everywhere. Check out this infographic on Flickr for proof…

Found via Gizmodo.

Pro-life not anti-death

One of the big issues I have with the “Christian” input into the abortion debate is that it’s pretty heartless when it comes to understanding the mother to be. I understand the need to fight for the rights of the unborn. I think we’re called to speak for the voiceless. I think we should uphold the value of human life. But most abortion protestors (as a horrible generalisation) are big on “it’s wrong don’t do it” and not so big on what to do if you don’t do it.

It’s a complex issue and worthy of much more than a simple dismissal. Abortion protestors are often (another horrible generalisation) jumping on a moral soapbox that is irrelevant to a non-believer, while offering no solutions whatsoever to the causal issue. Some mothers just don’t feel equipped to have a child, to raise a child and to love a child. I know that not having a child would be a much better option. I know because Bristol Palin says so.

The voice of the “pro-life” movement would be much more compelling if they were “pro-life” not just “anti-death” – which is why I think this Presbyterian Church in America that has come out and offered to take in any unwanted baby and care for them – is taking a great approach to raising the quality of the discourse on the matter. And getting some positive press for doing so… Here’s an excerpt from the sermon.

"I make a promise to you now and I don’t want you to keep this a secret," the pastor pronounced, "the Peachtree Presbyterian Church will care for any newborn baby you bring to this church.
"We will be the family to find a home for that child, and there’s no limit on this. You can tell your friends, you can tell your family, you can tell the whole world …"

Premier League: Same Same, but different

The Premier League kicked off over the weekend. Which is awesome. It is by far my favourite sporting competition in the world. This year’s competition has the added complexity of another team bankrolled by people who place no real value on money.

When Roman Abramovich took over Chelsea a couple of years ago they were tipped to take over the world thanks to a seemingly bottomless pit of money. That experiment hasn’t proved to be particularly successful – they’ve won more than they used to. But Manchester United, thanks to some astute signings of young players who were then groomed into superstars, are world beaters. They’ve won the Premier League three years in a row, along with a bunch of other trophies.

This year it’s Manchester City making a big splash in the transfer market thanks to money from an Arabian oil conglomerate/Abu Dhabi royalty.

Man U enjoyed a win over the weekend. But they lost the earlier Charity Shield on penalties. Patrice Evra, one of United’s backs, was injured in the match by a terrible tackle.

My Premier League prediction for the year is for more of the same. The top five will no doubt be Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester City.

Sadly, and this is the point of my rather long winded preamble – the Fox Sports reporters were unable to distinguish two of Manchester United’s players. Despite Nani having his name clearly emblazoned on his back.

Tall tales

It seems everybody is talking about Usain Bolt. He’s pretty awesome. Groundbreakingly awesome because he’s so tall. Tall people are the superior species. We all know that.

From the SMH – reporting on a study by a Duke University Research team.

“While the average person has gained about five centimetres since 1900, the height of champion runners has increased 16.2 centimetres, say Duke University researchers, Jordan Charles and Adrian Bejan, who studied the heights and weights of 100-metre world record holders.”

“Speed races might eventually need to be divided into weight categories, like boxing, and weightlifting, if smaller athletes are ever to have a chance of making it onto the podium again.”

This seems much more credible than some older research by Oxford’s Department of Zoology. Everybody knows tall men will inherit the earth.

“In 2004, a research team led by Dr Andrew Tatem, of the University of Oxford’s Department of Zoology, predicted that if the record-breaking trends continued men would sprint 100 metres in 8.098 seconds at the 2156 Olympics. Women would run even faster, taking just 8.079 seconds.”

YouTube Tuesday: Super Mario Bros – Directors Cut

If only the original (and terrible) Mario movie had production values like this. It’s not really a director’s cut – but I imagine the director of the original would have cut the whole lot with the benefit of hindsight.