Author: Nathan Campbell

Nathan runs St Eutychus. He loves Jesus. His wife. His daughter. His son. His other daughter. His dog. Coffee. And the Internet. He is the pastor of City South Presbyterian Church, a church in Brisbane, a graduate of Queensland Theological College (M. Div) and the Queensland University of Technology (B. Journ). He spent a significant portion of his pre-ministry-as-a-full-time-job life working in Public Relations, and now loves promoting Jesus in Brisbane and online. He can't believe how great it is that people pay him to talk and think about Jesus. If you'd like to support his writing financially you can do that by giving to his church.

Caged Tiger

This picture of Nicolas Cage as Tiger Woods is from the oddly awesome “Nic Cage As Everyone” blog.

How to make a really awesome moving cake

The gun turret of this tank cake rotates. It’s pretty cool.

Ready, Aim, Phh-ire

If you live in the US one of the hardest things about being a quadriplegic is that you can no longer exercise your right to bear arms. Unless you arrange to go hunting with a mouth controlled shotgun.

For a quadriplegic, firing a shotgun requires help from a companion. In Mr Cap’s case, a friend sets up the contraption, safety on, on Mr Cap’s wheelchair and Mr Cap aims the shotgun by moving the toggle switch with his mouth. Once his partner releases the safety, Mr Cap fires by sipping on the breathing tube.

I don’t want to make light of Mr Cap’s situation – but how cool would it be to have a shotgun that you could control with your breathing.

Truly inspired

Here’s a joke I’m going to pull out next time a conversation about divine inspiration of Scripture comes up at college.

Google in 2 minutes

This is a great little video that plots the story of Google (until just prior to the launch of Wave) in two minutes. I think I saw it first at CafeDave – so he can have a link.

It’s the jeans Chuck Norris rejects that make Chuck Norris the best

I’m pretty sure I’ve posted this before – but I mentioned them to Amy last night because Tim lent me a really incredibly awesome looking Chuck Norris movie. Anyway. I give you. Chuck Norris Action Jeans.

Although perhaps you’d prefer something more purpose built when roundhouse kicking someone in the head.

How to categorise people based on their favourite author

There’s a big list here of great stereotypes based on authors. Here are some of my favourite (stereotypes – not necessarily authors).

Richard Dawkins

People who have their significant other grab them under the table in order to shut them up whenever someone else at a dinner says something absolutely ridiculous and wrong.
Edgar Allan Poe

Men who live in their mother’s basements. Or goth seventh graders.

Michael Crichton

Doctors who went to third-tier medical schools.

John Grisham

Doctors who went to medical schools in the Dominican Republic.

Dan Brown

People who used to get lost in supermarkets when they were kids.

Virginia Woolf

Female high-school French teachers who have their master’s degree.

David Baldacci

No one. Even the police say Clancy before they’ll say Baldacci.

Stieg Larsson

Girls who are too frightened to go skydiving.

Sue Grafton

Women who have an @aol.com email address.

Douglas Adams

People who bought the first generation Amazon Kindle.

Lewis Carroll

People who move to Thailand after high school for the drug scene.

C.S. Lewis

Youth group leaders who picked their nose in the 4th grade.

Harper Lee

People who have read only one book in their life and it was To Kill A Mockingbird (and it was their assigned reading in the ninth grade).

Nick Hornby

Guys who wear skinny jeans and the girls that love them.

Ernest Hemingway

Men who own cottages.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Sommeliers.

Bret Easton Ellis

Foo Fighters’ fans.

Hunter S Thompson

That kid in your philosophy class with the stupid tattoo.

George Orwell

Conspiracy theorists (too easy).

Aldous Huxley

People who are bigger conspiracy theorists than Orwell fans.

How to find the perfect wife

This is a question that needed some science applied to it. It turns out the optimal wife is 27 percent smarter than her husband. IQ tests on the first date probably come on a bit strong – but by the time you reach the altar you need to have established a pecking order. Here’s the science. Here’s the CNET report.

The highlights are, indeed, a joy to behold, squeeze tightly, and never, ever let go. The perfect wife is five years younger than her husband. She is from the same cultural background. And, please stare at this very carefully: she is at least 27 percent smarter than her husband. Yes, 35 percent smarter seems to be tolerable. But 12 percent smarter seems unacceptable. In an ideal world–which is the goal of every scientist–your wife should have a college degree, and you should not. At least that’s what these scientists believe.

I know your bit will already be chomped with your enthusiasm for learning these learned scientists’ methodology. Well, they interviewed 1,074 married and cohabiting couples. And they declared, “To produce our optimization model, we use the assumption of a central ‘agency’ that would coordinate the matching of couples.” Indeed.

Finding that woman might prove difficult. But if you synchronise the science with a separate mathematical model (at the end of this article) you’ll learn that the 38th woman you consider is the one.

If you interview half the potential partners then stop at the next best one – that is, the first one better than the best person you’ve already interviewed – you will marry the very best candidate about 25 per cent of the time. Once again, probability explains why. A quarter of the time, the second best partner will be in the first 50 people and the very best in the second. So 25 per cent of the time, the rule “stop at the next best one” will see you marrying the best candidate. Much of the rest of the time, you will end up marrying the 100th person, who has a 1 in 100 chance of being the worst, but hey, this is probability, not certainty.

You can do even better than 25 per cent, however. John Gilbert and Frederick Mosteller of Harvard University proved that you could raise your odds to 37 per cent by interviewing 37 people then stopping at the next best. The number 37 comes from dividing 100 by e, the base of the natural logarithms, which is roughly equal to 2.72. Gilbert and Mosteller’s law works no matter how many candidates there are – you simply divide the number of options by e. So, for example, suppose you find 50 companies that offer car insurance but you have no idea whether the next quote will be better or worse than the previous one. Should you get a quote from all 50? No, phone up 18 (50 ÷ 2.72) and go with the next quote that beats the first 18.

Ten ways to win an Oscar

The Oscars are this weekend (or Monday for Australians). Here’s a handy breakdown of the role you need to play to win – and a slideshow detailing roles from this set that have won in the past.

Two new contenders for world’s worst Christian music

Long time readers will remember the world’s worst “worship”… purely assessed from an aesthetic standpoint – I don’t know if this is acceptable to God. That’s up to him.

Here are two contenders to knock it off its throne (I have included the original as the third video in this post). In the Hokey Pokey one it’s worth persevering until 3.48. Apparently short term memory is not biblical… nor is Alzheimer’s.

Sabre rattling Lego movie

I like Lego stop motion videos and I can not lie. I don’t even care if it uses Star Wars’ concepts as the basis for the narrative. This is cool.

Feeling shirty

Rhett and Link are the guys who travel the US making local commercials – they also make pretty cool videos. Like this stop motion production featuring 222 shirts.

It’s spectacular. I love the eggs.

What would Steve Jobs Do

This is probably a good question to ask yourself if you’re a product designer or an aspiring billionaire – it’s not going to get you anywhere in the long (eternal) term like the original FLAW (four letter acronym wristband). But it’ll only cost you $5.

Jesus was way cool*

You know. Jesus was pretty darn awesome and he hung out with all the movers and shakers in first century Jewish society – so we should totally do the same with our ministries… no wait. That’s not right. An Acts 29 church planting screener has pointed out that a number (all is a number) of the planting candidates he’s interviewed have the same missional passion – the desire to see cool people saved.

It’s amazing how many young pastors feel that they are distinctly called to reach the upwardly-mobile, young, culture-shaping professionals and artists. Can we just be honest? Young, upper-middle-class urban professionals have become the new “Saddleback Sam”.

Seriously, this is literally the only group I see proposals for. I have yet to assess a church planter who wants to move to a declining, smaller city and reach out to blue collar factory workers, mechanics, or construction crews. Not one with an evangelsitic strategy to go after the 50-something administrative assistant who’s been working at the same low-paying insurance firm for three decades now.

His conclusion is just as on the money.

It could be that we’re simply following in the footsteps of the church growth movement that we’ve loved to publically criticize while privately trying to emulate – we’ve just replaced Bill Hybels and Rick Warren with Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll.

In the Australian context it’s probably not so bad – but it’s just something to remember. Jesus loves city people, young professionals, farmers, retirees and the homeless. Our ministries should love those people too.

* Check out the King Missile song by this name if you haven’t already discovered it.

Choose your own adventure?

Can we ever choose our own destination or are we just pawns in a grand game of chess at the hands of an omnipotent deity. Are your choices your choice? Or are they the inevitable product of nurture and nature colliding. It’s a question that literally keeps young theologians and philosophers up at night.

I’m not actually sure where this originally came from – it just popped up in deli.ci.ous. But it made me laugh.