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.

The Secret life of Superheroes

Other than solving crimes and catching bad guys the life of the Superhero is surprisingly normal. Though superpowers do come in handy for domestic duties.

Batman, being a lame unsuperhero, has been foreclosed.

From Super Not So Super.

Slow motion explosions

While cool guys don’t look at explosions and exception can probably be made for looking at slow motion explosions – even slow motion explosions involving toy cars.

The slippery slope of liberalism

In the grand scheme of “who annoys Nathan most” there’s a battle between the rabid anti-theists and the waffling liberals.

They seem unlikely bedfellows. But liberals like Spong and his ilk, and atheists like Dawkins, work off each other in a symbiotic way – both pulling people away from Christianity like a fat frog pulls moths away from a lamp.

Today I read a post where an atheist asked what religious believer fellow atheists would mourn in death – and many admitted an admiration for Spong – some even claimed that it was reading Spong that lead to their atheism.

I’ll be sad when John Shelby Spong passes away. It was by reading his writings that I started to shed my fundamentalist views, and if it were not for him, I would not be the happy atheist I am today.

Then I read this article on the Sydney Morning Herald about how significant Jesus is to history. The author, a politician, couldn’t quite decide what his response to this historical Jesus should be…

From whatever perspective we come, thinking people ought to be able to agree, the birth of Jesus was a good day for mankind. I suspect I may never quite shake the childlike hunch that there is some uniquely divine imprint on the central individual of the human story. Happy Birthday, Jesus.

But the rabid commenters on the article were quick to point out what his response should be.

I don’t believe the arguement that without religion we would not have morals, if we followed the morals of the Church we would be burning alternative medecine practitioners (aka witches) and would say goodbye multicultural Australia. Sorry Christmas day is a sad day for humanity it made hatred justifiable.

The anti-slavery movement was founded in Enlightenment principles — all men are equal, and all that — principles that the Christian churches fought every step of the way, until at the very last the unquestionably correct fight was joined by some fringe (at the time) Protestants.

It’s funny how we all read history differently and often with the prejudice that comes with our philosophical views.

Once you get to the point of liberalism – of distrusting and second guessing the only account we have of God communicating to the world, or of reinterpreting history through a postmodern lens, you may as well pack the whole thing in. Which is why this “shocking” billboard campaign from a Liberal Anglican church in New Zealand doesn’t actually shock me at all… it saddens me.

It creates a dichotomy between “progressive” Christianity and “fundamentalist” Christianity. What it actually means is people who reject the Bible and read it through the lens of culture and people who believe the Bible and interpret culture through it. When did they think the Bible was culturally relevant? Was the culture of Corinth – where a man was permissibly sleeping with his step mum – really that much different to our sex charged culture today? Did people really only discover sexual freedom in the 1960s?

Here are some quotes.

Fundamentalism believes that Christianity is essentially about individual salvation and admission to an after-life off the planet. What one believes rather than how one behaves is paramount. This planet is merely a testing ground.

Progressive Christianity however emphasizes behaviour above belief. How one treats ones neighbours, enemies, and planet is the essence of faith. The celebration of the birth of Jesus is a celebration of God in every birth and every person.

For fundamentalist Christians the incarnation is about the miraculous arrival of a baby soon to die and by his blood save us. For progressive Christians the incarnation is about the miracle of this planet earth and all life that exists here.

It came with a pretty bizarre string of comments where people clearly struggle to articulate a cohesive logical view on the incarnation from a “progressive” standpoint.

This one is from a commenter named Matthew who shared a series of statements he no doubt believes are quite profound.

“If Jesus is the product of divine insemination (in whatever format) and not the seed of Joseph, then he is not human, his crucifixion means nothing because he has no connections to humanity, it’s just God killing himself to prove he can.

If however (as must be true) Jesus is an enlightened being birthed from the union of a man and a woman, then his life and his death can be seen as a statement of the possibilities of humanity, not some freak show that simply excites Mel Gibson fans.”

I’d counter this claim with the notion that if Jesus isn’t part divine then all aspects of his divinity are lost and the whole thing falls down. If he’s just human then there’s nothing that “connects” him to God. And why does Jesus require a human father in order to be human? Why isn’t a human mother sufficient? There are so many problems with the logic of the supernatural when people try to translate it into a rational framework.

If it “must be true” that God can’t intervene in the womb of a person then what’s the point of having a God to begin with? What’s the point in believing in a God who didn’t become flesh?

At that point it’s far more honest to be an atheist and join some sort of community group like Rotary where you actually do good things and don’t cause trouble for the true believers – though one suspects Spong isn’t actually too disappointed by the fact that his teachings lead to atheism.

YouTube Tuesday: Seeing, but not perceiving

Eagle eyed observers will notice that it’s Thursday and not Tuesday – and they may be asking what happened to this week’s YouTube Tuesday. Eagle eyed observers would not be alone in asking that question. I only just realised I’d missed it… so here you go.

Turns out eagle eyed observers are a rarity. 75% of the participants in this experiment did not register the obvious change that takes place…

Gospel and Kingdom – according to adwords

Sometimes I click on online ads. They have to be really bad though. Sensationally bad. Like an ad on the Sydney Morning Herald website. In fact, it was on a Peter Fitzsimmons (an atheist) article about the canonisation of Mary McKillop (a Catholic) – so it was one of those juxtaposed ads for a fundamentalist Christian fringe. I’m happy to cost these people money by clicking their ad. This is what it looked like:

Ads by Google


God’s True Church

Did you know that God has one TrueChurch? Here is how to prove where!

www.TheRCG.org/TrueChurch

I clicked it. And I was disappointed to find that the one true church is a bunch of nutbag conspiracy theorists who think that any reference to the “kingdom of God” describes a literal, earthly kingdom.

Check out this awesome eisegesis (meaning: the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s own ideas, reading into the text.)…

Standing before Pontius Pilate on the night He was betrayed, Christ gave an important clue to understanding the kingdom: “My kingdom is not of this world [this present society]” (John 18:36). We will discover the details later of how God’s government will be established on earth.

If you want to unlock this mystery for yourself you can read the rest of their tripe here.

Something about this image just screams “credibility” to me…

Bye the book

It’s probably time for the death of the humble phone book. Check out this visualisation (from Flickr) to see why…

Here are the quite reasonable assumptions on which this graphic was based:

[1] assuming 75,000,000 books delivered (source:www.saynotophonebooks.org)
[2] each is 30cm x 21cm x 4 cm (396.83 per cubic meter). Source: A ruler :)
[3] this gives around 189,000 cubic meters
[4] this is a cube with side 57.38m.

On Hiatus(es)

I don’t know what the plural form of “hiatus” is. But can I just say, for the record, that I don’t plan on going on a blog hiatus over the Christmas holidays like so many of you. In fact, I’ll probably blog more. Because I like blogging.

If you are one of those people taking a break from blogging – enjoy it – and send your readers my way for good clean holiday fun.

That is all.

The disloyalty card

One of the issues plaguing the local tourism industry in the time I’ve been working in Townsville has been convincing people that the best way to grow their individual operation is to grow the pie for their “competitor” at the same time.

It’s as true in coffee as it is in tourism… and it’s probably true in ministry too.

In tourism your goal is to develop first an appreciation of a destination and then compete for the attention of the people who holiday in the region.

In coffee your goal is to develop first an appreciation of great coffee (compared to the average coffee served in the average cafe/diner/McDonalds).

This “disloyalty card” that has been produced by the current World Barista champion is a sensational idea.


The coffee guys are onto something with their focus on cooperation rather than competition. Strong competition and an educated market is a great thing for everybody competing – it’s not great for those left behind with a shoddy product.

The ministry application is probably tangential – but important… obviously there’s a Biblical compulsion to stay with a particular body of Christ (local church) – it’s not a matter of continuous shopping around while you look for the church that best suits you.

Izaac wrote about Godcasting the other day – the act of downloading and listening to sermons from quality preachers.

He envisaged a day where we will be warned off listening to sermons from gifted men by preachers jealous for the admiration of their flocks (or perhaps, more charitably, sensitive to the possibility that listening to exceptional preaching will cause discontent).

I think we should be encouraging Christians to listen to, read, and consume as much great teaching as possible. Chances are that those Christians keen enough to seek out great teaching will be the ones who are keenest to serve their church – rather than critique. And the idea of learning everything from one flawed vessel is scary. I’ll be encouraging everybody who comes to any church I preach at to seek a second opinion on whether my teaching is faithful to scripture. That’s the model we encourage when we’re training preachers and teachers at college isn’t it? Who wants to go to an institution with one lecturer.

Does skepticism neccessitate atheism?

I am a skeptic. Proudly. I treat all truth claims with an element of distrust – and many with disdain. But I am also a Christian. And by definition a theist, and a believer in the supernatural. My skepticism extends to all other religious claims – and many claims made by subsets of Christianity. What the relationship is between Christian belief and belief in the realm of ghosts, spiritual warfare and other supernatural issues is a matter for another post. Maybe.

I think I might have previously linked to this Clive James piece on the value of skepticism – if not, I apologise. It’s mostly about climate change skepticism, though a little bit about golf ball chips (a phenomena that occurs if you have a golf course next to a potato farm).

Skepticism is great – but if you hold onto it counter to the evidence you’re not a skeptic – you’re an idiot.

The golf-ball crisp might look like a crisp, and in a moment of delusion it might taste like a crisp, and you might even swallow the whole thing, rather proud of the strength it took to chew. But if there is a weird aftertaste, it might be time to ask yourself if you have not put too much value on your own opinion. The other way of saying “What do I know?” is “What do I know?” .

Which rather tangentially brings me to the purpose of this rant. I read this article on the Friendly Atheist about the relationship between skepticism and atheism – obviously they’re linked… it’s not rocket science to suggest that most atheists are skeptics. It comes with the territory. But do all skeptics have to be atheists?

A series of posts around the atheist blogosphere suggested that the two are inextricably linked – that atheism is a logical by product of skepticism.

It started with a speech at a camp for skeptics…the speaker then had to defend his claim from some criticism…

But because I have yet to see good evidence — philosophical, scientific, or otherwise — to support religious claims, I live under the assumption there is not a god or gods above,  making me an atheist. I am still open to evidence, just with rigorous philosophical and scientific standards. A perfect example to sum up the co-existence of these labels comes from what Jacob posted in the comments to his piece. “You ask if I am agnostic about Zeus. Yes. Fairies. Yes.” But, then, Jacob is also an aZeusist, and an afairist. That is, he lives without belief in Zeus or fairies.

The problem with all these assertions – and in fact every skeptical assertion – is that it is based on one’s personal standard of evidence. Which is a personal decision. And it should be. If you want to cover your eyes, block your ears and bury your head in the sand to avoid any “evidence” that may change your opinion on any matter – then that is your choice. And I will laugh at love you even if you are wrong.

So, in the post on the Friendly Atheist the writer made this rather bold claim…

I’ll use ’skepticism’ to mean the attitude that one should scale confidence in a belief to match the evidence, and ‘atheism’ to mean the lack of belief in a god. With these definitions, the two are clearly related.

Here’s another quote from that piece.

If a person is skeptical, we expect them to embrace atheism because that’s where the evidence leads.

Only when you set fairly narrow parameters for “evidence”… I think by “evidence” you mean that’s where an understanding of the world based on scientific naturalism leads.

For some of us scientific naturalism is a good starting point, but not an end point.

Since the principle of skepticism requires religion to be treated with scrutiny, how should the movement deal with the fact that scrutiny leads to atheism?

What this post is actually saying – and the root of the problem – is that these atheists, who are skeptics, have found the evidence wanting when it comes to the question of God – but not all skeptics have put the same faith in their particular evidential methodology.

Here’s how I think those quotes could have been more honestly framed – from a skeptical standpoint – I’ll bold my changes.

If a person is skeptical, I expect them to embrace atheism because that’s where I think the evidence leads them.

Since the principle of skepticism requires religion to be treated with scrutiny, how should I deal with my opinion that scrutiny leads to atheism?

Note the similarity to the quote from Clive James’ piece – what do I know? That’s the question that should be being asked in this case. Skepticism is a subjective philosophical position that requires convincing evidence – not some sort of objective standard.

For me, I am a skeptic when it comes to scientific naturalism’s ability to answer all of life’s questions, and I am convinced by the evidence of God’s word, my observations of human nature, and my experience as a believer.

The Antiplate

If you love eating antipesto but can’t find an appropriate plate to put your goodies on – may I make a humble suggestion…

Track down one of these… complete with painted ants.

How restaurant menus work

Ever wondered why you go to a restaurant and end up ordering the dish that’s not the most expensive on the menu but is certainly not the cheapest. Here’s the answer.

2. The Anchor The main role of that $115 platter—the only three-digit thing on the menu—is to make everything else near it look like a relative bargain, Poundstone says.

Via CafeDave.

Forceful bathrobe

Finding a present for the Star Wars fan in your life is no longer a trial of perseverance and good timing. I’ve solved the problem for you. I give you the Jedi bathrobe. I promise it’s not a mind trick.

Periodic table of Internet

There have been a bunch of awesome periodic tables created for the internet – this one is created about the internet. Here’s the big version on Flickr.

Let’s not fly Jetstar

If you want to know how to complain to Jetstar (because their website doesn’t make it obvious) you need to mail your letter of complaint to:

Jetstar Customer Care
GPO Box 635
SUNSHINE VIC 3020

Jetstar’s customer care manager is currently Michael Mirabito.

Here’s the letter I am posting tomorrow.

Dear Jetstar,

Allow me to introduce myself. I am passenger number #Z4RC9S from JQ906 on Monday the 14th of December. You might recognise that date. It was the day your booking software crashed nationwide, causing delays of up to 90 minutes throughout your network.

I mention the date, and acknowledge the troubles your network experienced, because you might be tempted to use this circumstance as a mitigating factor with regards to my complaint. It is not an excuse, and I am not complaining about the lateness of my flights.

I have flown the competitive Townsville to Brisbane route a number of times over the last four years. On a number of these occasions I have flown with Jetstar. Many of my friends refuse to fly Jetstar. After yesterday I can understand why.

Let me tell you my story. I’ll narrate it like an objective observer in third person.

Passenger #Z4RC9S and his wife were in the car driving to the airport when they heard a radio report that Jetstar’s flights around Australia had been delayed because of a software malfunction. The passengers thought that this was completely understandable. Computers are unreliable. Airlines get delayed. This was not a major problem. An inconvenience yes. But worth complaining about? No.

The passengers entered the airport and approached the line for the check-in desk. They had not checked in online. Passenger #Z4RC9S is quite tall (around 195cm or 6’3’’ in the old measure). Passenger #Z4RC9S wanted to see if an exit row might be available. The unhelpful, rude, and abrupt lady manning the check in line informed Passenger #Z4RC9S that he and his wife must check in at the machine first. They had arrived 45 minutes before the original departure time for the flight. This was no problem. If it is the policy (which seems to contain inherent double handling and seems to waste more precious time on behalf of the passenger).

Here is another gripe – why are the queuing lanes kept unnecessarily and artificially long during off peak times when there is a gatekeeper ensuring that only passengers on particular flights are lining up. This is a waste of time.

The Passenger and his wife made their way to the counter to request an exit row. Where they met a second unhelpful, rude and abrupt Jetstar employee. This employee did not look up from her desk, did not acknowledge the request past a curt dismissal, and made no attempt at rudimentary customer service. When Passenger #Z4RC9S requested an exit row on the flight she informed him that there were none available. Without looking at the computer. Without even taking a moment to provide an iota of effort to meet the needs of the customer.

When the passengers entered the plane carrying their hand luggage (four bulky items and one purse) they were rudely informed that hand luggage policies dictate four items only. When did a small handbag become hand luggage? It is not overhead luggage. It is a purse. The information, at this stage of the journey, was entirely irrelevant and delivered in a sneering, and rude, manner.

When the passengers finally embarked and were seated in their seats – in row 15 (one seat behind the exit rows) and the doors were closing – they noticed five available exit seats (out of 12). Five out of twelve?

The unhelpful flight attendant then picked other passengers from the row behind the Passenger #Z4RC9S as if to add insult to injury.

I can understand that stress levels may have been high due to the delay – but it is on these occasions that your staff should be rising to new heights of customer service – not sinking to new lows. Every interaction we had with staff on that fateful morning was negative. This was poor beyond description.

Bad customer service will cost you customers in the long run.

I’ve introduced myself by my number because it’s clear that Jetstar’s customer service policy is to view travellers as cattle rather than as people. Perhaps, in order for my message to be clearer, I should refer to myself as $119. That’s what my flight cost. On a conservative estimate based on my flying patterns over the last three years, and assuming I live to the age of 80, the loss of my six potential flights with you per year at an average cost of $119, will cost you $39,000 directly. Double that because I’m married and fly with my wife. That’s $78,000 in lost bookings over my lifetime. Sure, you’ll find some other schmuck to fill my seat with… but the indirect impact has the potential to be far greater.

Let me give you a little more background about myself – and why you should care about me, and indeed about all of your passengers. I work in PR in the tourism industry – hosting travel writers and dealing daily with members of the media. We talk about airlines and horror stories all the time. But I am not special. One thing I know from my role in PR is that bad news travels fast. This is why you should care about your passengers.

I have 658 friends on Facebook. Many of them are journalists. Many of them travel regularly. Today, after yesterday’s experience, my status reads “will never fly Jetstar again”. I will also post this complaint letter on my blog. It’s not a big blog. But it gets between 500 and 600 unique visitors a week. It will no doubt get lots of hits from people searching for similar tales of airline woes in coming years. It will be a small black mark against your name in cyberspace – where there are many similar small black marks against your name. At some stage, Jetstar, you will need to do something about this.

Here’s the thing Jetstar – word of mouth matters. And because of my experience yesterday, and the shared experience of many other passengers, you are suffering. If I convince just fifteen friends and family members who fly as regularly as I do not to fly with you on the Brisbane to Townsville route (let alone all the other routes they might fly) the cost, using the same figures as above, will be over $1,000,000. Just because your staff are rudely incompetent.

This is clearly not an isolated incident – as I was writing this letter I read a story featured on the SMH website about poor customer service on the Sydney to Gold Coast route. This habitual interpersonal incompetence will cost you money.

Sure, you have cheap flights. You’ll always have that corner of the market. Those who can’t afford to be discerning. But you’ll never be the airline that has people saying “if I won the lotto tomorrow I’d still fly Jetstar”. The bottom of the market probably won’t grow. Especially with the economy improving.

Regards,

Nathan Campbell

Super(annuated)man

Ever wondered where all the superheroes go when they’re too old to continue as caped crusaders? They never seem to get old in the comics, and yet technology changes around them. Weird.

But now, the secret is out. There’s some sort of Superhero nursing home out there…