Christianity – Page 105

Full disclosure

Apparently Senator Conroy is not the Internet killing free speech hating barbarian the Internet community claims.

I’ve been having a lengthy email conversation with the guy who called me a Greens Party Stooge (which still hurts) and he pointed me to this article and these quotes:

Conroy also reiterated that the Government has made clear which content is to be filtered and how.

It will attack RC [refused classification] content, he said, by the same rationale ACMA already classifies content under the existing Broadcasting Services Act for television, radio and print publications.

“There is no political content banned in the existing Broadcasting Services Act,” he said.

“We are not building the Great Wall of China. We are going after the filth – like child pornography. Its been done around the world and it can be done here.”

How it is done “will be guided by the outcome of the trials.”

Most of the assertions otherwise are “patently a scare campaign [against] a policy objective we think is fair and reasonable,” he said.

I have no doubt there is good intention behind this plan. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like child pornography or other illegal stuff being on the internet – including piracy.

But while I think this “policy objective” is fair and reasonable the policy being promoted to achieve it is not. If this is the case – why the secrecy? If this is the case why are there two trials – one of the ACMA blacklist, and one of a smaller list of illegal sites? And why is Whirlpool facing fines for providing a link to the leaked ACMA blacklist – which demonstrated the lack of vetting of content added to the list (eg a dentist’s site).

So, Conroy wants us to “show good faith” – how bout showing the people of Australia some good faith by making the blacklist process as open and transparent as the classification process? The argument that the blacklist based filter will be “opt in” doesn’t hold water if those who don’t opt in don’t know what’s on it.

Personally, given the choice, I’ll sign up to the filtered version. But that should be my decision – and we should know what we can’t access when signing up.

March 24, 2009

UrbanTrends: Wake up cross

Here’s a clock that’ll keep you alarmed but probably not alert. First of all it sings Amazing Grace to you. Then it will read you a random bible verse.

It’s also tastefully printed with “The Prayer of St Francis”.

March 24, 2009

Shirt of the Day: Interpretive Dance

Threadless is having a $5 sale – that’s $US5. Chief amongst the awesome cheapies is this one – but my size is gone, and there aren’t many left. And the sale finishes today.

It’s a shame I didn’t get onto this earlier – they would have made a great uniform for a dance ministry.

March 24, 2009

Irregular Expressions

Dan has started blogging much more frequently – perhaps turning his clever blog name into a misnomer. This can only be a good thing. He’s done a little series recently on this Hillsong bus ad.

Which is worth a read.

March 23, 2009

Miscellanea

The cartoonist behind this website is a raving atheist – but mostly a humourous one. Here’s a secular satire that could be extended to Christians who aren’t really prepared to back their beliefs by living recklessly and putting their lives on the line for the cause.

Here are some more good ones.

The obesity one is using data from 2007.

March 23, 2009

Next ten words

Over at the newly revitalised Sydney Anglicans website there’s an article on an upcoming Sydney media campaign promoting Christianity. The article points out that Dominic Steele – author of the popular “Introducing God” material is nonplussed about the campaign. He likes the catchy slogan – “Jesus: All about life” but wonders what the “next ten words” are that come after the slogan.

It’s a useful question to ask anybody who’s coming up with catchy, pithy slogans – and it comes from my favourite show of all time – the West Wing. Working out your one liner is actually the second step – having substance behind it is the first – a lesson we didn’t really see in action in the recent Queensland election.

Here’s a clip from a debate in a presidential campaign.

There’s a great repository of West Wing quotes – including this one – here.

Moderator: Governor Ritchie, many economists have stated that the tax cut, which is the centerpiece of your economic agenda, could actually harm the economy. Is now really the time to cut taxes?
Gov. Ritchie: You bet it is. We need to cut taxes for one reason – the American people know how to spend their money better than the federal government does.
Moderator: Mr. President, your rebuttal.
Bartlet: There it is. That’s the ten word answer my staff’s been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They’re the tip of the sword. Here’s my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I’ll drop out of the race right now. Every once in a while… every once in a while, there’s a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren’t very many unnuanced moments in leading a country that’s way too big for ten words. I’m the President of the United States, not the President of the people who agree with me. And by the way, if the left has a problem with that, they should vote for somebody else.

March 23, 2009

Jensenisms

While I’m holding out against the young evangelical male norm and not signing up as a Driscoll fanboy – I’m unabashedly a fan of Phillip Jensen. His well balanced article on the abortion debate got a run on the SMH website today (thanks to Findo for pointing it out) – and I assume in the printed version. It’s nice to have a fairly moderate Christian voice in the debate.

I linked to this when he put it up on his site a couple of weeks ago – but if you didn’t read it then, read it now.

Here are three paragraphs to whet your appetite…

“Arguments that it is a woman’s right to control her body do not deal, adequately, with the differences between the mother and the foetus. There are two lives for whom the mother is responsible. The question is whether her responsibility for the life of the foetus extends to making the decision of life and death, or whether her self-interest undermines the legitimacy of this decision. Should the state have some say in protecting this life from her?

There is little purpose in demonising those who oppose abortion by claiming they are imposing their morality on others, for the entire legal system is an imposition of morality on others. Rather than an anarchic jungle of society without law, our society imposes a moral system on individuals.

Our society uses a combination of Christian heritage, rational discussion, political democracy and judicial wisdom to guide its choices. On a range of issues, it has chosen to limit individual freedoms. On others, it has allowed the citizens to make their own choices. It is not unreasonable to make life and death issues involving a defenceless victim a matter of moral discussion, political decision and judicial wisdom.”

March 23, 2009

Election day

The countdown is over. We voted this morning. Robyn told me afterwards that she’d voted for Family First. It was a funny joke. We laughed.

Here’s why I don’t vote for Family First…

While I appreciate that Family First put the family first and often that means supporting things that are good for Christians and Christianity – I think their very presence dilutes the conservative vote and is counterproductive for Christians looking to vote on their issues.
I don’t like the idea of giving politicians a mandate to turn Australia into anything other than the democratic system we have now – theocracies are great provided you’re a believer. Which I am. But they don’t do a good job of protecting minorities or other interests. I’d rather a candidate sympathetic to all than a candidate only sympathetic to me.
It’s not the state’s job to convert people to Christianity – it’s ours. Separation of church and state is a protection for the church too…
Better the devil you know – I know that the LNP and the ALP will act in a predictable manner based on their convictions. The same can not be said for Family First members. There have been too many loose cannon loonies running for the party for them to have much credibility as a united voice. The idea of a united Christian voice is nice in theory – but you only have to look at the Uniting Church to see it in practice.
It’s a wasted vote. Unless we’re voting for a Federal senate spot the party will never the numbers to get candidates into seats. What’s the point of voting for Family First when you can be voting against a party you disagree with and keeping them out of power.

I have no numbers to back this up. But I’m sure I could find them. I know that some people who are single issue voters on abortion will get angry when I say this. But voting for family first when you’re a nominally conservative voter who doesn’t like abortion is pretty much a vote for Labor – who (despite their name being similar to the act of giving birth) are the most likely party to legalise abortion in Australian states.

Obviously the preference system allows you to make this statement while still essentially voting for the LNP – but a real statement would be made by the number of people not preferentially voting at all – and ousting a government without having to rely on preferences at all.

It may be a principled move. It may make a statement. But it’s a phyrric victory only. So I won’t be making that move any time soon.

This is too late to change anyone’s mind anyway. But it’s my two cents worth.

Also, I think it’s slightly ironic that the Greens print out how to vote cards. They’re such a waste of paper. Perhaps we should change the legislation to allow each nominated candidate to place a “how to vote” card in the voting booth. That’s under 10 printouts per candidate per booth – rather than thousands.

March 21, 2009

That which divides

There’s nothing like politics for dividing Christian unity. Jeremy Halcrow writes for the Sydney Anglican website. He’s a writer I’ve largely appreciated and benefited from. We happen to disagree on the Government’s Clean Feed. Here’s his post and long discussion thread on the Sydney Anglican website. Interesting read if you’re looking to sort through various Christian responses to the debate and trying to sort out an ethical approach to online content.

Here’s what Mr Halcrow had to say to me on another blog for daring to disagree with his position:

“Nathan, you don’t know what is the ACMA blacklist and neither does your extremist libertarian source you quote.

I’m not engaging with you any more for all I know your a Greens Party stooge or some other extremist libertarian group.

I don’t think you are discussing this in good faith.”

A Green Party stooge? Ouch. That’s hit a raw nerve. He follows with this little piece of irony (posted anonymously – but I’m pretty sure it’s him, it’s corroborated on the Sydney Anglican website at the bottom of the article)…

“You are wrong and I know you are wrong.

I am happy to say I have had an off-the record briefing with the Government.

I can’t say any more than that.

You are putting your faith in people who are out to spread mischief and misinformaton”

His information is as sensitive and secretive in nature as the Government blacklist he’s defending.

I did not respond in a loving manner.

March 20, 2009

Searching

One of the top ten search keywords that brings people to my blog is “Townsville Strip Clubs”. Not many of them stay. Perhaps I wasn’t what they were looking for.

If you’re here because you searched for that – skip the strip clubs and head to church for a more satisfying experience.

March 18, 2009

Plant rant

There’s a lot of chatter around the Australian evangelical blogosphere (that’s a pretty narrow field really) about a future church planting movement in Australia.

Some people are over in the US with Mark Driscoll and other renowned church planters right now. And they’re blogging up a storm. Most of the posts are buzzing with fanboyism. They’re chock full of quotable quotes, photo ops, video interviews and summaries from talks given at conferences. It’s no doubt very exciting for those caught up in the movement.

Some people are not so excited. ~~I won’t link to the post because I’m not sure how long it’s going to stay up~~. Simone has a post on the matter here.

Church planting is exciting. Sure. It’s great to be pursuing new avenues to preach the gospel to people. It’s something I’d like to do one day myself. Maybe. But it has to be said that it takes a special character to persevere with someone else’s work and not go off breaking new ground. I’d say it’s more challenging for a minister of a church to take on an established eldership or church governance structure.

These new fangled church planters have some compelling arguments but they’re often built with some sort of naive view of the nature of ministry in mind. Mars Hill, Mark Driscoll’s church is in my mind a case in point. Pull Mark Driscoll out and things change dramatically. There doesn’t seem to be a great succession plan in place if your preaching pastor preaches to multiple locations via a satellite link. The model they propose works so long as ministers don’t parish hop (which they do) and as long as the church can provide for their own staff members from within their numbers (which they can’t always). When there’s a vacancy in an Australian church an outsider has to come in and take over. That’s the way it works – particularly when there are more vacancies than candidates to fill them.

I’m also not sold on the idea that all the good church stuff happens in cities. Which is a key theory behind a lot of Mark Driscoll’s strategies in particular. So I’m reserved in my exuberance when it comes to responding to the news that Australia is going to have a network of church planting being supported by the Acts 29 movement.

The rest of this post is a comment I posted on Simone’s blog where she was less than enthused by the personality cult (my words not hers) surrounding super church planters like Driscoll… you may already have read it. A few of these statements address the particulars of that post.

While I appreciate Mark Driscoll and love him for his passionate teaching and church growth strategies – if you can call them that – I don’t think his is an easily reproducible style.

I would say the church planters who are running these conferences were not only not going to these church planting conferences – but were not even following a church planting recipe.

I don’t set out to be Gordon Ramsay in the kitchen, and I’m not going to set out to be Mark Driscoll in church planting. I think the beauty of being both a celebrity chef and a church planter is that you work with the ingredients you’re given – and in most cases the ministry you forge (or the food you make) works best when it reflects your unique personality and not a cheap imitation of a trailblazer.

These guys all seem to be wanting to be trailblazers by following someone. And that seems contradictory.

March 17, 2009

Pictures and words

Gordo has issued the challenge to demonstrate how a picture can paint 1000 words. There’s my entry.

Also, I’m preaching this weekend and here’s a thousand words painting a picture of what my sermon is all about thanks to Wordle:

March 17, 2009

Fruity protest

Here’s a novel protest against perennial protesters Westboro Baptist (the hateful “God Hates Fags” mob).

It’s pretty Biblically sound – but the Bible has a fair bit to say about homosexuality and sin.

March 16, 2009

Atheist Hunting

Occasionally nasty parody site Landover Baptist has a great list of tips for how to spot them atheists that needs some converting (sic)…

Here’s a summary of their five tips so that you can dob your local atheist in to police:

Five Tips on How to Spot an Atheist

1. Usually Atheists are pale of skin.
They spend a lot of times indoors, because they are afraid to come outside. They believe the preposterous lie that Christians are trying to kill them, when in fact, all that we really want to do is force a quick conversion or to kindly place them in a maximum security prison for their own protection from devout Christians who may try to kill them.

2. Atheists are overweight.
The stereotypes of typical Atheists are the trim, granola cruncher who jogs and plays racquetball or the vain hedonist, party-goer who worships only her full-length mirror, Recent studies have shown, however, that Atheists have become aware of these signifiers of their lack of faith.

3. Atheists have too many university diplomas!
These folks are chock full of secular knowledge. They toss the Bible aside in favor of so-called, “research” and “theories.”

4. Atheists Deceive!
Atheists go under many different names, but they don’t have the common sense to align themselves yet! Use this to your advantage in reporting them to the police! They call themselves, “humanists, agnostics, secular-humanists, moral relativists, Catholics, free-thinkers, undecided, Unitarians, and more recently, Brights.” It is important to note that anyone who has a post-graduate degree or is interested in getting a post-graduate degree, is suspect! Also be warned, Wiccans , Vegans, Yogists, and readers of science fiction are either Atheists or on the road to becoming an Atheist.
5. Atheists are afraid!
Even though there are as many as 300 active Atheists in the United States, we can safely assume that if recent polls are correct, most Atheists are afraid to come out and say what they don’t believe.

March 16, 2009

It’s Time

Time Magazine has just published a list of the 10 ideas changing the world right now. Number 3. New Calvinism.

There’ll be a bunch of links to some reactions in my link post today. But here’s the actual article.

And here’s a quote:

“Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation’s other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don’t have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by “glorifying” him.”

The article names John Piper, Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler as leaders of this pack.

March 13, 2009