If you ever find yourself running out of ways to show love to your neighbour (literal and figurative) you might find this Simple Love website useful.
Via Christian Reflections ages ago.
Category: Christianity
More on Copyright
Mikey linked to this article by his fellow Tasweigian – Will – who wrote a thoughtful piece on a Christian approach to Copyright that I agree with most of.
Except for the bit where he makes a distinction between tangible and intangible assets. Which I have a problem with. We have turned the intangible into a commodity. Ideas are worth money. Entertainment is big business. Companies rise and fall on the back of protecting ideas. Creativity is worth money. And while Will asserts that borrowing someone’s story does not constitute a violation of commandment number eight – I would suggest that there are ways that it can.
Sermon illustrations are a grey area. I’ve never had one pinched. But I know people who have. I think there’s enough out there without stealing people’s real life anecdotes and presenting them as your own. There’s a place for appropriate attribution.
But, as I’ve indicated in discussions both here, and elsewhere, I sympathise with Will’s position.
“IP restrictions in general are bad for Christian proclamation. I listen, watch and read widely as I prepare my sermons. I have been known to, ahem, “borrow” an illustration or two. I have been known to read quotes from books in order to make a point. God help us if these sources were to stand on their IP rights. “
And I find this statement interesting…
“The Biblical practice of remuneration for gospel work is primarily one of patronage – a stipend, gift, donation so that you may be free to give of yourself, not a wage so that you can earn your keep. “
It has implications for the way we approach our own rights in the context of our ministry.
Andrew Katay has been posting about the nature of remuneration for ministry.
I came to the conclusion elsewhere (in one of my old posts linked below) that the church has a responsibility to pay its financial dues to those whose work it uses, and workers have the responsibility to live out the gospel and serve the body with their gifts.
I think when we want to use someone else’s IP, even when they have sacrified their right to that IP, we should be attributing it to them. While I believe all exercises of spiritual gifts to be spiritually inspired I think acknowledging the work and contribution of the person is the right thing to do. So I’d draw the line at stealing personal sermon illustrations without attribution to the person. If it’s a good illustration it should cope with the attribution without falling over in a pile of steaming awfulness.
Copyright is a complex mix of ethics, law, and theology. Here are some great resources for thinking through the issue…
Simone is a Christian songwriter of repute – she posted about copyright, song writing, and changing song lyrics. She got lots of comments. And she posted a follow up.
Communicate Jesus has a bunch of great posts about copyright for churches, and a post for Christian creatives to consider how they can generously give of their abilities. Steve from Communicate Jesus also points out that it’s illegal to screen YouTube videos in church without a CCLI video license (CVLI) or consent from the video’s producer.
This PDF is a handy guide to copyright for churches.
And here are my previous thoughts on the matter…
Hopefully some of these links will prove helpful for anyone traversing the murky waters of copyright and IP in the church.
On stupid guilt inducing status updates
Dear Christian Facebookers,
If you feel the need to inspire your Christian brothers and sisters to guilt please do so in a fitting and clever manner.
Do not post gut wrenching hallmark inspired guilt trips in your status and encourage other people to do the same.
If you post this:
“is a follower of Christ and proud to say it!! Let’s see how many people on FB aren’t afraid to show their love for God! Repost this as your status. Each time you see this on someone’s status, say a quick prayer for that person!! Lets get God back in this country like He should be!!! If you agree post this in your status update. Just copy and paste.”
I won’t unfriend you. But I will block your statuses from appearing in my news feed, and I will think a little less of you.
Even if it’s just because you used so many exclamation marks.
Mikey has good rules for Facebook Status Updates. Obey them.
UPDATE: There were several instances of this in my feed – this was not directed at anyone in particular – unless you were the culprit who instigated this practice to begin with…
Theological Smackdown: The end is the beginning is the end
The last few weeks of Westminster Confession of Faith classes (WCFC) left me feeling a little bit like Hulk Hogan at a press conference…
We’ve changed the order somewhat due to the absence of our venerated leader, who for some reason decided that stuff about end times would be less controversial than stuff about the sacraments.
He was wrong. The chapters on the state of men after death and the resurrection and the one on the Last Judgment ended up being pretty heated.
The judgment study got bogged down in the question of whether Christians go through the process of judgment to be found innocent – or if we skip the process altogether.
It was a case of the one proof text verse the many proof texts – and both sides of the debate walked away thinking they’d won and the other side were idiots.
Our group features some John Macarthur fanboys (surely a breed as rabid as my posse of Mark Driscoll fanboys), who are very rigidly stuck on the idea that dispensational premillennialism is the only way to understand end times.
I’m not one of them. They told me I don’t understand Revelation. Or the Bible. I told them that Calvin was an amillenialist. It got a little ugly.
For some reason they also hold Revelation to be the most important book of the Bible. It’s like a trump card that can be played to render all perspicuous passages of Scripture relating to the same topic unclear at the sake of a fringe interpretation of a complex book.
The millennium sure is a curious little issue to think about – but at the end of the day it’s not a salvation issue. And we have freedom to disagree.
I think it matters though – because it’s the vocal fringe that brand Christianity as a bunch of crazies – and if you have a look at Christian cults – you’ll find that most of them subscribe to a premillennial eschatology. This may or may not be a strawman.
I just think they’re wrong. My thinking, like Dave’s about Christianity, comes from my parents. Check out dad’s most excellent sermon series on Revelation to see what I think about the millennium and the book of Revelation spelled out…
I think we get into trouble when we disregard the style a book is written in when we’re looking to it for meaning. That’s part of looking at context.
I got angry when I read this list of reasons Superman is better than Jesus because the guy took a verse (Luke 19:27) from a parable about a king out of context and applied it to Jesus.
Revelation 1 – “Witness Protection” – MP3
Revelation 2-3 – “To Him Who Overcomes” – MP3
Revelation 4-5 – “Who is Worthy?” – MP3
Revelation 6-7 – “When are we going to get there?” – MP3
Revelation 12 – “Defeating the Accuser” – MP3
Revelation 13-14 – “The Power – or the Passion?” – MP3
Revelation 15-16 – “Exodus Again” – MP3
Revelation 17-18 – “The End of the Scarlet Harlot” – MP3
Revelation 19 – “Onward Christian Soldiers?” – MP3
Revelation 20 – “Pit Stop” – MP3
Revelation 21-22 “Coming Home” – MP3
One of the things that Willows Pressy doesn’t do that MPC does really nicely is the sermon outline and pithy title. I like the structure a sermon outline provides for my listening – even if it’s just so I know how long the guy up the front will keep talking for – I assume listeners to my sermons feel the same way…
“Spiritual” Style
Someone has decided that someone at the Associated Press has decided that when Christians talk about the Holy Spirit’s guidance they actually mean something else.
That’s the only conclusion I can draw from this AP story about Catholics and celibacy.
Here’s the offending (or offensive) paragraph…
“Apparently seeking to squash any speculation that Rome had been courting the disaffected Anglicans, the Vatican said the “Holy Spirit” inspired Anglicans to “petition repeatedly and insistently to be received into full Catholic communion” individually and as a group.”
Actually, the “journalist” has gone a “little nuts” with the “quotation marks” as though every “noun”, “adjective” or “clause” that is a little “complex” needs “punctuating”…
Here’s the post that raised the conspiracy theory. I think it more likely that the journo was providing quotes from the document he cited in the first paragraph.
Fine tuning
I’ve been thinking a little bit about why I am convinced of the truth of Christianity a little since Mark Driscoll’s Jesus based apologetic made me question the way I approach “theism”, and Dave’s thoughful series on atheism concluded with Jesus as a foundational reason for rejecting atheism and adopting Christianity (not theism). I tried my hand at defending Christian belief on the basis of the historicity of Jesus and the veracity of claims made about him in the Bible here.
I’ve been thinking that while my adherence to Christianity as an accurate representation of a monotheistic God hinge on Jesus and his claims – there are other reasonable reasons to believe in a God who creates and sustains the universe.
The Fine Tuned Universe argument, the idea that conditions in the universe are extraordinarily balanced and complex, has its detractors. It has its scientific explanations – like the anthropic principle (that things could only be this way for life to exist – ie that life couldn’t possibly have happened in any other way). And it has its Christian proponents – like William Lane Craig.
I find it pretty compelling. Atheists using a frame work of naturalism find it mind blowing but explainable. And once they have an explanation they don’t need a cause. Because to add a creator to the mix would create something else that needs a creator. I think it’s an odd paradox that none of their equations of chance – including the whole multiverse concept – ever factor in a universe with an omnipotent God. Surely if multiple universes exist then each one has a probability of developing a God powerful enough to destroy all the other universes? Monotheism is the natural outcome of this school of thought.
On a side note – I want to ask Dawkins or any evolutionary biologist a question. Given infinite time will humans eventually evolve into shapeshifting aliens? That would seem, based on Transformers, to be the evolutionary pinnacle.
I’m happy to accept much of the science of evolution. But I wonder what happens when you do that and remove God from the picture. What does the end point look like? How long before we can fly?
The quote below is the reason for this post. And it seems particularly dumb. To me the idea that there are a lot of things in the universe that can kill us, and want to, is a case for an intervening creator, not a case against…
I want to do a fast tirade on stupid design. Look at all the things that just want to kill us…
Most places in the universe will kill life instantly – instantly! People say that the forces of nature are just right for life. Excuse me? Look at the volume of the universe where you can’t live. You will die instantly. That’s not what I call the garden of Eden.
…
This is all stupid design. If you look for what it intelligent, yeah you can find things that are really beautiful and clever – like the ball socket of the shoulder – there are a lot of things you can point to. But then you stop looking at all the things that confound that revelation. So if I came across a frozen waterfall and it just struck me for all its beauty, I would then turn over the rock and try to find a millipede or some kind of deadly newt, put that in context, and realize of course that the universe is not here for us – for any singular purpose.
So now nature is not right for life which makes life less probable, not more, and the atheists embrace it. I would have thought the greater the improbability of life the greater the case for God. Am I missing something? The fact that bad stuff happens naturally – and that there are things out there that can kill us fits with Christian doctrine rather than contradicting it…
I love the part of the quote that equates the concept of Eden – a safe haven – with the whole universe. It’s just dumb.
These arguments come from this video – and I found them here. Be warned – this video contains a frame depicting abnormal and aborted fetuses.
Even without the specifics of Jesus I find the argument for a creator much more compelling than a naturalistic understanding of things.
A decade ago…
This time ten years ago we were all worried about the millenium bug. Remember that?
In fact, I just did. I’m going to review it. For fun.
The Amazing Joe Hockey Movement
The Amazing Joel Hockey Movement is a Christian Comedy Folk band/singer. I thought he was funny when I was in high school – I confess I haven’t listened to him much since…
The Amazing Joe Hockey Movement is the series of responses around the blogosphere to Joe Hockey’s vaguely stupid defence of the notion of Christianity in a speech to the Sydney Institute that was published in extract form in the Sydney Morning Herald the other day. It’s received a fair bit of press coverage. With speculation that he was using this speech to round out his character in order to one day make a leadership push.
The backbone of this speech is the idea that somehow the best place to learn about God is not the church – who take things all too literally – but the vibe. It’s mabo. It’s the serenity. It’s stupid.
The notion that somehow Jesus would be unhappy with the idea of people taking the Bible seriously – which he seemed to do throughout his life – is preposterous. It comes from some sort of social superiority complex that for some reason believes that we’re much more enlightened than those who came before us, and that we can stand in judgment on thousands of years of backwards thinking.
I read an annoyingly superior piece along this vein in Sam De Brito’s new “Building a Better Bloke” group blog. Apparently the idea that Jesus “wasn’t a Christian” should be profound. Newsflash. Jesus was the archetypal “people of God” – Christianity is just the way that concept has been branded since we follow him. That’s a dumb proposition, and it just gets dumber.
Apparently Jesus was not about restoring our relationship with God – you know, the “repent, the kingdom of God is near” stuff… no, he was about:
“These are the real issues Jesus was interested in: POWER, PRESTIGE and POSSESSIONS. He hits them again and again.”
I bring this up mainly because a commenter calling himself “the thinker” made this interesting point in the comments…
“In the same way it is the philosophies we as a culture evolve” – I have to pull you up on this one and refer you to scientific anthropology. This is a common mistake which we humans who accept evolution make all the time. We erroneously assume that culture within human society evolves in a forward manner, the same way as genetic evolution did.
Anthropologically, the scientific evidence is that human culture rises and falls more like a flat sine wave. When American culture crashes it can fall to the same depth as Roman culture when it crashed (or even further). There is NO cultural ’safety net’ for a modern culture which will prevent it falling past a specific level cultural level attained in the past. Also, remember that on a genetic scale we are no smarter as humans than the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Mongols, the Huns etc as evolution takes longer than 2,000 years to significantly improve human brain power.
I thought that was interesting.
Anyway, back to Hockey. While suggesting that Christianity should be all about style – without worrying about substance – he made this odd statement about politics.
“The trend I see in politics is one where personality is winning over the substance that should be at the heart of political life.”
Somewhat contradictory methinks.
For a more astute takedown of Hockey’s statement read this response from Phillip Jensen. Or the letters to the editor that came in in response, or Gordo’s response to those letters. Here’s a snapshot from Phillip Jensen…
But Mr Hockey’s expression of values, with or without belief in any particular god, scarcely defends faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus – the man who is God. Christianity, void of Jesus’ divinity or sin bearing crucifixion – is hardly Christianity. Such a statement is not extremist literalism. The cross, not the golden rule, is at the very centre of Christianity. All religions do not teach the same truth when the death of Jesus is central to Christianity and denied by the Koran.
He noticed that the Opera House is usually playing music inspired by faith. But his kind of faith did not and will not inspire such music. He noticed that members of religious organisations are nearly twice as likely to be community volunteers. But his faith has not and will not lead to more community volunteers. He noticed the decline in religious observance in Australia. But he fails to notice that it is those who take their scriptures seriously that are retaining adherents and growing.
The sweet taste of the reformation
I would like some of this John Calvin beer. What a way to cap off a year celebrating the reformation… it’s predestined to be good.
Via David Ould.
Vatican readying evangelistic mission to outer space
Sometimes the Vatican do dumb things in the name of science. Like condemning scientists for their views on the position of the earth in relation to the cosmos…
It seems they’re trying to distance themselves from their historical shackles. How far can one distance themselves from this sort of stupidity? About as far as the galaxy reaches.
The Catholic Church really is the Empire.
“Four hundred years after it locked up Galileo for challenging the view that the Earth was the center of the universe, the Vatican has called in experts to study the possibility of extraterrestrial alien life and its implication for the Catholic Church.”
The Vatican scientist coordinating the summit had this to say…
“If biology is not unique to the Earth, or life elsewhere differs bio-chemically from our version, or we ever make contact with an intelligent species in the vastness of space, the implications for our self-image will be profound,” he said.
I would suggest, that biblically speaking, Christ died for mankind. You know. Humans. The ones made in God’s image. I think that’s where self image comes from. Isn’t it?
Harnessing your blogdom for the power of awesomeness
Jon Acuff at Stuff Christians Like has turned a good idea into a book deal, notoriety, and one of the Christian blogosphere’s most popular blogs.
This week he’s turned his blog into a money raising powerhouse – securing $30,000 in donations for a new Vietnamese orphanage in about 18 hours.
That’s pretty awesome.
Abraham Piper helped out with an interview – and has announced that this week he’ll be focused on raising money for worthy causes – starting with child sponsorship.
I like these ideas. So much that I’m setting up a Tear Really Useful Gift Shop as an experiment. I’d like to buy goats and cows for villages in the hope that they’ll be called Eutychus.
Click here to buy a really useful gift. Prices start at $5 for fish farms. I don’t expect anyone to buy a cow for $300. But it’s an animal, so I included it in the store – along with some vegetarian options.
If you want to donate part of a cow let me know in the comments.
Bear fail
I love a good bear mauling story. Like Elisha and the rude youths.
This one is pretty awesome (except for the part where people die – but they were terrorists). A bunch of militants in India were hiding out in a cave.
The militants had made their hideout in a cave which was actually the bear’s den, said police officer Farooq Ahmed.
The dead have been identified as Mohammad Amin alias Qaiser, and Bashir Ahmed alias Saifullah.
News of the attack emerged when their injured comrade went to a nearby village for treatment.
Statistically kissing dating goodbye
Here’s an interesting statistical breakdown of “match percentages” through OKCupid, an online dating service, based on indicated religious affiliation and level of seriousness.
It’s worth a read for no reason other than that it’s kind of interesting. There are a few other factors considered throughout the piece too.
“All OkCupid users create their own matching algorithms, so when we determine who matches who, we’re just crunching the numbers people give us. A match percentage between two people is a condensed, yet statistically valid, expression of how well they might get along.”
“In short, our method is this: we host an ever-changing database of user-submitted questions, covering every imaginable topic, from spirituality to dental hygiene. To build their own match algorithms, our users answer as many questions as they please (the average is about 230). When answering a question, a user also picks her how her ideal match would answer and how important the question is to her. It’s very simple, and it removes all subjectivity on our part. We simply crunch the numbers.”
Here’s a table. The average “match percentage” is 60.2%.
Driscoll on the “good” question
Mark Driscoll’s column in the Washington Post is a delight to follow. This time around he tackles the question of goodness without God.
His answer is worth reading in full.
It clarifies the Christian position in a way that tackles the offence atheists take when we make the claim that God is the root cause of goodness.
“Therefore, right and wrong are ultimate standards rooted in the character of God and revealed in the teaching and life of Jesus Christ. Even those who do not believe in a god, or worship Jesus as the only God, cannot altogether erase the deep imprint of right and wrong because God stamped it on their very nature so that, despite being marred by sinful rebellion, it cannot be denied or ignored. In fact, we each appeal to this moral law every time evil is done against us; we appeal for something more than merely the survival of the fittest, where might makes right and morality is determined by those holding power. Therefore, we image God by respecting all of human life, particularly the weak, oppressed, sick, elderly, poor, unborn, and racial and cultural minorities because God values them as his image bearers.”
Who is Bert Erhman you say?
Bert Erhman has been mentioned pretty frequently in the continuing conversation on Dave’s post about why he’s not an atheist.
Other than the fact that his surname is an anagram of Herman I didn’t really know who Ehrman was, or much about him. But luckily, Stephen Colbert, America’s most trusted news hound, has interviewed him…
So now I know all about him. And that he’s wrong.
The answer is that he’s an atheist writer who questions the validity of the claims that the gospels represent an accurate history of who Jesus is.