Category: Christianity

The death of death

An ABC blogger reckons religion is in decline because nobody is as scared of death any more… his post attracted a bunch of rabid atheists – like any such post on the interwebs does. There aren’t enough rational Christians commenting on these kinds of posts with gospel intent…

“The appeal of the big three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – has always been that they offer us a mechanism to deal with death, an accommodation with our inevitable personal extinction.”

The study of religious structures is pretty fascinating. But the idea that religions came about to control people rather than in a search for truth and meaning is pretty insulting to any believer.

Christianity, is not, as the author of this piece suggests, about “moral living’ that’s an outcome of Christianity not the process of Christianity. And it’s not the end goal of Christian life.

“In exchange for living according to a moral code, life can be infinitely prolonged after the death of the body. But for Westerners, death is now further away than ever before. Western science has not yet conquered death, but it has now banished death to a comfortable distance.”

One of the angry atheists in the comments suggested that the God of the Bible is immoral – kind of defeats the purpose of being God if you’re not the arbiter of morality doesn’t it? That statement is not logical.

“This article made no mention of the wealth of evidence and arguments against religion. The immorality of the god of the bible, mohammed, and just the illogical nature of the whole thing.”

On "spiritual" people

Overtly spiritual people are really annoying. They’re the over sharers of the Christian world. Challies.com posted a link to this comic – I haven’t been able to locate the original source. But it’s funny.

You knead Jesus

Ok, that’s a terrible pun – but with a cookie cutter like this you can make your next Catholic Communion experience authentic – with “body of Christ” biscuits.

You know those people who flog off pieces of toast on eBay because they can see a grainy picture of Jesus in their breakfast – they’ll have no troubles spotting Jesus when given one of these biscuits.

They’d also be great for your next church baking stall fundraiser. Or something. Actually, I’m not sure what you’d want to use them for. They’re kind of odd. But they’re out there – and available for purchase. And you should know that.

Black comedy

Honestly, I thought long and hard about that title… because it’s semi racist – but it actually really epitomises the nature of the post in question.

The feedback to my decision to make references to making light about the death of Michael Jackson was not mixed. Most people don’t like the idea at laughing at death. I’m of the opinion that “where oh death is your victory, where oh death is your sting” (Corinthians 15:55) is essentially a mockery of death – and once death and sin (which crops up in verse 57) have been dealt with you are free to laugh at it.

Perhaps laughing at people who presumably haven’t dealt with sin isn’t the most sensitive thing to do.

But I digress – the reason for this post – is that I’m wondering about satire and death, and satire and death as “incisive social commentary” – particularly after viewing this Twitter account purportedly from a “Starving African Child” (obviously it’s not really from a starving African child).

It seems to tread close to where the Chaser’s infamous sketch dared to tread – though perhaps not quite so confrontationally, and yet it is as confronting as a World Vision ad – which uses pathos for persuasion rather than humour. Both are tools of persuasion – and yet we frown on one and not the other.

The sense of outrage surrounding the Chaser sketch seemed to be that it preyed on the vulnerable for laughs (while making some sort of point – perhaps their problem was with clarity in terms of the target – presumably cathartic middle class philanthropy… I’m really not sure what their point was), while World Vision et al are drawing attention to the plight of children. Is it wrong to use satire to do this? Is it only wrong when the target isn’t clear? Is it inherently wrong to satirise the vulnerable in order to draw the intended response from those in power?

Questions from answers

No, this isn’t a post about Jeopardy. Have you ever seen a billboard that just didn’t make sense? Have you ever seen one of those billboards that came from a Christian organisation? Well, here’s one. So now you can answer “yes” to both those questions… It makes no sense to me at all – perhaps you can explain it to me.

Answers in Genesis even made this into a video advert on YouTube. I think they’re suggesting that if you’re not a Christian you’re likely to shoot people because you don’t really care about them – or that people who don’t believe in God are more likely to shoot you because they don’t care about you.

It’s just odd and pretty screwy. Though I’d expect that from these guys. They’re Christianity’s Richard Dawkins.

Wisdom v Folly

I preached tonight. On 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5. It was neither my best or worst effort but wasn’t as coherent as I wanted it to be. It felt a bit rambly about 15 minutes in.

I really like the passage – but I kind of feel like I came at it with an agenda (critiquing atheism and encouraging evangelism (we’re doing a big evangelistic push at church this term)) and Paul is really addressing the immaturity of the Corinthian church. I especially like verse 18…

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

I think, upon reflection, that I will go back to writing an outline before I write the text, and I suspect writing the whole thing in one session would be beneficial. There were a few times when I repeated thoughts unintentionally – and I didn’t really do a thorough proofread. Taking a whirlwind trip to Brisbane over the last two days probably didn’t help.

Oh well, enough self indulgent reflection.

Transformers 2


We saw Transformers 2 last night. It lived up to all my expectations. People (critics) who complain about Transformers movies forget that the movies are based on action figures – and Revenge of the Fallen replicates just about ever Transformer battle my imagination ever produced when playing with the toys. There’s a slight spoiler in the third paragraph – don’t read it if you don’t want to.

The plot was a bit bumbling – it really was just a vehicle for bringing the vehicles together into gravity defying alien robot Wrestlemania. Some of the fights copied the WWE’s playbook – there were submission moves, power moves… it was awesome. If wrestling involved robots I’d get cable TV and watch every week. It felt a bit like watching a National Treasure movie just with awesome robots. Really awesome robots.

The basic plot (without spoilers) involves the reluctant “messiah” Sam having the typical “central character doesn’t want to undertake the task they’ve been pre-ordained to perform” identity crisis – popular since Gethsemane. If I wanted to Christianise this review I’d say isn’t it great that there’s such a powerful allegory – Sam even “dies” at one point only to meet the Robot gods in heaven and be flung back to earth. There’s a bit of messianic confusion because Optimus Prime also dies and is resurrected.

Go see it though – you won’t be disappointed the explosions are bigger and there are more robots and more robot fights than the first one (and a few laughs along the way). I gave it an 8/10 because I’m capable of ignoring the stuff that critics look for in awesome robot carnage fests.

Transformers Revenge of the Fallen (Final Theatrical Trailer) from Bay Films/Michael Bay Dot Com on Vimeo.

Piper on movies

John Piper has an interesting take on consumption of culture – particularly trivial culture – similar to Philip Jensen’s thoughts that I posted a while back, and quite different to Mark Driscoll’s. Mark Driscoll should get a comission from Tivo he talks about it so much… Piper says he doesn’t watch TV because it’s trivial – but if he does he takes the following position…

I have a high tolerance for violence, high tolerance for bad language, and zero tolerance for nudity. There is a reason for these differences. The violence is make-believe. They don’t really mean those bad words. But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching. And somewhere she has a brokenhearted father.

I’ll put it bluntly. The only nude female body a guy should ever lay his eyes on is his wife’s. The few exceptions include doctors, morticians, and fathers changing diapers. “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1). What the eyes see really matters. “Everyone who looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Better to gouge your eye than go to hell (verse 29).

This is one of those points where I come down on the Driscoll side of the equation – I think understanding culture involves understanding what people are filling their minds with. But I tend to feel the same way as Piper. Violence and swearing don’t really bother my Christian sensibilities.

Smells like mean spirit

An atheist blogger has suggested a new product line… Richard Dawkins cologne. Its odour is no doubt offensive to Christians everywhere.

Word word locator…

Ever wondered how often and where a particular word occurs in the Bible? Well, here’s a nice little webapp that lets you track down every reference to any word. Pretty awesome stuff. Here’s an example of the results searching for “faith”. There’s a nice guide for why you might use this here.

Church Planting Conference

Dad is speaking at this Moore College conference today. I was surprised to learn that. I thought he was just attending. I only realised that he was speaking because Nigel Fortesque is liveblogging it on Twitter and kept writing things @philcampbell – only, the Phil Campbell on Twitter is not my father. He’ll no doubt be very confused with the series of messages arriving in his Twitter inbox.

That amused me.

The conference looks interesting – and I’ll be following along.

Salad LOLs

I subscribed to PETA’s media releases recently just for the laughs. It hasn’t disappointed. They’re about to protest the Southern Baptists. They want to convert them to vegetarianism.

“PETA members — including one dressed as Jesus carrying a sign reading, “For Christ’s Sake, Go Vegetarian,” and another dressed as a chicken with a sign that says, “Jesus Loves Me Too”– will bring a pro-vegetarian message based on biblical teachings of compassion to people attending the Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville on Tuesday. Other members will hold signs reading, “Thou Shalt Not Kill. Go Vegetarian” and “Blessed Are the Merciful. Go Vegetarian.” They will also hand out leaflets that relate vegetarian living to Christian teachings.”

Seems they’re a little bit confused about the difference between chickens and people. That sentence could be made much clearer with a comma – either after the “compassion” or after the “people”… the easily misinterpreted (if you don’t put too much effort in) sentence pretty much somes up most of my problems with PETA – then there’s the fact that the Bible makes eating meat perfectly acceptable. The fact that meat tastes so good means that God meant us to be carnivores. Surely.

On Worship

The iMonk bemoans the evolution of worship.

“Worship has now become a musical term. Praise and worship means music. Let’s worship means the band will play. We need to give more time to worship doesn’t mean silent prayer or public scripture reading or any kind of participatory liturgy. It means music.”

Sadly, the Bible’s definition of worship (Romans 12) suggests that doesn’t even come close to capturing the essence of worship… (but the cartoon does).

Romans 12:1
“Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.”

This question came up in my candidacy interview last week. The Presbyterian (Westminster Confession of Faith) use of the word worship falls between these two ideas in a sort of semantic compromise.

This issue creates more tension than it should because I think you can hold both ideas at once (the Biblical and the Presbyterian) and still be correct. Am I missing something here?

Gifting gifts

The thread I essentially highjacked on Simone’s blog has come to a gripping conclusion – of sorts. I think we’ve agreed to disagree – Simone may still disagree but we’ll see.

But it was a worthy exercise.

It raised, for me, a question about how Christians should use their gifts. And how we should balance use of gifts in a part time capacity verses using them in a full time capacity in vocational ministry.

My thinking is that particular gifts lend themselves to “vocational” use at different times. In the past paid organists were as much a part of church furniture as the organ. They were also essentially resident composers.

Now – web masters and graphic designers are playing an increasingly important role in the spread of the Gospel.

My gut feeling is that the Biblical principle of a worker deserving their keep holds for all excercise. If a job needs doing – and there’s nobody to do it – then pay for it.

The worker then has a decision to make – like Paul did – as to whether to accept this payment (he chose to work instead).

I also think there comes a time where a worker playing an essential role should be paid full time in order to free them from that work for the cause of the Gospel.

So the responsibility of the church is to pay – while the worker should consider their gifting as God’s providence and receive the payment (or not) accordingly.

There are different ways that this can work – an article I read about Mars Hill suggested that graphic designers who attend that church “tithe” their time and talents. There’s also an interesting discussion happening at “Communicate Jesus” about how the church should approach the issue. And another discussion in a similar vein at Sydney Anglicans.

The Communicate Jesus article features a quote from the Mars Hill creative director which would seem to indicate some sort of contradiction with the other post –

“I once had a chat with AJ Hamilton who runs all the media stuff for Mars Hill Seattle. I asked him about how he managed to achieve the quality of design across so much of their output – the online work for Death By Love being a prime example. He said they make a habit of recruiting the best designers. Okay I said, but how do you keep them? Answer: they’re the best paid staff in Mars Hill.”

It’s interesting that this is all coming up at around the same time – it creates an opportunity for some synchronous thinking.

Your thoughts?

How open source songs might work

Debate rages at Simone’s blog. Well not really. I just keep writing long comments one after the other as new ideas strike me. This has kept my hippocampuses firing all day.

Simone doesn’t seem to think an Open Source model would produce quality songs.

Every open source product in existence would seem to disagree – but she’s also not sure how it would all work.

I had the following thought.

Open Source companies make money by offering support, some by performing specific development tasks and extensions for companies that request them. Here’s an article about how open source companies make money.

Basically it moves from a model where a product is provided to a model based on service.

I believe Open Source, when applied to computer software, produces better products than proprietary software.

So, an example of how a gifted song writer could make money/produce quality songs under the Open Source business model would be to produce songs upon request (and upon payment) by a particular church for a particular sermon series that they’re working on. Once it is used for that purpose it would then be added to the pool of songs for other churches to use.

Any other ideas?