oops

I've blogged a little while now. It's beyond lust an experiment, so I have established a new address. The new address one does not depend - like this one does - on staying with my internet service provider.

There's much to do, much to learn. And nothing over there yet. But here's the address: www.littlepeople.id.au

Cheers!

OK, I'm slow & you've probably figured this out already. But I want to write it down anyway.

There are (at least) two ways to listen: listen to or listen through.

Listen to:
The interest is in the speaker. How is she doing? What are his concerns? Etc.

Of course, the listener can throw in his or her own stories and ideas. It's still two-way communication!

Listen through:
The interest is in the speakers' topic. The speaker becomes, if you like, a channel for the information about a third party, or a different place, or some other situation.

Of course, good communication like this is still two-way.

Neither is bad. And both are necessary.

Trouble might arise, however, if speaker and listener don't agree on what kind of conversation they are having. Speaker might want to be heard - but hearer is trying to understand the wider situation. Or speaker might want to inform about some problem - but hearer tries to peer into the speaker's psyche.

So when I listen, I'm going to try and think, 'Right now, should I listen to or listen through?'

And what I talk, I'll try to understand what kind of listening I hope for. So then I can try and 'ask' for that listening more clearly.

It's 1 Corinthians 8-9 that makes this perfectly clear!

There are (at least) two similarities.

One, both are from God.

In Corinth, Christians had some difficulty with buying or eating meat. It was very likely that the supermarket sold fine cuts that had initially been offered to idols. Could Christians eat this type of BBQ?

Yes! Idols are nothing, these 'gods' don't exist. But the food is tasty and a good thing from God. So enjoy your steak sandwich. (Personally, I recommend sweet chili sauce or a decent relish, rather than the commercial red sugar syrup named 'tomato sauce.') See 1 Corinthians 8.

Likewise, apostles - Paul himself - were not bad, or a terrible burden. Paul did a good work, which was a work from God. Therefore he had every right to live by this. In other words, to be financially supported by those blessed by his apostleship. See 1 Corinthians 9:1-11.

Yet, secondly, both can be given up for love.

If a Christian of tender conscience found out that your steak sandwich included meat butchered in an idol's temple, a strong Christian would naturally not eat it (1 Cor 8:13). The reason: nothing to do with the quality of the steak, everything to do with love for the weaker Christian. It's never worth hurting the faith of a Christian, never worth leading a Christian to do what he/she thinks is ungodly. Not ever for steak!

Likewise Paul, after strongly insisting that he had the right to be supported as Christ's apostle, says 'I never sent you an invoice and never will.' See 1 Cor 9:12 and following.

Paul refused to take the cash and insisted on working for free. He chose to serve, not insist on rights. He did so to better preach the gospel. The 'better' is important. Paul already was preaching the gospel of Jesus, but he strove to do it more clearly, more accurately, with less distraction.

Thus, Paul's apostleship changed even the way he ate at a BBQ. And was the model Corinthian Christians were also to follow.

So too for us. While we love the good things of this world - knowing them as real gifts of God - we will always hold them very loosely, that we can choose to give them up. This light hold is so we can easily choose the better way to share the gospel, the wonderful news of Jesus as Lord.

Or Special Religious Education (SRE), as it is formally called.

For those interested in the developments in NSW, you will know that the current state opposition announced they would scrap the competition between SRE and the new Ethics course. And within a couple of months announced a policy reversal.

I asked my local MP why. Via the local member, I got this response from the shadow education minister (Andrew Piccolli):

When the govt announced its change of policy to allow ethics classes to be held during SRE time we said we would change that policy and not allow ethics classes after the end of 2011. After we announced that the govt introduced a bill to legislate ethics. We voted against the bill however it passed with support of the greens. Now that ethics classes are the law and we wont (sic) be able to change it because of the LC [Legislative Council, ie NSW upper house] makeup we have said, reluctantly, that we will work with St James Ethics Centre and SRE providers to make sure the ethics classes work and that they dont impact on SRE classes. So more or less we have been boxed in to this position.

If I understand correctly, this says the retraction of the poicy was political in nature: we have been boxed in to this position.

I am not saying this is wrong or right - unlike some, I don't think 'politics' is inherently evil! I am simply passing on what I heard, in case you are interested.

I was reading Mark Durie's thoughts on the turmoil in Egypt, and the Islamic world more widely, and came across this insight:

Another reason for the folly is deep denial among western analysts concerning the role of religion in shaping the actual agenda of Islamic radical groups. This goes hand in hand with a world view presupposition that all religions are in essence the same, and in any case irrelevant as causes for political actions. According to this view, religion is at best a pretext, but never a true cause. Men may fight over land, money, water or women, but never about religion. The Marxist's claim that religion is an 'opiate' for the masses has been influential: in essence it presupposes that religion is a means of political manipulation, not its cause.

(Emphasis in original.)

I know nothing about the Islamic world. But this comment is all about the western world, where I live (and I don't mean my physical address). Durie's words are incisive - the prevalance of this idea that theological commitment is never fundamental because theology is always peripheral frippery.

How far from what Christians are committed to!

Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore ..."
(Matthew 28:16-20)

Fundamental and basic is theological truth - Jesus' authority. Activity in the world is secondary, contingent and always in consequence.

I do not think we must therefore aim to change our culture. Rather, I think Christians must knowingly choose the right view of Christ over all, even if our culture does not agree, or even have capacity to comprehend.

Here's a quotation that's movingly full, deep and rich in its expression of what salvation means, in the book of Isaiah.

The problem is rebellion, self-exaltation, injustice, alienation, and resultatnt devastation; the solution must deal with all of these. ... Salvation must produce people who submit to God, trusting him to supply all their needs. It must result in reconciliation between God and humans, and between humans. It must include deliverance from physical and spiritual bondage. It must involve forgiveness and cleansing. It must produce people who are committed to the justice prescribed in their covenant with God. It must issue in a glad desire to declare the glory, the uniqueness and the salvation of God to all the world.

From J.N.Oswalt, 'Isaiah', New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, page 221.

Today, 25 January 2011, there's an article in an on-going story about the Grand Prix in Melbourne. (Here.)

I caught the piece at an odd moment. At least, odd for the survey at the bottom of the page.

Here's a snapshot (and note the area I highlighted in yellow).


And the poll was closed, apparently - though reopened later.

Now I remember that I never trust on-line opinion!

Not knowing, that's the tough part.

I have heard of a few sad events in the last little while. A man missing at the river. A holiday tragedy in a beatiful place. These on top of the floods in Queensland and Victoria.

A question that comes to mind: How could it happen?

How? Why?

We were prepared. They knew that area. The information was clear. The road was well-known ...

And so we wonder. With sadness.

A common response to not knowing, I believe, is to try and cover it by doing something.

It's great to get in and help, to give money or goods, to cry out to the authorities. Yet there's frequently an element of hiding from the unknown. Of declining to ask the question 'Why?' because we know the answer will be silence.

I've always been struck by the time God gave no answer to Jesus. It was Easter, and Jesus asked the $64 question. 'Father, why did you go?' (See verse 34.) There is an answer, of course. With no answer there's no Christian faith.

But the answer was not then spoken. The Son trusts the Father. The Father loves the Son. And in their love, that was not the time for answers.

As for me, when these questions are rightly asked, I don't know the answers. But because of the cross, I am not offended by people asking them. I definitely don't want to start into pretend and small-scale answers-for-the-sake-of-saying-something. You know, 'Perhaps the rocks were wet', 'maybe it was cramp', 'it's all for the best', etc.

Not knowing can be the hardest thing. The loving reply will often be the sympathy of sharing the problem, 'Why? Why?'

The genetic fallacy:
When an idea, word, person, or group is judged by something in their history.

For example, if you look up the backgroup to 'hierarchy', we see the source words mean rule by priests. It would be a fallacy to say that every current use of hierarchy invokes the idea of religion and priestly ritual.

This sentence makes sense: 'The hierarchy of the Atheist Society have embarked on a new advertising campaign.' Well, it makes sense unless you fall for the genetic fallacy.

(If you insist, see Wiki-wonder-paedia.)

What about Christmas?

Each year there is some tug-of-war about who owns Christmas and what Christmas means. For example, You don't need Jesus to enjoy Christmas, Who owns Christmas?, and Why does The Age hate Christianty?.

In general - that is, in more than these three pieces - there is much of the genetic fallacy.

On the one hand: Christmas has a strong hint in the name, Christ; it's the celebration of his entry to the world; etc.

On the other: Christians did not start this, it's a pagan festival.

In both cases: so what?

Really, what matters is what we do now. So the 'pagan origin' is most ridiculous - there is no real thread of whatever the pagan rituals were. There will always be a news item about druids at Stonehenge at mid-summer, or whatever, but any paganism is well past.

What about the celebration of Bethlehem as God incarnate's first staging post?

Certainly there is a 'genetic' (ie, historic) component. Arguably, the church fathers who began celebration of special days did so to point people towards Jesus and away from cultural practices then current. Yet it is more that mere history. It is current and modern. People today - including me - celebrate this time of year specifically in thankfulness for God's rescue mission in Jesus.

So who wins the argument?

Easy. It's whoever puts their celebration into action. So, I intend to pray and sing and be thankful and invite fellow Christians to do the same. That's the best argument for what Christmas means.

I came across this idea, about Paul's letters in the New Testament:

Paul 'wrote down something that no one before him had ever wanted to write down: ... spoken language of a competent speaker with the typical characteristics of spontaneous speech.'*

This accounts well for Paul's writing having broken and incomplete sentences. It's backed up by those who have complained about his Greek skills, over the centuries.

I wonder if it has theological underpinnings, or implications?

The gospel is an announcement. That's what gospel means. Paul himself was appointed a herald, a proclaimer, a preacher (eg., 1 Timothy 2:7). Written communication is, obviously, effective and was important to Paul. We have his letters to prove it!

Nonetheless, speech and preaching are the natural habitat for the message of Jesus.

I wonder if Paul tried to let this priority shape the way he wrote some of his letters. I'm left imagining him speaking to his secretary, "No, keep it like that - it sounds more natural, like I'm speaking to the church."

* Words of M. Reiser, quoted by A. D. Baum in Tyn. Bull. 59.2 (2008), 288.