Why did I do that?

Right, so Hugh's book contains a list of ten desires that shape us as a nation. I'm going to take them one by one and try to comment on them from a biblical perspective.

To begin with let's look at the introduction - Why did I do that?

As Hugh explains, this book is essentially a secular version of Tim Keller's Counterfeit gods. Although, as one would expect, since it is written from a secular perspective there is some divergence. Generally I think Hugh's observation and diagnosis is spot on, but it is his solutions where the gospel really bites.

The book is all about the powerful desires that drive us. Ones so powerful that

'we sometimes do things that we know will bring misery upon ourselves and others.'

These desires sound a lot like the idols that Keller refers to. Especially so when Hugh explains that every desire has a shadow -

"none of the ten desires is inherently good or bad. Each of them has the power to bring out the best in us, and the worst..."

This is just like Paul's explanation of idolatry in Romans 1. Idols are good, but they are not God.

However, Hugh back tracks at the end of his introduction. He says that he has chosen the word 'desires'

"to convey the idea that although these are things we want - sometimes quite passionately - they do not rule us in the same way as our basic bodily needs."

Ummh. They don't rule over us Hugh? Are you sure? I thought you began by talking about desires so powerful that they could make us bring misery to ourselves? Sounds more like an idol to me.

Lazarus Blog entry!

Okay, so it has been a while ... and if John Howard can make NT allusions then so can I.

The PBC blog is going to crank back into life again with a chapter by chapter look at Hugh MacKay's new book - What makes us tick?

(PS I've sent an email to Hugh MacKay recommending Tim Keller's book Counterfeit gods. My guess is that I won't get a reply but that he may be interested enough to read it.)

(PPS I was wrong - I've got a nice reply from his office saying that he is on tour publicizing his book but will be given my email to look at in mid-December when he gets back!)

Real Families

I love the writing of G.K. Chesteron. He was such an astute observer of humanity. I came across this gem from an article he wrote on Families recently. Here he is arguing that families are good thing, not because they are "peaceful, pleasant and at one" but precisely because they are the opposite. A very perceptive commentary on the lengths will go to escape having to get to know other human beings:

If we were to-morrow morning snowed up in the street in which we live, we should step suddenly into a much larger and much wilder world than we have ever known. And it is the whole effort of the typically modern person to escape from the street in which he lives. First he invents modern hygiene and goes to Margate. Then he invents modern culture and goes to Florence. Then he invents modern imperialism and goes to Timbuctoo. He goes to the fantastic borders of the earth. He pretends to shoot tigers. He almost rides on a camel. And in all this he is still essentially fleeing from the street in which he was born; and of this flight he is always ready with his own explanation. He says he is fleeing from his street because it is dull; he is lying. He is really fleeing from his street because it is a great deal too exciting. It is exciting because it is exacting; it is exacting because it is alive. He can visit Venice because to him the Venetians are only Venetians; the people in his own street are men. He can stare at the Chinese because for him the Chinese are a passive thing to be stared at; if he stares at the old lady in the next garden, she becomes active. He is forced to flee, in short, from the too stimulating society of his equals--of free men, perverse, personal, deliberately different from himself. The street in Brixton is too glowing and overpowering. He has to soothe and quiet himself among tigers and vultures, camels and crocodiles. These creatures are indeed very different from himself. But they do not put their shape or colour or custom into a decisive intellectual competition with his own. They do not seek to destroy his principles and assert their own; the stranger monsters of the suburban street do seek to do this.

I think church as family is probably one of the most important NT metaphors needed today. However, that is family as defined by Chesterton. (Remember that he was writing a hundred years ago, what do you think he would say now!)

We need to talk about Kevin

I have to admit that I'm in shock. With all the hype over the World Cup last night I've only just found out that Kevin Rudd is out and that Julia Gillard is the new Prime Minister of Australia.

We need to talk about Kevin is the title of a novel by Lionel Shriver. Without giving too much of the plot away, it is made up of letters from a Mother trying to come to terms with the fact that her son is a sociopathic murderer. I don't want to be melodramatic but I feel a similar need to come to terms with what on earth has happened to Kevin Rudd. Heralded as the conquering hero in 2007, how can he be booted out before even finishing a first term?

Here's some more heralding (from the SMH):

The move against Mr Rudd was sparked by a report in yesterday's Herald that Mr Rudd had used his chief of staff, Alister Jordan, to sound out the backbench over the past month on the level of support for him. This followed a Herald/Nielsen poll which showed the government would lose if an election were held then.

But Mr Rudd's action was regarded as a sign that he did not trust the repeated assurances by Ms Gillard that she would not stand.

"It was offensive and disloyal," said a Gillard supporter

... and apparently absolutely correct! It is quite possible that there is all sorts of stuff behind the scenes that I don't know about, but it seems incredibly harsh on Kevin.

I wonder what this teaches us about leadership in Australia?

What I like about Kevin is that he seems to have convictions. Politics is a tough game for Christians who have convictions because it is entirely based on compromise. I remember the British Tory Cabinet minister, Brian Mawhinney, being interviewed about how his Christian faith impacted cabinet discussions. He replied, "You can only resign once." In other words there are constantly issues raised with which you disagree, but once you have stated your case and the cabinet decision goes against you, then you have to decide whether you resign over it or not. Resignation may give you a self-righteous satisfaction but it also ends your influence in the running of the country.

Kevin clearly had to let some of his ideals go. That's politics. But generally he stuck to his guns and that is why he was fired! It seems the Mines are just to powerful for him.

What concerns me most is I think this represents a prevailing attitude to leadership in Australia. We want results fast and when decisions prove unpopular we cave in with equal speed.

As a starter for discussion, here are some possible lessons for churches:

1. Let's give our leaders time. It takes years to grow a tree, cress seeds sprout in days. Churches are supposed to have the perspective of eternity - you don't get much longer-term planning than that.

2. Let's support our leaders when unpopular decisions are made. That's not to say that we shouldn't be able to criticise bad decisions; just that we should expect change to be hard work and not give up too easily.

Do atheists care less?

A recent study in Canada shows that church goers are more generous with their time and their money - they give more to charity and they volunteer more willingly: Do atheists care less?

This is not news. Studies have shown this in the past.

What interests me is the impact this will have on the proposed Ethics classes as an alternative to SRE in schools here in Australia. Where are they going to get all the volunteers from? Here at PBC we have great and committed teachers and we need a team of at least four just for Petersham Public School. All studies show that church goers volunteer much more regularly for this sort of thing.

There is a groundswell of public support for the idea of 'religion free ethics' but (ISTM) no one has thought through how to provide such a thing. My prediction is that there will be a flurry when it all starts but it won't take long until most schools find that they cannot find enough parents willing to come in (during working hours) to teach their kids every week during term time.

Teaching is hard work. Give it a few years and the government will find it has a stark choice: either pay teachers to teach Ethics (but what abut SRE?) or accept that only about 10% of schools can actually carry this off on a regular basis.

SRE & Ethics

I wrote this letter to the SMH today. Let's see if it gets published!

Joan Bielski (letters April 21st) may have stumbled onto a key issue in the debate over SRE lessons. When she cavalierly dismisses many Christian SRE lessons as ‘amateurish’ she is simply stating a fact – the teachers are amateurs. One wonders if the government is going to pay for the training of Ethics teachers or if they are going to ask current School teachers to do this job – not really fair either way. However, if they ask parents and other volunteers to join in (as for SRE) then after the launch hype has died down (in a year or two) I can hardly imagine kindies skipping home gleefully on a Friday arvo saying, “Yeah, we drew a picture of an ethic again today.”

John Smuts, Lewisham

Handel's Bible Overview

We headed in to St. Andrew's last night for Handel's Messiah. It was a great performance and the girls seemed to genuinely engage with it ... although were a bit bored by the end!

Two things that struck me:

1. The libretto (I didn't know what that meant either) is basically the Bible set to music. And most of it is from the OT - a little 1 Corinthians and Revelation at the end, a smattering of gospels, but most of it is from Isaiah, Malachi and the Psalms . He changes the odd pronoun here and there but essentially he just puts the OT down on paper and it is obvious (at least to him) how it all points to Jesus. So many Christians today are either scared or bored of the OT, and yet (according to Jesus himself) it is all about the Christ (Luke 24: 27).

We took some neighbours along and Emily helped them (and Sophie) follow in the Bible as Handel took us through the message of the whole Bible. I suppose it is a musical Bible Overview.

2. I didn't know that the audience is supposed to stand during the Hallelujah Chorus. Some research this morning tells me that it might have been started by King George II. But I didn't know that last night. Then I was just another Philistine made to feel an outsider from the club. I guess that is often how non-Christians feel at church.