Hashtag. All lives matter.

This past weekend has seen tumultuous, tragic events taking place.

Hundreds have died because of needless, senseless, hate filled violence. In Beirut, Nigeria and Paris to name just a few.

But all the focus has been on just one place, Paris.

And I have to ask why?

Why is all the focus, the outpouring of rage, the cries of injustice, the demand for a solution focussed on this one place.

You might have seen this photo, which was circulated by Angelina Jolie. This is a bomb blast that erupted in Beirut. (I'm not sure when this photo was taken, I can't guarantee it is current to these events) There was however a series of bomb blasts, suicide bombers, the action of ISIS in a Hezbollah stronghold. Many have died and hundreds were injured.

I didn't see the flag of Lebanon appear on Facebook profiles. So obviously we care less about this right?

Because that's just one terror organization attacking another. Here is an article posted in Time Magazine , because the people of Beirut are asking this same question.

There is also the report of some slayings in Nigeria. Well the problems in the African continent are many fold. The Sudan, The Congo, Somalia, Libya, Algeria, the list of trouble spots there is almost as long as the list of nations.

What about the war in Yemen, ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Israel. Well, maybe Israel is a different story, because it is Israel that is tarnished with the fault, it's currently fashionable to blame Israel for everything, so there's no need to feel sad about that right? Oh yes, there's another one you probably haven't heard of, West Papua. Where the people are being brutally oppressed by a neighbouring country.

So why does Paris get all the attention? Is it because it's a place we would all like to visit? It's the city of lights, the city of love, the site of Jim Morrison's grave. The Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame, The Louvre, The Moulin Rogue. A cultural centre of art, history and romance.

I'm not trying to belittle this tragedy, and I am not sympathetic to Islamic extremism. I simply want to know why we responded the way we did.

Maybe we're tired of all those other, unfashionable places and their little troubles. Those places aren't romantic. They're not centres of art, history and culture. Well actually they are. Maybe it's just that none of them have the "Mona Lisa".

Most disturbing of all. Is what I see in social media. Post after post of retaliation, hate, anger. Sadly, so much of it from Christian friends. Some of whom incidentally, seem to have spent their Sunday watching two girls beat each other up for entertainment.

Even more disturbing. And this is the thing that has my real attention. Is this article about French Mayor Robert Chardon. He is calling for legislation to ban Islam from France. A sentence attributed to Mr Chardon is, "it's the only solution for most of France's problems".
It was only a generation ago that someone in Europe spoke about problems and solutions. That was in the 1930's. The problem, was the Jews. Except they weren't going around bombing people.
Is Europe on the verge of wholesale, systematic, state sponsored ethnic cleansing. AGAIN?

We remember the holocaust, that others try to deny. We say never again, not on our watch. But the language is starting to emerge, again.

To answer my first question. If there was not a current flood of "refugees" in Europe. Then the attacks in Paris might not be seen as part of a larger threat. The troubles in Beirut and Africa, are not really a threat to us, are they?

Do all lives really matter? Or just the ones from western democracies?

As a Christian, I have to say, yes they all matter. Because as a Christian, I want above all else, to be transformed.
I want the mind of Christ. I want to exhibit the nature and character of God. I want my DNA to be reprogrammed, overwritten with superior coding. I want to be like Him.

So what does God say? What does "the Christ within me, the hope of all glory" say, how does he respond?

Here's a few verses you can look up. Ezekiel 18:23 and 32, 33:11. I'll tell you what they say.
God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.

We care more about the deaths in Paris than elsewhere. Our grief is selective. No one was deserving of a horrible, fearful death. Yet who are we to say that the death of an innocent child in Beirut, is less tragic than a fan at a Death Metal concert in Paris? Did someone deserve it more?

Here's another verse. It's pretty much one of a kind.
Psalm 11:5 "The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those that love violence, he hates with a passion."

God does not take any pleasure in the loss of a soul. And he abhors the act of violence, as much as he hates the act of retribution. Because in the end, everybody loses.

We cannot be selective in the outpouring of our grief. Nor can we advocate the act of retribution.
I saw a response to one of the many posts this weekend. One that said Pray for Paris, Pray for Peace.
The view taken, was that this was an ineffectual approach. Obviously they thought a good old bombing campaign was the answer.
Well maybe it is. If the god you pray to is impotent.

You've probably heard the phrase, "war is a necessary evil". I have always held to the view that war is not always necessary, but it is, always evil.

I've changed my view again.

War is made necessary, by the evil within us.

The Critical Mass

The Rise of the 21st Century Pharisee.

In the last year or so, I have become aware of a disturbing and increasing trend within the Christian Church.

It is a trend towards the open and relentless criticism of Christian leaders and figureheads.

This trend is being aided and abetted by unfettered, unregulated access to online sources and resources. It is a vehicle that is being driven with neither restraint, nor regard for others on the road.

There is even a website, an online news organisation, (and I'm sorry I don't have the link for you). It is made up of professional Christian journalists. They use their site as a platform for investigative journalism, directed towards the church. In other words, they make it their business to investigate and expose what they see as corrupt or inept church leadership. Christians. Sad really. And these are just the professionals.

There are others, they have their own websites. The majority are not professional journalists. Or they appear in forums and comment pages. They all have but one purpose. To criticise the work and ministry of other believers.

Some of the targets I've seen in recent months are people such as; Joel and Victoria Osteen, Mark Driscoll, Creflo Dollar. I can also include musicians in that list; Switchfoot, Brooke Frasier, Future of Forestry. There are a great many others.

People, (Christians) protest outside their venues. Some complain that they are not Christian enough, while others complain they are too Christian. Their message and lyrics are either too confronting, or too vague.

One commenter, posting on the Future of Forestry YouTube channel. Took it upon himself to declare that they were "fallen". The cause of his great umbrage? A drum sequence, taken from a performance of "The Little Drummer Boy". He saw it as excess and vanity.
When all it was really, was just a group of musicians having some fun. "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord" The Psalmist exhorts us. (Psalm 66:1, 81:1, 95:1-2, 98:4&6, 100:1) And that's just what they were doing.

Now, having said all of this. I will add this.

All of these leaders, ministers and artists that I have mentioned. All of them, and many more besides. I have opinions about all of them. But they are my opinions. They are based solely on how much I know about each of them. I know much about some, less about others. My knowledge is incomplete. Therefore I do not offer or broadcast my opinions. I keep them to myself.  Because I might be wrong about something, I may have misheard, misread or misunderstood. So to say anything, would be a mistake.

Here's an example of why from my own recent experience.

Last year, Hillsong Church (My church). Announced Mark Driscoll as a keynote speaker for the 2015 Conference.

Now Mark has faced a great deal of criticism for his leadership, attitudes toward women in ministry, among other things. In recent months he was removed from leadership by the church board. People I know started posting links to sites and sources that were simply out to get him, they seemed to be in agreement. I could so easily have joined them.

I could have written to, or confronted the pastors of my church. Demanding that such a man be removed from the guest list, it would be damaging for our church, that he not be permitted to speak and so on. I could have gotten on my high little horse and started making all sorts of noises. But I didn't.

Here's what I did do. I waited. I decided to Trust the Church Leadership, and see how they would handle the emerging situation. I had an inkling of how it might be possible to handle the situation in a sensible sensitive way. I am happy to say, I was vindicated in my belief. Because here's what happened. Mark Driscoll still appears as a guest with his wife Grace. They are now listed with the sub caption,  Interview.

You see this is the sensible way to deal with it. This is a clear example of Christians being "ministers of reconciliation" 2 Cor 5:18.

Are church leaders above reproach? Certainly not. Should they be held accountable? Absolutely. But that is the role of church boards and governing bodies. It is not the role of outsiders and armchair critics, trumpeting their false piety.

We should never be found on the side lines hurling stones of accusation. No, not us. We are all too broken for that. Instead of "J'accuse",  we should humbly cry "Mea culpa".

While I am attending this years  Hillsong Conference,  most likely as a volunteer. I may get to hear parts of the interview. I may re-form my opinion of Mark Driscoll.

But you won't read it here.

Because it will remain my opinion.

ADDENDUM.
Since this post was first published, there have been some changes to the facts as written above.
Namely, that Mark Driscoll will no longer be a guest at Hillsong Conference 2015. The details behind this decision can be found elsewhere. I have no wish to repost them here.

Some things have not changed. My attitude towards church leadership, and my belief that we should not engage in wholesale criticism of such leadership.

Such criticism is nothing more than, gossip, tale bearing and back biting. The Bible is quite clear on these subjects. I don't believe I need to quote chapter and verse on this. It is not the right of every believer with a blog and an axe to grind, to post whatever they like, about whomever they dislike.

Lay down the axes, they cannot be used to build the church.

A declamation of John Fugelsand.

Will Christians please stand up for the REAL Jesus.

A little while ago I saw a quote from John Fugelsand (a comedian and actor) posted on Facebook. It  was labelled, "an amazing rant", and seemed to be both "liked" and applauded by a number of people. On the surface, it looked fairly benign. Further examination however, reveals a litany of inaccuracies and populist viewpoints.

Here is the quote as printed in the Huffington Post. Which also quoted Fugelsand as saying "God is a sociopath". A statement I have a great deal of trouble with. For now I'll just deal with this one and examine it a piece at a time.

"Jesus was a radical non-violent revolutionary who hung around with Lepers Hookers and Crooks.
Wasn't American and Never spoke English.
Was anti-wealth, anti death penalty, anti public prayer (M 6:5) But was never anti gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control and never called the poor lazy.
Never mentioned torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a Leper for a copay.
And was a long haired, brown skinned, homeless, community organizing, anti slut shaming middle eastern Jew."

"Jesus was". The first two words are troubling. They put Jesus firmly in the past tense, which can only really apply to certain life events, i.e. He was  born in Bethlehem. He was crucified. To apply the past tense to his character and views is to suggest that he changed. The correct view of the nature and character of God is that he is "unchanging". Mal 3:6. To say "Jesus was" is to consign him to history. Just another good man, like Ghandi or Mandela.

"Radical non-violent Revolutionary". No, wrong again. One people group of the time that were keen to align themselves to a messianic figure were the Zealots. They sought a violent overthrow of Roman oppression. At no point did Jesus align himself with their cause. As for non-violence, well he did make that whip and made a mess of the corrupt money-changers' trade.

"Hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks." No, an incorrect point of view. Yes he did go to the home of Simon the Leper, Matt 26:6 and Mark 14:3. It is most probable, however, that Simon was a leper that had been healed, most likely by Jesus. Under Jewish Law, as a leper, he would have had to live outside of the community, away from his family, definitely not in his own house. Visiting a leper would have made Jesus unclean and excluded him from temple worship. Simon is identified as "the leper" in the same way that the other Simons were identified, "the sorcerer" "the zealot" "of Cyrene" and "Simon Peter". It is the same for the numerous Marys we encounter. The correct view here would be that these groups of people sought Jesus out, underwent a radical life change, and then followed him. Jesus in no way ever condoned their continuing to be "hookers and crooks".  The only exception here would be Judas Iscariot. Jesus knew full well his corrupted duplicitous heart, but knew also his key role in the greater plan.

"Wasn't American and never spoke English". At the risk of sounding juvenile here. Well d'uh, nice going captain obvious. At this point in history neither the English language nor the USA existed. I get the point though, this is an attack on the American church, rather, the more fundamental side of it that claims to be the sole arbiter on all things Biblical. So he's not being pro Jesus here, he's attacking his church.

"Anti wealth". No. A reference to the rich young ruler, the camel through the eye of the needle. A common assumption. But wrong. The full context is the position the acquisition of wealth takes in your life. If you have riches only for your own sake, then you live selfishly. This is a point made very clearly throughout the Bible.

"Anti Death Penalty" This comment is tied to the "Anti Slut Shaming" comment at the end. Wrong again. Jesus could not countermand the laws of God. The very same laws he exhorted others to obey.
What he did was demonstrate what grace looks like, he places mercy above judgement, remembering that he will act as judge in the end. Until then his mercy is available to all.

"Public Prayer". Wrong, Jesus himself prayed publicly on many occasions as well as privately. What Jesus warned against was false piety. A self righteous religious expression that was performed solely for the approval of others.

"Torture, tax cuts and copays." Coupled with public prayer, this is a political statement. It has nothing to do with Jesus. While I am not familiar with the term "copay" I gather it is some U.S Medicare/Obamacare arrangement. Yet when Jesus healed the Lepers he commanded them to show themselves to the priest, and make the sacrifice that the law requires for their cleansing. Sounds sort of like a medical examination with a payment attached to it?

"Anti-gay, abortion, birth control". While these were not current topics in the time of Jesus' ministry, it draws on a weak assumption. Just because Jesus did not address an issue, that does not mean that the rest of the Bible, (the other 62 books) doesn't either. There is a proper theological process for interpreting scripture. It was ignored, in this well rehearsed poorly researched statement.

The final section is a bunch of fairly obvious, needless statements, a couple of points he finally gets right. Jesus was a middle eastern Jew.
I do take issue with the "anti slut shaming" part of it. Jesus would never have used such a derogatory term. It says more about Johns view of the adulterous woman than it does about Jesus. Jesus offered her forgiveness, not harmful insulting labels.

In the end, these views offer us a politically correct Jesus, the Jesus people are comfortable talking about. These are incorrect assertions based on ill-founded assumptions. There is very little of anything by the way of truth here.

The Emotional Cloud.

In our enlightened modern society, it has become increasingly difficult to have a simple little thing like, an opinion.

It used to be said, "Never talk about Religion and Politics." Well that list seems to be growing. Now it is nigh on impossible to hold an opinion publicly on any number of newly taboo, hot button topics. Subjects such as; Climate Change, Asylum Seekers, Same Sex Marriage, Euthanasia, Abortion, Indigenous Rights and many more.

Dare to express an opinion that is contrary to the accepted mainstream view, i.e. the one that is  most loudly trumpeted in the media by the overly vocal minority activist, and you get labelled "Hater," in a flood of intolerant backlash. It matters not if your views are indeed hateful or not, it has been expressed, and it differs to theirs, that is enough.

There have been many instances in the past year, of people being publicly castigated, even persecuted for their traditional views on marriage. Orson Scott Card, and the CEO Of Mozilla for instance. They have been labelled "Hateful" simply because they hold an opinion, dared to express it, or acted on the conviction of their belief.

But this is not a new phenomena, and it is not unique to a select few. It is common to all of us. We view life through an emotional cloud. We attach identity to issues.

A common joke in journalism, I'm sure you've heard it, says. "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

Well I fear we tend to do just that. Why don't we take the opposite stance. Let's try this.

Don't let a good story get in the way of the facts.

This was highlighted to me recently, in one of those tedious emotionally charged posts that circulate in social media.

This one was about some guy in Africa, who worked with Elephants. The post was wrought with highly emotive details about how all these Elephants walked for "days" to stand at his property to mourn his death. A beautifully told story. But it wasn't true. Well the part about his death was true.
Then I looked at the comments below the post, because quite honestly, I smelled a rat. Sure enough, there were comments from people that had bothered to do the research, and proved the inaccuracies in the tale.

Predictably, there was a backlash, comments along the lines of. "I don't care what truth you have dug up from wherever, it's a beautiful story." Yes, but it's not true. That's the problem, the story got in the way of the facts.

We all do it. We attach too much importance on a fictional T.V. character. We take ownership of an issue, we hold to a particular political party, a football team or code, and all else fades from view. Our attachment clouds our vision, worse, it clouds our ability to reason.

I'm about to take a very treacherous journey into the unknown. I'm writing a book, it's my second, but this one's a novel, my own creation. Today, I finished the second draft. Like most writers, I'm very close to it, too close in fact. So I have to submit it to some first readers. I no longer know if it is a good story or even well written. I've read and reread, rewritten, edited, scrapped bits, added other bits and generally spent so much time staring at the words that I am no longer certain. I have to let go. I have to entrust this thing to others. I need an objective view.

I'm writing this today, to remind myself, to step out of the emotional cloud, and face the facts. Whatever they may be. Hopefully, it will make me, and my writing, stronger.

CONTENTMENT CONTINGENCY

Promises Promises.

 

Over the last few weeks I've seen some very bold promises being made.

One was on the door of a Fitness Studio in the city, the sign reads. "If fitness is your life, then happiness is your prize."

 

Another, that I found quite by chance was in the classifieds of a Sydney paper. it reads.

 

Psychic Reader.

Reunites lovers. Solves all problems.

 

And lastly from a toy that is supposed to resemble an iPhone. There is this promise in the instructions.

"Every function will bring eternal enjoyment."

 

Now I will concede that in the last example there is probably some problem with Chinese-English translation or syntax. However, a cursory glance at the above claims, and I think you'll see where I'm headed.

 

So what constitutes a promise? If we make a promise, surely, there is some expectation that it will be carried out, or, at the very least we have the capacity to fulfil it. What is the nature of a promise? A wedding vow, a promise of payment? The three promises I've cited above are empty promises. Because no amount of time at the Gym will make me happy, no one person can solve all my problems and no toy manufacturer can make me an eternal promise.

 

Lets look at them a bit deeper.

What constitutes happiness? My feelings? What if I'm unhappy (as so many people are) with my body shape? Endless comparison with manufactured ideals fuels my unhappiness. No exercise induced endorphin rush is going to keep me happy for very long. That is only a temporal promise, it cannot and will not last. What if, upon leaving the gym I step in dog droppings, or find a parking ticket on my car or it's got a flat tyre? My happiness is gone, do I rush back into the gym for a refill?

 

What about solving all my problems? Many of our problems are simply based on who we are, our circumstances and other people around us. How can any one person promise to fix that? These sort of problems more often than not, can only be addressed by myself, and the choices I make in seeking to resolve those issues. Are we so seduced and blinded by the notion of a magic genie granting us three wishes, or a happy ever after prince charming kiss that immediately dispels our woes? A big red ball will not make all your dreams come true. Anything that is not achievable through the application of effort is a fantasy.

 

What about this promise of eternal enjoyment? The temporal nature of our existence, cannot supply us with anything eternal. Because the person making the promise will die. The responsibility, for the fulfilment of the promise ends with them. The only real exception to that of course would be in the form of an inheritance, but even that is limited by time and available resources.

 

So instead, let's look at some real promises. Let's look at the promises of God.

Now these are many and varied so I'll just pick out a couple to illustrate my point.

Heb 6:13 reads "When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself." NIV2011

What does this mean?

Simply this, that God has taken sole and complete responsibility for the fulfilment of his promise. In other words, he's laying his reputation on the line. If it doesn't happen, then God cannot be trusted. A similar thought is expressed in Psalm 23:3 "He guides me along the right paths for his names sake."

God again lays his own reputation on the line.

What about 2Cor 1:20 "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are Yes in Christ. And so through him the Amen is spoken by us to the glory of God."

So God through Jesus Christ, has given us the fulfilment of his promises, to which we now testify.

 

Now where does all this leave us? Do we continue to put our trust in man? Or are we willing to put our trust in God?

Man will fail us, and our fickle hearts will blame God because he didn't act in an instant at our behest.

The answer to the question is faith. There are many interpretations on what faith is or does. My simplest answer is that faith says, God is still God no matter what. Faith is attached to the nature and character of God, he cannot act independently of it. God cannot take a day off and stop being God. Faith is a choice, it is what maintains our belief and trust in God, it says your ways are higher than mine, I don't always understand them, but because I know who you are I will continue to trust you.

 

Because God cannot leave his promises unfulfilled. It is not in his nature or character to do that.

 

So, whose promises are you going to believe?

 

 

 



Intentional.

I've been thinking about this word a lot the last couple of days. What does it mean to be intentional. Early in July I had a conversation with  a young guy from Queensland. We were at Hillsong Conference and I was asking him about his first experience of the conference. His reply was along the lines that, even though he knew the music etc and a lot else about it, he was now seeing first hand how it all worked. His comment stuck with me. "Everything is intentional." I can tell you from my numerous years at Hillsong Conference, most of them spent serving or volunteering in some capacity. That every thing is done with intent, it is thought out and planned beforehand. From the production values, crowd movement, everything, even something as mundane as putting a pamphlet or brochure on a seat. It is thought out first.
So thinking this week, about what it means to be intentional, actually caused me a few problems. So occupied with these thoughts, that I wasn't really focusing on my work. Which led to a few errors, predictable and avoidable. I was being un-intentional. Ironic huh!
So what does it mean to be intentional?
What does it mean for my writing. Do I write with intent or do I just write when the mood takes me? In the case of a novel I'm currently writing, (probably more of a novella).  Do I just do as Stephen King does and just flog it out, let it flow, and then tidy it up in the edits? Reading a book on writing, it occured to me that I needed to write profiles for my major characters, and, because the world of the story is fictional, I had to write it's character as well. Why? Because I didn't know my characters, well I did sort of, but I need to know them, in order to tell their stories, it also helps me to tell you, the reader, who they are.
Actually, I realised, it's research. If I'm going to write something, I need to know who and what I'm writing about.
Now, I can begin to write intentionally.
A lot of people say "oh I'd love to write a book one day" well they have to start. They have to be intentional.
Just having a bit of a plan, that won't do it. Having a bit of a go, that doesn't cut it either. You have to commit to the process, see it through to completion, and make sure it's the best you're capable of.
It's the same with everything in life really, you don't try marriage, you don't just have a go, try it and see, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it.
As a wise man once said "do, or do not, there is no try" (Mr Myagee, Karate Kid).
We can't live life without resolve, without commitment, unfocused, going where the mood or the breeze takes us. No, our course must be set. Our direction focussed. Yes there is a certain amount of adventure and discovery in life, but adventures should be planned, or they turn into rescues. Discovery should have a purpose attached to it. If it doesn't add something to us then it's just entertainment, we've discovered nothing.
So to live with intention, to have a sense of purpose and destiny, that's the key. Otherwise we're just doing things to fill the gaps and fight off boredom. I'd rather not write my bucket list just yet, I've got too much to do.

Getting it right

A few days ago I was about to post a review of the movie Pacific Rim. It's just as well I didn't, because I had it wrong. I had forgotten the golden rule of non-fiction writing. Do your Research.
The importance of this was highlighted to me again just today. When friends started posting a horrendously erronious, online report, of the Wellington tremor on the weekend. That's Wellington New Zealand by the way.

The report appeared in an online publication, guardianlv.com it placed all the towns mentioned in Australia, and even quoted a source, a newspaper, that doesn't even exist. Very poor journalism.
After realising their woeful gaffe the publication issued an apology and correction, but decided to keep the article visible in the name of "journalistic integrity".

You can imagine the howls of derision that erupted, not just in the comments section, but also from myself, almost.

I was all ready to go on the attack. Especially after I read through some of their website, I was baying for blood. And it would be so easy to do, to pull someone down in my veil of smug superiority.

 But then I took time to think about it, which is always a good idea.

Journalistic integrity. That's a big claim, in light of the inaccuracies that were posted as "news".
But they were right. They owned their mistake, not afraid to let it remain for the world to see, swallow a bit of humble pie and say "yep, we got this so wrong". That takes guts.
So good on you guardianlv.com you showed integrity.
And thank you for reminding me, that the research, is so important.

If you're interested here's a link to the article.
http://guardianlv.com/2013/07/severe-earthquake-strikes-australia/

Why not add a word of encouragement to the comments section. At least they owned up to it, which is more than a lot of print journalists are willing to do.