What Jesus did not say

Jesus did not say, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples:

• if you refuse to be around one another when you are not in the comfortably self-satisfied mood that enables you to be more patient than you really are
• if you have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries... and scoff at those I love who cannot
• if you refuse to personally attack someone you find annoying and yet remain gleefully mute while another verbally lacerates them
• if you "rescue" your Bible study from the stutterings of one of my disciples who is explaining something about me that you think is "already obvious to everyone" by harshly cutting in
• if you rejoice at what you perceive to be your own growth and grind your teeth when you see your brethren grow to love me more
• if you speak in the tongues of men and angels...and use your tongue to make great boasts
• if you roll your eyes at those who have scruples that you do not have and try to get them to do something that they believe would be a betrayal of my name
• if you volunteer for church positions because you believe you're the only one capable enough to do anything
• if you have faith that can move mountains...and quench my burning flax
• if you are always wallowing in "righteous anger"
• if you qualify your forgiveness with unforgetfulness
• if you give all you possess to the poor...except your compassion
• if you give up on a bruised reed and view each of his fresh failings with a smug, self-satisfied "I knew his repentance was false"
• if you are patronizingly kind and synthetically friendly to those you believe are beneath you or you believe that you can learn nothing from
• if you surrender your bodies to the flames...and surrender my beloved around you to the flames you started with your tongue
• if you forget one another because its easier and less humbling than trying to love and failing

Jesus said:

"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." ~ John 13:35

Thankyou Tiffany:

• I am tired, because I went to my formal Friday night and then got up reasonably early to get ready to go shopping and to lunch with a friend and then my graduation ceremony on Saturday.


• I came closest to crying in public that I have ever done on Saturday. I'm not a sentimental person really, but when the whole audience stood up to clap us, they played the music and formally presented us as "The Class of 2008", it was rather affecting.


• I believe that while stained glass windows may be a bit annoying in church, they are excellent things to have on the roof of a shopping mall. On a related note, I've finished stage #1 of my Christmas shopping. Stage #2 commences when I suddenly remember all the amazing people I've somehow forgotten to add, and work out what I'm going to do about it in light of the fact that stage #1 bankrupted me.


• I had a moment of nostalgia on Saturday as I listened to the CD of "top hits for every year that you have been alive" that our SS co-ordinater gave us. I'm looking forward to the next time that my family is out the house so that I can put Can't Fight the Moonlight on at full volume and sing at the top of my (not-particularly-tuneful) voice. Does anyone else remember when that was a hit? I was about 9 and my tap dancing teacher at that stage loved getting us to dance to it. :)


• I resisted the temptation to buy the radically cheap and interesting book on Saturday because that would have meant I didn't have any money to buy lunch. (Heroine, I am.) On a related note, I must find out who programs the music for the GC branch of QBD - he or she needs to find out about a number #1 fan. (So different to any other store.)


• In the spirit of greater randomness (i.e. getting away from the events of the past few days), I was remembering the other day about the fact that at the age of 9, I thought that someone was intent on murdering me. (I didn't know who, but I was sure of it, anyway.) Thus, I was kept awake for hours torturing myself that the creaking of the house was really someone a. pushing a poisonous blow-pipe through my window screen b. pushing in a poison gas pipe that would send me into a sleep from which I would never wake up. On a related note, I'm starting to think that I will ban any children I may have from reading Sherlock Holmes until they are emotionally mature.

Hypocrisy among professing Christians

In chapter two of Objections to Christian Belief, H.A. Williams makes his argument, which I have summarised in this way:

Human nature is inclined to self-deception and Christianity can be used as a "dodge" to avoid self-knowledge and "realness". Christians are "nice" on the outside in order to avoid the fact that they really are most impious inside. In addition, they become slaves to confession of evil in order to avoid acknowledging the depth of their slavery to it (i.e. "if I confess that this is a sin, I am obviously not really a slave to it, so I'll confess as much as I can to cover up my slavery"). Whipped-up guilt-feelings only increase fear and thus the importance of the charade. Salvation is popularly hinged on a "decision for Christ", which is an un-spontaneous imposture - usually people make such decisions in order to avoid facing what is really their own hatred for and rejection of Christ.

I think this is a helpful argument to think about. Not, of course, that it proves anything about the truth of our Lord Jesus, His gospel and true Christianity, but it does summarise very well the major problems with nominal Christianity and the "pop-gospel", with "pious" self-justifying 'niceness' replacing joyful, Christ-centred self-giving, emotional and gushy confession performed in order to appear less of a sinner (i.e. at least I'm really sorry!), the whipping up of guilt feelings in order to force people to attend church/give money out of legalistic fear and the extollation of a "decision for Christ" that is hung up on the walls of your memory to prove to all and sundry that you really are "very cool with Jesus" despite the fact that you refuse to accept Him as He really is.

Moral Objections

I am reading upon my father’s suggestion“Objections to Christian Belief” by MacKinnon, Vidler, Williams and Bezzant, which is a collection of four lectures delivered at Cambridge presenting objections to Christian belief. In the first chapter of the book, D.M. Mackinnon presents his moral objections to Christianity.

According to him, Christian morals are all about an obligation to follow the divine command and have nothing to do with living a life that is actually beneficial, “life-giving” or enriching for those who live it. A “[p]ositive image of human life” (p. 9), he claims, is lacking in Christian morality: “You cannot have it both ways; either this way of living is commended because it is self-justifying or it is commanded because it is the will of God,” (p. 12). So, are Biblical commands to be observed because God gives them, or to be followed because a Christ-like life is joy-bringing and the only good life? Really, the two are not in opposition. In fact, it is because the commands are given by God that they are good, for God alone is good (Luke 18:19) and the source of all that is good. Christians must serve God as our Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer, but it is also good for our own health and happiness to do so, though it may not always appear so in this world (with persecution sometimes following faithfulness etc.).

Mackinnon continues, however, to say that despite the fact that Christians claim that the path of Christian morality is the path to true humanity and joy this is not actually the case in practice - Christian morality, he posits, is unrealistic, and worse, the condemnatory reactions to perceived sin do not take into account the pain the “sinners” are experiencing. I certainly think that some of the “rules” that Christians make up are unrealistic, and if not that, based on assumptions of affluence and Western culture. Biblical commands, however, have been tested and found good in century after century in culture after culture. Isn’t it rather arrogant to assume that our culture is somehow so transcendently different that it renders obedience impossible? Certainly, Christ-likeness has always been impossible in that Christians are (still) hopeless sinners. But in remembering this, we must not forget the Holy Spirit’s power. There is no temptation but that which is common to man…

Regarding condemnatory reactions, I would agree that we do lack love. We do act as if somehow an unbeliever’s main problem is simply some gross, outward sin (that we have not committed!) rather than a rebellious heart (that we all have). Additionally, I don’t think a concrete belief in the fact that people are responsible for their own actions precludes compassion for people in sin-caused pain. We should never say that a girl who has been hurt through her own immorality is not to blame for that pain, but we should likewise never act as if the pain is non-existent; compassion is required.

While he admits that restraint has an important part in morality, Mackinnon says that the Christian conception of restraint is excessive and, in reality, Christians aren’t generally restrained. Rather, they have their own self-righteous and cosy excesses. I hardly think that arguing that Christians should exercise more restraint than they do is a good argument for the idea that everyone else should feel free to exercise less. Regardless, he has yet to provide a good test for separating what is “excessive” from what is “necessary”.

Faith, the bedrock virtue of Christian morality, also poses its problems for our author. He posits that faith, being concerned with historical facts, is “incompatible with proper intellectual objectivity” (p. 17) as Christians are personally invested in the results of any historical inquiry into the life of Jesus Christ. He doesn’t explain why non-believers are not invested in such an inquiry. Seeing as Jesus’ command to repent or perish is a serious ultimatum, they would be just as inclined to fabricate history.

Mackinnon proposes a cure to the perceived problems of Christianity in a suggestion that Christians refuse to get comfortable with their pre-conceived ideas of Christ and lose their dangerous certainty about His person and work.

Undoubtedly, it is dangerous to assume that we “know all there is to know”; dangerous to get into a drugged state where none of His words can challenge us. But before we can face any of the Lord’s other challenges and commands we must first submit ourselves to His great call and command to “come unto me and drink,” (John 7:37). To trust Him.

What is more challenging to humankind: a vague, dreamy “Jesus” who we can tailor to our own feelings and beliefs, or Jesus, God incarnate and the Virgin’s Son who demands our unreserved trust?

What I've been reading

Some people say that reading is too often an impractical activity. Instead of reading to obtain immediately required information, book addicts just read whatever they can get their hands on, regardless of whether they need information on Hittite culture, the progress of science fiction etc. I would disagree with this assessment and say that reading (regardless of what I learn through it) brings immediate practical benefits - for if I were banned from reading I would melt into a tiny puddle onto the floor and be completely incapable of performing any activity, practical or otherwise.

Seriously now, I'm enjoying having more free time for reading now I've finished school. (In fact, the first question I asked my mother after I finished school was, "Can we go to the library?") These are the last few I have read, and some thoughts:

Non-violence: The history of a dangerous idea ~ Mark Kurlansky

• What non-violence is: I am not a pacifist. However, if you must be a pacifist, I think that non-violence is the best way to go. Non-violence isn't simply "not being violent" but is the idea of risking one's own wellbeing in a vigorous, disciplined yet non-violent fight against injustice that is intended to convert the opponent just as much as defeat him. Gandhi, the best-known proponent of this view, said that his concept of non-violence was not meant for cowards. He even said that it would be better to bravely participate in a violent war than to use non-violence as an excuse to save one's own skin. This is why he preferred the word satyagraha, or "truth force" to "non-violence".
• Faulty basis for believing that it is effective: The whole basis for believing that non-violence is effective is the idea that there is good in everyone, which simply must be tapped into. "How," the advocate of non-violence asks, "could any tyrant continue in his ways in the face of humble, non-resisting and loving people? Surely he would be ashamed at himself." Frankly, this just doesn't work because people are not inherently good. The point is that we should turn the other cheek, not because we think this is the best way of getting what we want but simply because we love disinterestedly. So we should should show mercy even if the change we hope for is not forthcoming. (Also, I believe that turning the other cheek applies to personal relationships. When it comes to fighting for one's country, I believe that there is strong Biblical basis that you should do it.)

Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency ~ Douglas Adams

This is a hilariously fun and clever read from the details up to the overall plot. Excerpt:

"[The Head of Radio Three] had been ensnared by the Music Director of the college and a Professor of Philosophy. These two were busy explaining to the harassed man that the phrase "too much Mozart" was, given any reasonable definition of those three words, an inherently self-contradictory expression, and that any sentence which contained such a phrase would be thereby rendered meaningless and could not, consequently, be advanced as part of an argument in favour of any given programme-scheduling strategy," (Adams, 1987, p. 17).

Bébé pleure: que faire? ~ Anne Bacus

Some common-sense notions, though I don't agree with the idea that spoiling a baby until it is three months old is going to make your life easier for the following months.

The Trouble with God ~ David Boulton

Nothing particularly new if you have read Richard Dawkins and Bishop Spong. He has this idea that humanists should go to church, sing hymns and listen to sermons in the spirit of acting a part in an inspiring, emotionally-fulfilling drama - much like one would play Ophelia in Hamlet. This faintly amused me because I don't quite understand:

• how he can suddenly say that Christianity is a "beautiful" and "inspiring" thing after spending the first half of the book explaining how much he finds the Christian God repellent
• how he can suddenly think that this idea is novel in the slightest. People have been treating church like a dramatic production for centuries without his help.

So, I've been having fun. :o)

What should I do with my "10 commandments" stickers?

At right, you will see my "10 commandments" stickers (all in KJV English) that I found when rummaging about in the bottom draw looking for stickers that I can give out as rewards to my piano students next year. Having five whole sheets and not knowing what to do with them, I thought I'd ask if anyone can come up with any clever ideas.

I mean, it's not as if one can use them for piano teaching. "Wow, Kevin, you did a really good job today on your scales, so I'm giving you a sticker: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." See you next week!" There are times and places...

:o) So. What should I do with my 10 commandment stickers?

[This post is in different colours because Mike (sitting on my lap) wanted it so.]

Some yellow text for Mike...

Hallelujah. (Woot.)

I have not one iota of high-school work left to do. Ever.

So, as a sequel to my poignant haiku, I now present a joyful (and more seriously meant) haiku:

Summer crickets sing

Assignments all forgotten -

Joy rings out to God

12 years. Through them, God not only taught me of His Creation, but of Himself. And, through whatever means, He will continue do so forever...