My family enjoyed watching the movie, Hunt for the Wilderpeople. A teenage boy bounces from foster home to home, before ending on a farm in the wilds of New Zealand with an eccentric couple. Tragic events lead to a wild chase through beautiful wilderness as a Government social worker tries to capture him. Largely the movie is funny, the scenery is stunning, and it has a redemptive message. But, it also does highlight the tragedy of such children and how they are failed by not just their own families but by government agencies who are meant to be protecting them.
Monday, January 2, 2017
Saturday, December 24, 2016
A nice dialogue about Christmas faith
Nicholas Kristof is a journalist I admire, particularly for his concern about social justice issues. I recently posted about a nice book that he co-authored with his wife about poverty alleviation programs.
In the New York Times, Kristof has a nice dialogue with Tim Keller, entitled Pastor, Am I a Christian?
I like the questions discussed and the civil and mutually respectful tone of the back and forth.
In the New York Times, Kristof has a nice dialogue with Tim Keller, entitled Pastor, Am I a Christian?
I like the questions discussed and the civil and mutually respectful tone of the back and forth.
Thursday, December 22, 2016
A landmark event in USA social and political history
I should be wary about recommending movies that I have watched on a long flight. The combined factors of boredom and fatigue can reduce my critical faculties. Sometimes if I watch the same movie at home later with my family, I wonder why I recommended it.
Nevertheless, I am confident that Confirmation is worth watching, particularly because of the issues it raises and the historical significance of the events it chronicles. In 1991, Clarence Thomas was nominated to be a justice of the USA Supreme Court. Anita Hill, who had worked for him previously accused him of sexual harassment. At the time, she was a law professor at Oklahoma University and appeared before the Senate judiciary committee. Thomas denied the allegations. It degenerated into he says vs. she says. Some believed him. Some believed her. Who people believed was strongly correlated with their political views.
The trailer is here.
I found some of the movie painful to watch. The lust for power and struggle for political influence was striking and distressing. The most disturbing thing for me was seeing the manner in which a group of old white male Senators interrogated and attempted to discredit a young African American women.
There is a PBS News interview with Anita Hill, 25 years after the event, that is worth watching.
In spite of Hill's allegations, Thomas was still confirmed by the Senate. Yet, the event was a landmark significantly raising the consciousness of the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace, leading to new laws and policies.
Some might say great progress has been made in 25 years. However, I find it very disturbing that this year a US presidential candidate was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women. And, he was still elected!
Nevertheless, I am confident that Confirmation is worth watching, particularly because of the issues it raises and the historical significance of the events it chronicles. In 1991, Clarence Thomas was nominated to be a justice of the USA Supreme Court. Anita Hill, who had worked for him previously accused him of sexual harassment. At the time, she was a law professor at Oklahoma University and appeared before the Senate judiciary committee. Thomas denied the allegations. It degenerated into he says vs. she says. Some believed him. Some believed her. Who people believed was strongly correlated with their political views.
The trailer is here.
I found some of the movie painful to watch. The lust for power and struggle for political influence was striking and distressing. The most disturbing thing for me was seeing the manner in which a group of old white male Senators interrogated and attempted to discredit a young African American women.
There is a PBS News interview with Anita Hill, 25 years after the event, that is worth watching.
In spite of Hill's allegations, Thomas was still confirmed by the Senate. Yet, the event was a landmark significantly raising the consciousness of the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace, leading to new laws and policies.
Some might say great progress has been made in 25 years. However, I find it very disturbing that this year a US presidential candidate was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women. And, he was still elected!
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Who do you love to hate?
Republicans or Democrats, Atheists or Christians, young earth creationists or evolutionary biologists, Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, Calvinists or Arminians, Muslims or Hindus, supporters or opponents of same-sex marriage, liberals or conservatives, Sydney Anglicans or the Uniting Church, Greens or One Nation, complementarians or egalitarians, Stockbrokers or social workers, pro-life or pro-choice, blacks or whites, capitalists or socialists, …?
Over the last decade, I think there has been a significant decrease in civil debate, both in public and private. Those with different views or from different social groups are disparaged or “demonised”. Sometimes this is blatant; other times it is more subtle.
Some groups seem to get their identity from who they “not” or what they are opposed to.
What is causing this contempt for the “other”?
I see several contributing factors.
Social media.
This leads to people congregating in groups of “friends” who have similar views, values, and “identity” to their own. Highly specialised and like-minded groups (Calvinist Chelsea fans who also like cheese…) can congregate. They don’t have to engage seriously with alternative views. They are in a “content bubble”. Communication is impersonal and terse. People say things online that they would be much less likely to say face to face to another. Extremist and impulsive views that were once said personally to a small group of people can now unfiltered reach thousands and even millions. Specialised and extremist talk radio and cable TV hosts play a similar role.
Politics.
In a wide range of countries some candidates and parties have been able to successfully exploit “identity” politics and fear of and contempt for the “other” to get elected. The last USA Presidential election is an example.
“Post-truth.”
I feel my view is true and yours is wrong and so it does not matter what evidence there is for a different view.
I should stress that none of us is immune to these tendencies. We are all prone to pride, prejudice, and self-righteousness.
I also stress that on my random list above there are some views or people I strongly disagree with. Some I find extremely troubling and even dangerous.
Not all views are equally valid. But, that does not give me the right to “hate” them.
Why should everyone be concerned about this?
Democracy, peace, and community depend on reasonable and diverse debate.
Why should Christians be concerned?
Our identity comes solely from being a follower of Jesus and knowing we are loved by God.
It transcends nation, denomination, ethnicity, and any particular theological or political views. And, everyone is made in the image of God, regardless of their views or behaviour, and is loved by God. Thus, they are to be respected and valued as a person.
Humility and gentleness need to replace self-righteous anger.
Consider the way that Jesus interacted with tax collectors and prostitutes.
He also harshly confronted the Pharisees for their pride and self-righteousness.
Over the last decade, I think there has been a significant decrease in civil debate, both in public and private. Those with different views or from different social groups are disparaged or “demonised”. Sometimes this is blatant; other times it is more subtle.
Some groups seem to get their identity from who they “not” or what they are opposed to.
What is causing this contempt for the “other”?
I see several contributing factors.
Social media.
This leads to people congregating in groups of “friends” who have similar views, values, and “identity” to their own. Highly specialised and like-minded groups (Calvinist Chelsea fans who also like cheese…) can congregate. They don’t have to engage seriously with alternative views. They are in a “content bubble”. Communication is impersonal and terse. People say things online that they would be much less likely to say face to face to another. Extremist and impulsive views that were once said personally to a small group of people can now unfiltered reach thousands and even millions. Specialised and extremist talk radio and cable TV hosts play a similar role.
Politics.
In a wide range of countries some candidates and parties have been able to successfully exploit “identity” politics and fear of and contempt for the “other” to get elected. The last USA Presidential election is an example.
“Post-truth.”
I feel my view is true and yours is wrong and so it does not matter what evidence there is for a different view.
I should stress that none of us is immune to these tendencies. We are all prone to pride, prejudice, and self-righteousness.
I also stress that on my random list above there are some views or people I strongly disagree with. Some I find extremely troubling and even dangerous.
Not all views are equally valid. But, that does not give me the right to “hate” them.
Why should everyone be concerned about this?
Democracy, peace, and community depend on reasonable and diverse debate.
Why should Christians be concerned?
Our identity comes solely from being a follower of Jesus and knowing we are loved by God.
It transcends nation, denomination, ethnicity, and any particular theological or political views. And, everyone is made in the image of God, regardless of their views or behaviour, and is loved by God. Thus, they are to be respected and valued as a person.
Humility and gentleness need to replace self-righteous anger.
Consider the way that Jesus interacted with tax collectors and prostitutes.
He also harshly confronted the Pharisees for their pride and self-righteousness.
Monday, November 28, 2016
A nuanced atheist view of Jesus and Christian theology
Previously, I have written several posts featuring Terry Eagleton. He is a prominent literary theorist, a Marxist, an atheist, and a critic of both religion and the New Atheists.
Yesterday, I watched the first of his 2008 Terry Lectures at Yale University, which were later published as Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate.
It presents a fascinating, nuanced, challenging, and provocative view of Jesus and Christian theology. Some of it I do not agree with but it is worth engaging with.
I am looking forward to watching the other lectures.
Yesterday, I watched the first of his 2008 Terry Lectures at Yale University, which were later published as Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate.
It presents a fascinating, nuanced, challenging, and provocative view of Jesus and Christian theology. Some of it I do not agree with but it is worth engaging with.
I am looking forward to watching the other lectures.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Science involves faith
As I have discussed before, I do not like the term "science and faith". It is misleading because both science and Christianity involve faith, reason, and evidence. I prefer terms such as "science and theology" or "science and the Bible" or "science and Christianity".
A nice example of how science involves faith is a column, Reasonably Effective: Deconstructing a Miracle, published in 2006 in Physics Today. It is by Frank Wilczek who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.
He first discusses Eugene Wigner's famous 1960 article, "Unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences." He then continues:
A nice example of how science involves faith is a column, Reasonably Effective: Deconstructing a Miracle, published in 2006 in Physics Today. It is by Frank Wilczek who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.
He first discusses Eugene Wigner's famous 1960 article, "Unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences." He then continues:
Acts of faithHe then goes on to discuss supersymmetry in quantum field theory and says how he anticipates the associated elementary particles will be observed in the Large Hadron Collider in the following years (i.e., from 2006). However, it is interesting that ten years later this is not the case. Nevertheless, despite the evidence to the contrary, some physicists still have "faith" that supersymmetry is valid.
Since any answer to a “why” question can be challenged with a further “why,” any reasoned argument must terminate in premises for which no further reason can be offered. At that point we pass, necessarily, from reason to faith. Our present faith in symmetry and locality is grounded in the good experience we’ve had with them so far. At present, I think, we can carry our explanations no deeper.
As good believing scientists we must take our faith seriously—so seriously that we feel compelled to act on it, and thereby to test it.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
The value and importance of children
Last week I gave a talk at a SAIACS chapel service.
It was based on Luke 18:15-17
i. our own children if we have them
ii. children in our church
iii. children in society
iv. children on the margins: the unborn, orphans, street children, trafficked, handicapped, …
Here is an edited version of the talk.
The quote about Bob Pierce, founder of World Vision, is from here.
It was based on Luke 18:15-17
People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.’I considered the relevance of this to four categories of children:
i. our own children if we have them
ii. children in our church
iii. children in society
iv. children on the margins: the unborn, orphans, street children, trafficked, handicapped, …
Here is an edited version of the talk.
The quote about Bob Pierce, founder of World Vision, is from here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
