Postcard from Kampala: Observations on public Christianity

We have now been in Kampala for six Sundays and have been struck by the numbers attending the churches we have visited here. Apparently most churches, at least in the city, are very large - a congregation of as few as 100 in one sitting would be very rare. Hundreds, if not thousands, attending in the one day is quite a normal scenario. As a result, many churches run multiple services back-to-back throughout the day and sometimes also on Saturday night. We experienced for the first time the need to arrive early enough to a Sunday service to get a seat inside, and queuing up outside while the previous service finished! This creates a bit of a 'revolving door' feel - once the service is over, you need to leave as soon as possible so the next lot of people can come in - so it's quite difficult to get opportunities to meet and talk to people before or after the service. The after-church morning tea or supper we are used to in Sydney would be logistically and financially impossible with the numbers here! One church we have been to here might have 20,000 people attending over once weekend (Saturday night and 5 Sunday services)! As with large churches we know of in Sydney, these churches operate on a 'cell-based' structure, where people meet in smaller groups during the week, and this is how you get to know people and become part of a family of fellowship.

The atmosphere here is very different from that of Australia, where Christianity has been marginalised from the public sphere over the last few decades, especially in academia. In contrast, I have heard of lecturers here praying aloud at the beginning and end of each lecture to commit the time to God and ask for his help with the teaching and learning of the content. If I did anything like that in Australia I would likely be thrown out of the university! Here, you hardly have to convince anyone that there is a God - this is a widely acknowledged fact of life, from the city to the smallest village. The difference is in which God, god/s or spirit/s people worship.

Uganda is statistically 84% Christian, about half of which is Protestant and half Catholic. I gather that this total includes a degree of 'nominalism' (as it does in Australia) and also a degree of mixing Christianity with traditional tribal religions and ancestor worship. But, whether sincere or not, the language of faith is everywhere: from the taxi-buses that hurtle around the city with slogans such as 'God's Blessing' or 'Jesus Saves' emblazoned across the windscreen, to the Bible verses on the majority of greeting cards that you find for sale, to the way many people greet each other saying 'Praise the Lord' or 'God bless you'.

Interestingly, although only a small percentage are Muslim, some Muslim festivals are marked as public holidays (such as Idd, which was celebrated last Friday) - apparently this is a legacy of the dictatorship of Idi Amin (in office 1971-1979), who was of the Muslim faith. The majority who are not Muslim are not averse to the extra public holiday, though! It caused me to reflect on what might happen if, as the Muslim population of Australia increases, a suggestion were put forward to make some Muslim festivals public holidays. I imagine there would be considerable resistance.

Book Review: The Language of God (Francis Collins)

A few months ago I wrote that I had started reading Francis Collins’ book 'The Language of God’. I have now finished it! That took a bit longer than anticipated... So I thought I’d write a review of it, having also given a verbal review of it at training this week.

As I said in my earlier post, and as you can learn from the book’s blurb and Wikipedia, Francis Collins is trained as a physician and geneticist, and was head of the Human Genome Project which did some real ground-breaking work in the late nineties and ended up presenting the world with a complete ‘map’ of the human genome. He is now Director of the National Institutes of Health in the USA, having been appointed by Obama in 2009.

Although it’s called ‘The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief’ it’s not really about trying to prove God with scientific evidence, which can’t ever be done as far as we know. The title is a bit of a misnomer in that respect. What Collins is trying to do is explain why he believes in God and why, for him, being a scientist does not present an obstacle to faith in God. It’s an argument about the compatibility of science and faith more than an argument for faith.

The book is set out in three parts: the first section is about the perceived chasm between science and faith; the second section is about questions of human existence and Collins’ findings from the human genome project and related investigations; and the third section is on the relationship between faith and science in the past, and the options for now, highlighting that even if people insist on choosing between science and God, they are still putting faith in one or the other.

I enjoyed the way the author shared his life story (as I mentioned in my earlier post), and the way he systematically explained his scientific observations and reasons for his beliefs about God and about the world. I found it clearly written and strategically crafted, and the scientific explanations (e.g. how human DNA works) were accessible but not patronising. The crafting of the book intrigued me because, for most of the book, there is no mention of Jesus; I wondered all along “so he believes in God, but what does he think of Jesus?”. That made me quite wary of his argument, not being very sure about where he stood in relation to Jesus. It’s only at the very end of the book, when he has made a very compelling argument for his beliefs, that he finally shares his testimony about how he came to realise that Jesus was Lord, and decided to follow him.

There were several ideas and debates that I thought were set out in a helpful way, for example different world views and objections to religion, and questions about human existence. There was also an interesting discussion of historical changes in the relationship between science and faith especially in relation to discoveries that we now take for granted (e.g. the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around - a theory which brought Copernicus, its first advocate, strong criticism, and saw Galileo, a firm supporter, tried by the Roman Inquisition and put under house arrest until his death!). I also found the appendix on bioethics a very worthwhile inclusion, as it was generally well reasoned and sensible about issues that tend to be over-sensationalised in the public arena.

I did have a few reservations about the book, though. I’m not completely sold on Collins’ ideas about theistic evolution, and need to do some more investigation before I can come to my own conclusions. But I appreciate his strength of conviction and the reasoning he has gone through to get to his ‘BioLogos’ perspective on the way the organisms of the world came to be the way they are now. He is fairly critical of creationism and intelligent design, however, which has no doubt alienated a lot of Christians who identify strongly with those perspectives. I also thought that leaving his testimony right to the very end, while strategic in one sense, may mean that many readers never read it if they abandon the book part-way through (for whatever reason), and that would be a shame.

I would say it’s a worthwhile read for non-believers who are interested in reading a scientist’s testimony of their faith, as they get the science and the faith reasoned out together. It’s also a good place to go for people wanting to form a view on the evolution/creation debate - but just as one perspective. One would need to read other perspectives also, and make an informed comparison. I’ve been recommended ‘Unnatural Enemies’ by Kirsten Birkett, although this one is also from a Christian perspective.

The journey continues...

Christianity is not incompatible with multiculturalism

Last July, I blogged in response to the shocking news about Norwegian Anders Breivik, who killed around 70 of this countrymen and was unhelpfully labelled 'Christian' although his actions demonstrate otherwise and his motivations seemed rather more racial, political and fearful than religious.

This week Breivik has been facing trial in Norway for his actions (see reports from BBC, The Guardian, ABC). At one stage he was allowed to make a 30-min statement, which became 70 min! I find that rather disturbing, but I suppose if that is a right of anyone standing trial then he is entitled to it.

Apparently one of his arguments was that 'Multiculturalism is a self-destructing ideology'. He seems to think that the 'Christian minority' he is supposedly trying to defend cannot be compatible with multiculturalism. I have already argued that the labeling of Breivik as 'Christian' was unhelpful, and here we see further evidence. There is no incompatibility between Christianity and multiculturalism.

Recently I have been reading the book of Revelation, and one of the most exciting parts for me is where the writer, the apostle John, tells that he "looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with plan branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"' (Rev 7:9-10).

This is not the only place in the Bible that speaks of people from all nations coming to salvation through Jesus (the Lamb who was slain), either. Both the Old Testament (the Jewish sacred book included in the Christian Bible) and the New Testament have many references to this idea. The Old Testament tells us that when Solomon built the first temple, he prayed to God: "when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name's sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you" (1 Kings 8:41-43).

In the New Testament, we see Jesus commissioning his disciples after his resurrection. He says "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20).

There are many other places besides. I get the impression from Revelation that the final state will not be a homogeneous people all of one colour and language, but a multicultural group united in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain for every one for them no matter what their language or ethnicity. Awesome!

Christmas legends

I haven't been officially 'working' since semester finished towards the end of October, and I've found that the relative loss of structure in the week has made me much less efficient. The regularity of my blog posts has certainly suffered! But here I am, 3 days before Christmas, determined to make at least one more post before the year is out (actually I have a few more ideas up my sleeve so I might just get another one out before the end of the year!).

I've been doing a lot of carol-singing in the lead-up to Christmas this year, which is rather fun. Last night I sang in the foyer of a local RSL club with the choir I've been singing with for years. After we sang the song 'Little Donkey', I heard one of the tenors objecting that there was no mention of a donkey in Luke's gospel (which is true) but "they were all legends anyway so it doesn't matter". My hackles rose, and at that point I was struck by the combination of songs that we hear around us at Christmas, in every shopping centre and public place. There is such a mingling of truth and fiction that it's no wonder people are confused between legend and history.

From the songs we sang last night, 'Frosty the Snowman', Santa Claus' (at least the concept originating from a Coca Cola campaign of the 30s), 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' - all these are fictitious characters. And yet there are attempts in the lyrics of the songs to lend historical validity to them. 'Rudolph' is sung about in past tense as if the story is being told by an eyewitness: 'Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer had a very shiny nose, and if you ever saw it, you would even say it glows. All of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names...'. In 'Frosty the Snowman', an attempt is made to downplay they mythical sense of the story, and to invoke children as the true 'knowers': 'Frosty the snowman was a fairytale, they say. He was made of snow, but the children know how he came to life one day'. In 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town'.

Interestingly, all these songs were written in the twentieth century driven by a commercial imperative. The Wikipedia entry for Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer has this telling sentence: 'Although the story and song are not public domain, Rudolph has become a figure of Christmas folklore.' The story is 'owned' by a company, 'The Rudolph Company'! 'Frosty the Snowman' was written in 1950 and recorded by the same person who released the first recording of 'Rudolph', who, according to Wikipedia, was "in search of another seasonal hit". Frosty even has a MySpace page, which lists friends such as 'Santa' and 'SNOW', 'where children of all ages from all over the world can write to their favorite snowman' (Wikipedia)! 'Santa Claus is coming to town', after being released in November 1934, "became an instant hit with orders for 100,000 copies of sheet music the next day and more than 400,000 copies sold by Christmas".

Whatever the motivation, these and other Christmas songs (like this incredibly cheesy one I heard a while ago - Here Comes Suzy Snowflake!) have certainly captured the imagination of children in many English-speaking countries. But I worry that as the public imagination is engaged by these clearly fictional songs, the Christmas songs, both old and new, that relate the true story of Jesus (e.g. Hark the Herald Angels Sing, The First Nowell, Silent Night, Holy Lamb of God) are increasingly lumped in with the fictional 'Christmas folklore'.

There may be few historical records beyond the gospel of Luke that record and give evidence of the circumstances of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. But there are plenty of historical records to substantiate the gospel claims of Jesus' earthly works, his death, and his resurrection (see e.g. historical surveys in Morison's 'Who Moved the Stone?', Dickson's 'The Christ Files'). And by these and the Spirit of God in me, I am convinced that Jesus is the Son of God. I am therefore inclined to believe that what Luke's gospel says about Jesus' birth is more than just legend. A God who can raise someone from the dead can surely make a virgin birth happen. And A God who can do all that and who gave His Son as a gift to all people, none of whom had been 'good', is much more worthy of my attention than a snowman who dissolves when the temperature goes up, a reindeer with a glowing red nose, or an old chubby guy with a beard who gives gifts once a year to children who have been good.

Real Dialogue #2: A Review

As I wrote last week, I had the privilege of moderating a public debate at the University of New South Wales between Dr James White and Abdullah Kunde on the question of ‘Can God become a man?’. It was indeed a privilege to be part of a dialogue conducted in such a thoughtful and civilised manner on one of the central issues over which Christians and Muslims are not able to agree. The debate should be available on YouTube in the near future (I’ll post a link here).

Both speakers acknowledged the value of the debate and treated each other with great respect, with Kunde acknowledging White’s seniority in both age and academic status, and White acknowledging Kunde’s scholarship in both Hebrew and (Old Testament) Biblical studies and Medicine (of which he is still a student). Both came across as being conversant with the sacred texts of the other faith. Neither speaker seemed to approach the debate as merely an opportunity to spend time in the spotlight or provide entertainment for the audience (although it was certainly entertaining at points); rather, they treated it very seriously as an opportunity to discuss at length and bring into the open the central issues that make the incarnation of God of utmost importance to Christians and an absolute blasphemy to Muslims.

The format of the debate was:

• 20 minute opening statement from each speaker
• 15 minute rebuttals
• 10-15 minute break
• 12 minute cross-examination (2 sessions each)
• 12 minute closing statement from each speaker

It was decided that it would be more valuable to let the speakers use the whole time to say what they wanted to say and clarify each other’s views rather than allow time for audience questions. That made my job as a moderator much easier! A text record of the debate has been published by someone who was there and took notes on the proceedings, which gives you a general idea of what kinds of ideas were tabled (until the video becomes available).

As in many debates of this nature, where each speaker prepares an opening statement in advance, this debate began with the speakers talking across each other to a certain extent. White offered his formulation of the central question: ‘Does God as creator have the power, ability, capacity to join a human nature to Himself if he pleases to do so? Upon what basis can anyone say God could not do this?’ but Kunde, as the second speaker, had prepared a statement with not one central question but a large number of questions, such as ‘if Jesus has both human nature and divine nature in one being, which part of him died – the human or the divine nature - since Christians believe God cannot die?’.

There were two parts of the opening section of the debate that I found really helpful. The first was White’s argument that the doctrine of incarnation doesn’t involve ‘a fundamental change in divine essence but a fundamental change in divine experience’. That is, from a Christian point of view, the incarnation of God does not change the essence of God, only the way that God interacts with the created world. The other was Kunde’s presentation of the Islamic beliefs about the attributes of God. This helped me understand why incarnation is such a difficult concept for Muslims to accept, namely, that because one of the necessary attributes of God is that he is dissimilar to created things, he could not become a man without ceasing to be God. Obviously these two points are related, and it was this issue of whether incarnation and the essential attributes of God that became the recurring theme throughout the night.

A few other key issues that I noticed over the course of the night were:

• The nature of the Trinity, which (as I understand it) is unique to Christian theology and involves a complementary relationship between the three persons of the Godhead rather than all three acting in exactly the same way all the time. The relationship of love between the three persons is also important for explaining the obedience of the Son to the Father and the desire of the Father to glorify the Son.
• What it would mean for a human to be ‘perfect’ – complete sinlessness or complete lack of limitations (mortality, temporality, intellect, power, etc). My impression was that Kunde was arguing that sinlessness alone does not make Jesus ‘perfect’ as Christians claim, since all the Muslim messengers are considered ‘sinless’ (because God protected them from sin) but not perfect. Perfection in his view seemed to be not just sinlessness but the state of being unlimited by temporality, mortality, knowledge, bodily frailty, etc. And these are all attributes of God…
• The nature of certainty in the two faiths. Kunde argued that the Muslim faith is built on certainty, promising believers paradise, whereas the Christian faith is ‘at best’ a sandy surface. But it was never made clear what the certainty of that promise of paradise is based on, or how believers can be certain they will see paradise. Christians are also given a promise – one of eternal relationship with God – and for me that promise is a certainty for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was promised very early on in the Bible (Genesis) and reiterated throughout the Old Testament. Secondly, Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies from the OT about the one God was going to send to bring about the ultimate fulfilment of his promises. Thirdly, Jesus made it clear that the only way people could have any relationship with God the Father was through him, the Son of God, not by any good works they did, which could never be enough. They had to believe that Jesus could be (and had to be) a mediator between them (a sinner) and the Father (a Holy God who cannot abide sin). Fourthly, God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to His right hand to rule over all of creation, which demonstrates to me the credibility of Jesus’ testimony and also validates Jesus’ promise to his followers that he was going to prepare a place for them in his Father’s house and would bring them there later.

Does language matter to God?

As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field;
for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more.
But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children,
to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.
The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all. (Psalm 103:15-19)

Thus says the Psalmist. In this and other places, the Bible reminds us that we as humans are very short-lived. Although 80 years feel like a lot to us, they are but a moment compared with the eternal existence of God. And yet we matter to God, because we are his image bearers. I always find that quite humbling.

But even more fleeting than humans are the things we say. Our words come out of our mouths in a pattern of soundwaves, and then they are gone in an instant. Of course, we can now record them in writing or sound and the memory of them will last a bit longer, but in themselves they do not last.

But despite its extremely short period of existence, our language - what we say, not what language we speak - matters to God. The book of Proverbs is full of bits of wisdom about how we speak. Here are a few of them:

There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. (Proverbs 6:16-19)

The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate. (Prov 8:13)

The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth. The lips of the righteous feed many, but fools die for lack of sense. (Proverbs 10:20-21)

The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, but the perverse tongue will be cut off.
The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked, what is perverse. (Proverbs 10:31-32)

Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment. (Proverbs 12:19)

Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits. (Prov 18:21)

She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. (Prov 31:26)

Likewise, James devotes a significant amount of space in his letter (James 3:1-12) to teaching about the effects of what we say and how to make sure we love others and glorify God with our language.

And for me as a linguist, I think it's more than just the words we choose consciously, but the patterns of meanings that we 'mean', without consciously being able to choose them. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying:

You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (Matthew 12:34)

Because we are all sinful at heart (Romans 3:23) it is likely that our patterns of meaning will display our sinfulness, a lack of love for others and a lack of trust in God, even if the words we consciously or habitually choose seem good.

Soundbites and cliches (part 2)

Last week I wrote some thoughts about the unhelpful effect of media ‘soundbites’ or uses of labels in un-thought-through ways. Referring to the perpetrator of the Norwegian bombing and shootings as a ‘Christian’ in early reports added to the public misunderstanding of what Christianity is actually all about (and see this article for a comparison with the effect of 9/11 on the public perception of Muslims). It also left its legacy of giving religion sceptics a foothold to say ‘well, see? It’s not just Islam that makes people violent – it’s all religions!’ In fact, you can take religion out of the equation and it turns out that people are often just inclined to be violent and treat one another badly (compare obvious examples such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao). But I digress...

I recently rewatched some episodes of ‘The Vicar of Dibley’, which I remember enjoying watching with my family when I was younger. Now I find it rather cringe-worthy, not just in terms of the humour that often descends into the slapstick, but in terms of the way the Dibley church (including church services, the Vicar’s conduct, relationships between parishioners, and lack of knowledge of the Bible) is presented. Obviously it’s a fictional church, and the characters and storylines are designed to be humorous, but it makes me wonder why that would be considered legitimately humorous material. Fiction or not, it’s no laughing matter when people who are supposed to be followers of Jesus behave like that.

But what I think is most unhelpful, in terms of the public understanding of Christianity, is that the mismatch of the characters and storylines with biblical Christianity is not being pointed out as something funny or strange in itself. I think viewers (particularly British viewers) are supposed to feel like that community is perhaps not far from their experience at all, and so the humour comes from the caricature of people you might almost have met before or could imagine in small village life. That is, there is supposed to be a degree of closeness to reality in it to make the humour work. And because the viewers are supposed to feel like that is what village church life is like (with some exaggeration), it plants untrue and unhelpful ideas about what the life in the church of Christ is like. A much more helpful picture of church can be discovered in the pages of the Bible (especially Acts 2:42-47, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy 3-4), but few seem willing to discover it for themselves.

Currently, Australian comedian Judith Lucy is appearing in a series called ‘Judith Lucy’s Spiritual Journey’ which I haven’t seen yet (and it’s on the wrong night for me to be able to watch it) but I don’t anticipate that her treatment of Christianity will be any more helpful to those who might seriously want to know. I don’t doubt Lucy’s personal sincerity in wanting to discover the answers to her questions “Why are we here? What happens when we die? How do you find a reason to get out of bed in the morning”, but given that her spiritual journey has been produced as a television program, I can’t help but be cynical about how the religions will be presented and how much value that will have for public understanding. Entertainment, yes, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with entertainment. But entertainment based on religious exploration by those who are not in a position to properly understand or accurately present the crucial features requires critical viewing, which I fear is lacking to a large extent.

Soundbites and cliches (part 1)

One of the biggest media stories at the moment is the tragic events in Norway over the weekend. A young man (whose name I will not mention here – why give him the satisfaction?) caused the deaths of over 70 of his countrymen, apparently as an attempt to send a message to the government that he was not happy with their policy on immigration. Not just their general immigration policy, it seems, but particularly their openness to Muslim immigrants. It’s tragic that a citizen of a democratic nation felt the need to use violence to make a point rather than his democratic rights to petition the government on the issue that’s bothering him.

In early reports of the situation, the perpetrator was described as a Christian, and subsequent reports explained that he himself called himself a Christian on facebook and was aligned with the Knights Templar organisation. The use of the descriptor ‘Christian’ is very misleading and unhelpful, as most media attempts to succinctly capture a person’s character and motivations are. Apart from the likelihood that he is psychopathic, his motivations seem political and racial rather than religious. So associating him with the term ‘Christian’ is, firstly, a red herring, and secondly, a clear demonstration of the lack of understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Apparently the perpetrator himself, in the manifesto allegedly written by him, admits that he is not a ‘religious’ Christian in the sense of being a follower of Jesus and having a personal relationship with God (see this article). Rather, he aligns himself with what he calls a ‘cultural Christianity’, which seems for him to be synonymous with western democratic social values.

Yesterday, as part of my daily bible reading, I was struck by the following verses from the book of Proverbs (chapter 11, English Standard Version), which is a collection of the wise sayings attributed to King Solomon:

The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness. (verse 5)

The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the treacherous are taken captive by their lust. (verse 6)

With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor, but by knowledge the righteous are delivered. (verse 9)

By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown. (verse 11)

Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense, but a man of understanding remains silent. (verse 12)

They each speak of the foolishness and destructiveness of doing evil, or plotting against or slandering one’s neighbour. The perpetrator of the crimes in Norway would have done well to heed this wisdom as part of his ‘cultural Christianity’. In a way, they are perhaps like an ancient form of ‘soundbite’! But I would argue that they are much more constructive and contain much more wisdom than today’s media soundbites, where in the absence of the full story a guess or incomplete piece of information will suffice, and there is scant regard for the consequences of connecting that piece of information with the events.

It reminds me of a report I saw in 2005 (Sydney Morning Herald, 10th June) about a tragic house fire in Wyong on the Central Coast of NSW which claimed the lives of four young children, three of whom were brothers. The mother of the three boys who died, and whose house it was, had gone out for the evening and had left the four children with two older siblings (12 and 13 years) and a cousin. Told like that, it sounds like a terrible tragedy and the reader would be expected to feel sympathy for the mother. But that is not the way it was told, as we get the following pieces of information (among others):

Lisa Forde, a mother of eight who rents the home where five of her children live with her...

Ms Forde lived in the rented house beside the Wyong River for four years. She and Mr Shepherd walked 50 metres down the street and across the road to Wyong Bowling Recreation Club to watch the Anthony Mundine-Mikkel Kessler fight on Wednesday night.

Mr Shepherd - who was outside the house yesterday drinking a long-neck as reporters milled around - said Ms Forde had gone to check the children when the fight ended.

Mr Shepherd, who said he had served two years' jail after being convicted on drugs charges, said Ms Forde had children by four men, two of whom were in jail.

At the very end, the reporter provides some balance with a positive character reference from Ms Forde’s neighbour, "She was a real good mother who only wanted what was best for her kids. This is horrible. How can you live with something like this?" but by then the damage has been done.

Ch- Ch- Ch- Ch- Changes (again)

The new semester has begun, and the shape of my week has changed yet again. Instead of being spread across 4 courses at 3 different campuses in two different cities, I'm very thankful to be based at just one campus this time. Unfortunately it's not very close to home, so I'm going to have to start making the most of train and bus travel time for reading and thinking.

My teaching this time is entirely in a postgraduate translation studies program. I'm teaching two subjects I haven't taught before (although one is very similar to one of the ones I taught last semester) but many of the students are the same as last semester so I'm glad to be able to continue with them, get to know them a bit better, and keep trying to equip them with linguistic skills to be good translators/interpreters.

As well as teaching, I have also started a ministry apprenticeship with the Simeon Network but based at the campus I'm teaching at. Teaching part time (and deliberately less than last semester!) gives me the opportunity to spend the rest of my week doing other things, and I was glad to be offered the chance to get some training in ministry. At first, it will mainly involve participating in training sessions in theology and ministry skills like one-to-one bible reading, leading small groups, etc. I'll also help with planning and organizing Simeon Network events and eventually help run training sessions for others. My apprenticeship includes time for thinking about the nexus between my discipline and my faith, so I hope to be able to update my blog more frequently with the fruits of those thinking times.

Reason and Faith

During the Easter break I had the opportunity to read some thought-provoking online newspaper articles and their associated comments, on topics connected with religion. It's interesting that around Easter it becomes more acceptable for newspapers (including The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald, and some overseas papers) to allow Jesus to be discussed publicly. I'm thankful for the persistence of the folk at the Centre for Public Christianity (this time it was Simon Smart, John Dickson and Justine Toh getting a piece of the action) to make sure Jesus is not left out of public discussion, especially at these times.

If the truth be told, sometimes the comments are more thought provoking than the articles (not necessarily in this case). Two things particularly interested me about the comments, neither of them new phenomena. Firstly, I was appalled by the lack of respect for others shown by individuals on both sides of the divide. It must be the relative anonymity of the online comment platform that makes people feel they are free to treat others with such disdain. Would they do the same face to face?

Secondly, there is a very persistent argument from atheists that the natural consequence of education and intelligence is a break away from religion. As someone who has had the opportunity to receive many years of solid education and earn a doctoral degree, I find that a baffling claim. There are many intelligent, highly educated people who are also followers of Jesus. I meet with a group of them every week at one of the universities I work at, to read the Bible, pray, and participate in seminars about the intersection of faith and academic disciplines or academic work. There is a growing nationwide network of us who meet each year in Canberra for a national conference.

Education/reason and true faith are not mutually exclusive. The Christians I know have not been brainwashed but have spent considerable time and effort inquiring into Christianity, the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and questions of the origins of life. Some have turned from atheism to Christianity after lengthy periods of enquiry. Some have grown up in Christian families but have still had to make their own decision to continue following Jesus, and for many this involved a lot of soul searching. I did not make the decision to follow Jesus lightly, and neither did the other Christians I know. Why would we blindly choose to follow such a costly faith?

Those of us in the academy (and those in other sectors) who are followers of Jesus need to take a bold stand for Christ, making ourselves known as rational, intelligent people who put our faith in Jesus. We must be prepared to explain our reasons for the hope that we have, in order to dispel the myth that belief in God is a result of brainwashing and ignorance.

An itinerant linguist

It's now week 5 of teaching and I have more or less got used to the routine of being at a different university teaching a different subject virtually every day. Sometimes I actually find myself teaching very similar lessons but for different subjects - not because I'm recycling the same tutorial for 11 different classes, but because it happens to be relevant!

Image © Images.com/Corbis

Thankfully, I am enjoying this period of being an itinerant teacher. In that sense, it's a bit like what Jesus was doing when he was bodily on earth - travelling around primarily to teach. Of course I can't claim divine powers of healing or exorcism (that would look interesting in my tutorials...), and Jesus' teaching priority was about the kingdom of God rather than grammar, academic writing, or semiotics (although he did talk about signs a lot...). But it reminds me that moving from place to place for work is ok - if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me! At least I have the same place to go home to each night.

There is a lot of temptation for me to be discontent in this role. Tenure is, of course, the holy grail of academia, and it would be nice to be 'secure' in a job that does not rely on students numbers and universities being in teaching session. Note I said 'nice', not 'essential'.

In my home group last week we worked through 1 Corinthians 4:1-13 together, and were reminded of the stark and often uncomfortable contrast between Jesus' leadership (and Paul's, following him) and the kind of leadership the world values. The world looks up to wealth, physical strength and attractiveness (or at least good grooming), nobility, worldly wisdom, reputation, stability, and distance from the 'dirty work' of manual labour. Jesus and his apostles were weak, held in disrepute, seemingly foolish, poorly dressed, homeless, and involved in manual labour.

I can see this period of unstable and almost mercenary work as an opportunity for humility and sacrificial service. It's not 'beneath me' to work as a casual tutor, especially if Jesus didn't consider it 'beneath him' to wash his disciples' feet. I can think of the exposure it gives me to students from a range of backgrounds whom I can love and encourage and point to Jesus, my Saviour and King, when the opportunities arise. And I can see it as an opportunity to be light and salt, encouraging colleagues who are walking the same uncertain path as casuals but who don't have a great heavenly King as their hope and strength.

Media Discussions

I've been observing with interest the kind of discussion that is generated by the 'comment' function on smh online. In the ones I have observed, the comments tell us a lot about what Herald readers (at least, the ones who post comments on articles online) see as the function of the Herald in the Sydney community, and also how the issues being discussed are seen to fit into the life of the nation. On Friday, the SMH published an opinion piece by Ross Cameron (described simply as 'the former federal member for Parramatta'), entitled 'Christmas message holds true'. In it, Cameron argues that "Jesus is easily the most influential person in history, and the most universally loved", and concludes that "From whatever perspective we come, thinking people ought to be able to agree, the birth of Jesus was a good day for mankind." A bit presumptuous, perhaps, but this is an opinion piece! He doesn't explicitly state his own position on the gospel of Jesus, but says at the end that he suspects he "may never quite shake the childlike hunch that there is some uniquely divine imprint on the central individual [i.e. Jesus] of the human story." This suggests to me that he does not yet have a relationship with God through Jesus, but is open to the gospel. Interestingly, some of the commenters assume that Cameron is a Christian, with one reader commenting that "It really is unfortunate that religious figures automatically assume that 'From whatever perspective we come, thinking people ought to be able to agree, the birth of Jesus was a good day for mankind'", and another numbering Cameron with Christian apologists!

The discussion generated by this article seems to follow the pattern of most discussions on smh online around articles that mention Jesus. Non-believers and atheists tend to start the ball rolling by condemning the Herald for publishing something that mentions religion in any kind of supportive light, and issuing a challenge to any 'thinking people' to reject the 'propaganda' put out by the organised church. Believers then respond by defending Jesus against the criticisms and sometimes turning the charges of hypocrisy back on the atheists. There is a strong underlying current in the posts from unbelievers that the topic of religion should be kept out of the mainstream media and left to the private sphere, e.g. John C's comment that "Religion in Australia is probably best considered as a matter for consenting adults in private" – a view that, at one time, would have held for the topic of sex instead of religion.

Once upon a time the Herald did put forth an overtly 'Christian' (in the nominal sense, at least) worldview – some of the earliest editors (e.g. in the 1830s) were clergymen, who took the opportunity to publish sermon-like editorials. In the early 1900s (and probably before - I would have to check) the churches of Sydney had regular spots in the newspaper to publicise service times and announcements. When the end of the Boer War was reported on 3^rd June, 1902, there were very unselfconscious, matter-of-fact reports that 'the congregations in the churches in Durban sang the National Anthem', '"Now Thank we all our God" was sung at the close of the service at St Paul's and the Chapel Royal' and 'there were thanksgivings in most of the churches yesterday'. It appears that in that context it was assumed that the readers of the Herald would share this worldview that it was natural and normal to give thanks to God for the end of war and entrust the peace time to Him. That was in another time, and Sydney is now a more diverse, heterogeneous community. So it is inevitable that not every topic in the newspaper will be relevant or interesting to every member of the community, and newspapers should continue to publish articles and opinion pieces on a range of topics that are relevant to the whole cross-section of the community. But I have to disagree with a number of the unbelievers who claimed that the 'religious right' control Fairfax. A Christian worldview is not the prevailing one in the Herald, although it may be Eurocentric as some of the readers in the discussion noted.