Something to say

Why does writing on world mission often use shoddy exegesis? Here's an example for you. The gospel of Mark records Jesus' refusal to continue teaching and healing in the town of Capernaum. David and Joyce Huggett think they know why: "Jesus’ need for space, then, was urgent, and He did not hesitate to make sure He had such space, even though at times this caused Him to close His ears to cries for help and to turn away from people".1 Wheras in actual fact, if you read the very next verse, Jesus has another explanation for why he acts this way: "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come." (Mark 1:38)

My guess is that because it's a practical field, people turn on the 'common sense' part of their brain. So I hear people basing their views of the 'missionary call' on the experience of famous missionaries or guaging the rightness of a course of action solely by the effectiveness of its outcome (eg "I wouldn't normally agree with women leading churches, but there are no mature Christian men here, so it must be okay for the female missionary to lead the church.") Coming up with a Bible verse or a general Christian principle to support the decision is something of an afterthought and lacking in rigour (as the above example shows).

This sort of thinking drives me crazy! If the Bible doesn't provide any practical help for everyday life and decision-making then why are we bothering with the whole enterprise? Is it only for heaven that we are Christians?!? No!


1 D Huggett, J Huggett, "Jesus Christ: The Heart of Member Care" in K O'Donnell (ed) Doing Member Care Well (William Carey Library, 2002), 209-21.

Back home

The other day a lady was telling me about her daughter who went to Asia for work. She happened to end up living in the same city as some local women who'd been students in Australia and had become Christians during their stay. The daughter has ended up being something of a spiritual mentor and teacher to these women. What a great ministry opportunity! - going to Asia specifically to provide support and leadership to returned students! Dear reader, you should go.

The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle

Muslim people have a major issue with the very idea that God would come to earth as a man. For them Allah is so transcendent it is impossible for him to associate with people. I wonder if the book of Exodus might be a good book to share with Muslims as it's all about the awesome, terrifying and dangerous privilege of having Yahweh dwell among the people of Israel.* The Gospels also see the Jewish leaders struggling with the idea that this ordinary man from Nazareth could be a Prophet, let alone Almighty God, so they could be a good place to turn to next.


* How about these verses:
"the LORD said to him, 'Go down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the LORD and many of them perish. Even the priests, who approach the LORD, must consecrate themselves, or the LORD will break out against them.' . . . . When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die." (19:21-22; 20:18-19)

Bated breath?

Hang in there folks. I've been super-busy at college, and still am, but I've written a few draft posts and have 5 Post-It notes jammed with new ideas. Consider this a helpful exercise in delayed gratification.

Authenticity V. Perfection

Sometimes, in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it were an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark.
. . . .
The statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is [sic] those carefully prepared, scripted remarks.
Tony Abbott, being interviewed by Kerry O'Brien on the 7:30 Report, 17 May 2010

It's been fascinating to see how Tony Abbott's rise to the top of Australian political life has forced public consideration of communication and integrity. Last week it got even more interesting. For years the public has been saying that we don't trust lying politicians, and all we want is someone who will come along and just say what they really believe, without massaging the truth in an ugly attempt to win votes. Last Saturday I attended a Sydney Writers' Festival event in which the journalist Annabel Crabb criticised people like Kevin Rudd for using grey filler speech to mark time and obscure the truth. She described such speech as risk-free because the speaker never commits themself to anything in clear speech.1 Interestingly, former NSW Premier Nathan Rees then pointed out that even if politicians go the other way they lose, because - like Tony Abbott - they get accused of being volatile and unreliable.

So is this what's happened to Tony Abbott? Was The Sydney Institute's Gerard Henderson right when, on last Sunday's Insiders program, he said: "all he was saying really was there's a difference between the printed word and the spoken word, and everyone knows that's true . . . . if he's saying that the spoken word is not very precise: the spoken word is not very precise." Or was Abbott admitting that he sometimes lies when he speaks? In which case, it all becomes very postmodern - should we admire him for being honest about his dishonesty, or should we ignore the fact that he was being honest and criticise his dishonesty?

The whole issue gets still more interesting when you consider the specific issue about which Kerry O'Brien accused Abbott of backflipping. David Marr, on the same Insiders program, pointed out:

[T]his is the crucial point about the whole thing. Why couldn't he say, "We've changed our mind"? The curious thing is in the political culture of this country he chose to say "I'm occasionally a lier," rather than say, "Look we've changed our mind on the position of tax". . . . . Here is an example of where there's a big line: "We are not going to impose any new taxes". Then they decided - or Tony decided - that they were going to tax some businesses in order to pay for parental leave. Now why couldn't he say, "Kerry O'Brien, we've changed our mind on that" - because, in fact, that change of mind was not something that came in the heat of the moment. . . . . Nobody will do it. Nobody will say- and yet our whole political system is based on the notion of debate and trying to convince one another of the right position. But nobody is willing to say, "You've got a point there and we've changed our mind".

It seems as if, on the one hand, we know that politicians are just ordinary people and we want them not to try and pretend they're something they are not. We want them to be honest and authentic. Yet at the same time, we expect them to be perfect. We want them to speak honestly each time they speak and we want them to settle on a position on the first go. It looks like we're caught between that thing we Australians know so well - that no-one's perfect - and a strange desire for a better man. I think there's good in both and I think it will always be a messy business. Ultimately, I think what we're looking for is something truely Good, but a good that doesn't pretend the stuff-ups and shortcomings aren't there. Maybe I'm drawing a long bow, but I think the impossible expectations we place on our politicians reveal our nation's yearning for Jesus.

1 22 May 2010, 'Programmatic Specificity We Can Believe In'

Sydney photos - this way

Sydney photos - that way