Barefoot in the wilderness
in search of understanding

Jim Baen has died

It’s not a name that everyone knows, but Jim Baen, founder of Baen books died this week. There’s an obituary at David Drake’s. I suppose I can muster three reasons why he’s worth mentioning here. First, he published a lot of good books that I’ve enjoyed reading. Second, he was a huge proponent of publishing books in electronic format – and not encrypting them. The combination of these two things has meant I’ve read some stuff I’d not otherwise have bothered with, but really enjoyed. Despite the fact that many publishers have struggled greatly with electronic publishing, Jim Baen’s open and honest approach (he felt that encryption just got in the way of people actually reading the books) led to Baen Books making plenty of cash from it. Indeed, they’ve got a substantial free library of ebooks to download and read; obviously, the idea is that you’ll like them and buy other books by the same authors. I know I did!

The third thing is just one of those little coincidences – we share a birthday, 28 years apart.

pax et bonum

Prostitution collapses during World Cup

Well, here’s some good news, at least: prostitution around the World Cup has been far less than normal, rather than having been boosted by all the tourists. There had been predictions that as many as 40,000 prostitutes would enter Germany for the occasion, and the 650-booth “sex stadium” had been constructed near one of the football stadia. But everyone’s been too busy drinking and watching football. Who’d have thought we’d be grateful for that?

(_Thanks to Mike at WorD for the tip._)

pax et bonum

Online safety?

The Register has a good opinion piece about online safety. In particular, the current case in which a 14-year-old is suing MySpace because she was allegedly assaulted by a man she met in one of their chatrooms. Setting aside the merits of this particular case (for example, she lied about her age, and the man she’s alleging assaulted her was 19), the article makes some excellent points about the way some people treat the Internet.

Parents often think their teen is safe while using MySpace. It would be nice to see how long that argument lasted if your kids got into trouble in the local pub. The difference is that we know the pub is a dodgy place to be, and we don’t let underage people go there unsupervised.
So why are people trying to use the internet as a baby-sitting service? There are a lot of places where it isn’t safe to leave unsupervised kids. The TV isn’t a babysitter, the pub isn’t a creche, and the internet isn’t a safe place where innocent and naive people can be allowed to operate unsupervised either. Why are we trying to pretend it can be?...
Somehow, the seductive idea seems to have been accepted that the problem of dangerous criminals on the net can be solved by technology. A browser, people feel, can be programmed to ensure that innocent eyes see no naked skin – or at least, not skin covering certain parts of the body. Or a website can be programmed to check the birth certificates of people who claim to be 1(8) years old, and verify it.
Like most instinctive, intuitive approaches to computer security, this is insane.

Worth thinking about, I think.

pax et bonum

Some new frills

I’ve been adding a few new frills to this blog. On each article’s entry page, you’ll now see buttons to track comments using co.mments, a nice site that tracks the comments to any blog article you like, rather like an RSS feed aggregator. Unlike some other sites, though, you don’t need to have comments on the blog yourself, and it harvests the data from most blogs that I’ve come across very successfully, even if they don’t publish a comments RSS feed.

You’ll also see a button to add a page to your del.icio.us bookmarks list. This is a well-known site that effectively gives you a bookmarks list that you can access from and PC, and also share with other people. As an example of this sharing, I’ve also now updated my Links tab (from the menu at the top of this screen) to use my del.icio.us bookmarks. Also, provided I remember, I’ll be sharing the blog posts I’m commenting on in a similar way, in the Comments tab. However, the one thing that co.mments doesn’t (yet) do is let you do this sharing, so this is also courtesy of del.icio.us!

Happy surfing!

pax et bonum

G8 failing to make poverty history

Ekklesia reports that, one year on, the promises of the G8 leaders are fading memories.

G8 leaders vowed to make trade work for development at World Trade Organisation but over the last year poorer countries have instead been squeezed out of talks and their demands dismissed…Developing countries are facing aggressive demands from G8 countries to open their agricultural markets. At the same time their proposals to be able to protect their vulnerable producers are being fiercely resisted.

pax et bonum

NHS IT programme "on budget"

The Register is reporting that the huge NHS IT project the UK Government is running has cost twice what was projected. But, apparently, this doesn’t mean that it’s gone over budget.

The £6.2bn National Programme for IT will henceforward be known as the £12.4bn National Programme for IT, after a long-awaited National Audit Office report into the ambitious NHS IT scheme revealed the full extent of its costs to date.
But the Department of Health always knew it was going to cost as much as £12.5bn, it said today, even in those days when it said the programme was going to cost half as much.
Moreover, it insisted today, that the doubled price tag did not mean that the Programme has gone over-budget…
“The NAO has confirmed the cost has not overrun,” he said. And anyway, the costs were not important.

So, either they were lying when they were saying that the budget was £6.2bn (knowing full well that it would cost at least twice that) or we’ve entered some strange world in which budgets are retrospectively declared to be whatever we find convenient at the moment – which renders them totally irrelevant.

If nothing else, all this shows once again that the UK Government can’t run IT projects, especially big ones, and keep them on time or on budget. Anyone heard anything recently about the UK Police’s National Firearms Register, now passed its tenth anniversary and still not rolled out?

pax et bonum

Rewarding success?

Tony at Storyteller’s World has some thoughts on “the nettle of the super-rich, and … the growing inequalities in enjoyment of the nation’s wealth.“

The failure of any of the political parties to propose higher rates of tax for the super-rich, is allegedly because they are reluctant to “penalise success”. This is crap. And it will always be crap until a successful nurse or teacher or refuse collector or shop assistant has the same opportunities to “earn” ridiculous salaries as the million pound a year lawyers, footballers, entertainers and businessmen

Indeed. When did we, as a culture, start regarding “earning lots of money” as “success”? And has no one noticed that this is tautologous – someone is a success because they earn lots of money, and they earn lots of money because they’re a success?

pax et bonum

Guantanamo suicides

I was disturbed this morning to hear on the radio that three men have committed suicide at Guantanamo Bay. Not disturbed that they had done this – the only new thing is that they succeeded; there have reportedly been dozens of attempted suicides of the past few years. No, what disturbed me was the reaction of the camp commander. Instead of accepting any responsibility, instead of making any statements of regret, instead of even offering sympathy to their families and friends, instead of any of these things, he described the event as “an act of war”. Now, whether we regard the “War on Terror” as any real sort of a war, this is inappropriate in the extreme. Even if it was primarily an act designed to shame the USA, it’s still a tragedy that this could happen.

Update
Ekklesia is reporting related news.

Clive Stafford-Smith [an international human-rights lawyer and head of the anti-death-penalty charity Reprieve] said that such a response “beggars belief”.

Also, in related news, US evangelical leaders have joined a joint statement by 27 American religious leaders calling for an end to the use of torture as part of US policy.

What is particularly significant about the initiative is that it has the endorsement of leading evangelicals – who some believe are more likely to catch the ear of President Bush and his advisers than ecumenical, mainstream and inter-religious voices.

pax et bonum

Rock, paper, scissors

Fed up with listening to two lawyers bicker for weeks over where to interview a witness in a civil lawsuit, US district judge Gregory Presnell decided to set a precedent by ordering the pair to settle the matter with a game of scissors, paper, stone…He decreed that at 4pm on June 30, David Pettinato and L Craig Lee would leave their rhetorical skills in court and rely instead on their powers of prediction and digital manipulation to resolve the argument…
The USA Rock Paper Scissors League described the decree as “a positive moment for the world” and offered to send representatives to referee the confrontation. “We will make sure that rock, paper scissors is not made a mockery of by the legal system,”

(_From The Guardian Unlimited, thanks to Anne for the link._)

pax et bonum

iTunes in Norway

It might not sound like much from the title, but it could have ramifications. And, I believe, it’s a first step towards sensible rules governing downloaded music. The Register is reporting that the Norwegian consumer protection Ombudsman has found that iTunes is guilty of breaking Norwegian law. One part is that it’s unreasonable to make Norwegians sign an agreement that they’ll be governed by English law. Fair enough. But the other parts are, I think, worthy of wider note:

[The Ombudsman said that] iTunes must accept responsibility for damage its software may do, and said it is unreasonable to alter terms and conditions after a song has been sold.

Both of those are very common in the world of software, and both are utterly unreasonable. We wouldn’t accept it if car makers disclaimed all responsibility for damage that their cars might do, so why do we let software manufacturers get away with it? And as for altering terms and conditions after sale? That’s just plain silly. And yet most of the legal download services enforce such terms as this – they claim that, after you’ve paid for the music and at any time of their choosing, they can change how often, where or on what devices you can play it. It’s a strange world in which we let companies get away with such blatant abuse.

pax et bonum

Google Spreadsheets

Following on from Google’s purchase of Writely (the web-based word processor), we now have Google Spreadsheets. This is a spreadsheet application that runs in your browser (no need to install anything) and that lets you access your data anywhere. Even better, like Writely, it lets you work collaboratively – several people can have the same document open at the same time, changing things. The application fits all the changes together. Try doing that in MS Office! No “read-only” mode here.

So, that’s the word processor and the spreadsheet in web-based versions. What’s next? GoogleOffice could become a reality…

pax et bonum

Christian Carnival CXXVIII

The latest Christian Carnival is up at Cadmusings. It’s an interesting selection!

pax et bonum

The narrow door

Following from my recent post discussing some of the reasons for spreading the net of salvation widely, it’s time to mention one of the passages that works the other way – that says that not all will be saved. The Gospel reading in Morning Prayer today included Luke 13:22-30.

Jesus went through one town and village after another, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, ‘Lord, will only a few be saved?’ He said to them, ‘Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. When once the owner of the house has got up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, “Lord, open to us”, then in reply he will say to you, “I do not know where you come from.” Then you will begin to say, “We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.” But he will say, “I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!” There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.’

Now, there’s lots of good stuff in there, but a couple of thoughts struck me. The first follows obviously from that earlier post – just as there are passages in the Bible that clearly support universal salvation, so there are passages that clearly support the idea that “only a few will be saved”. And, again, I believe that the answer here is not to choose one side or the other, but to live with the paradox. What’s interesting here, though, is that Jesus turns the question round on the questioner. Asked the question “will only a few be saved?”, Jesus turns the answer round: “You will be turned away”. The questioner may well have been asking “will only the Jews be saved, or will others be saved also?”, and Jesus says “Many Jews will be turned away, but the Gentiles will enter in.”

What particularly struck me this morning, though, was this idea of the narrow door. Whenever I’ve heard this talked about, it’s usually along the lines of it being difficult to find or enter through. But I think that this totally misses the mark. This house, remember, is a large house – a palace, even – for it is the Kingdom of God. Grand houses have several entrances. There’s the wide door, which is for honoured guests, friends and relatives. And there’s the narrow door, which is the servants’ entrance. And this is what I think Jesus was talking about (and what would have been the obvious interpretation for his listeners). If we are to enter the Kingdom, we must not seek to enter through the wide door of honour, but through the narrow door of servitude and dishonour.

Many will try to enter the house, Jesus says, but will not be able to. That is, I think, they will not be able to enter the wide door, for no human being is worthy to enter God’s Kingdom as of right. The fact that God came out of the house into the streets of the town, and ate and drank with us, doesn’t mean that we can enter through that wide door. No, God came and told us that the narrow door is open to all who are willing to enter through it. For us, the way in is through humility and service, and what we can expect to find inside the Kingdom is hard work. But here is also a Master who cares for His servants, so we will eat and drink once our work is done. And people from the East and West, the North and South, will come together at this table together in the assurance that their work has pleased their Master.

pax et bonum

USA out?

So, Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) has issued his statement after the Episcopal Church in the USA held its General Convention. I’ve admittedly not had the chance to read this (long!) document myself yet but, from early reports, it sounds like the Episcopal Church will not in future be in full membership of the Anglican Communion. (Although it will almost certainly get an invitation to the next Lambeth Conference in a few years, and their new Presiding Bishop Katharine Schori will be at the Primates Meetings, so nothing’s certain.) I have to say that, sorry as I am to see this split occurring (and it’s not a good thing to have to witness), I’m actually more worried about the churches and leaders who are still “in”. In particular, there are certain African bishops who (it seems to me) embody the Spirit of Christ far less than the troubled Episcopal Church. It was undoubtedly foolish of the Episcopal Church to elect a bishop who was in an active committed gay relationship before the Episcopal Church itself had decided to start officially blessing such relationships. But it is surely more foolish to support (enthusiatically!) laws effectively banning even the discussion of homosexuality, or to make statements promising violence against Muslims, or to ignore the plight of the poor, or to play party politics.

On this ship of fools, can we all really stay the course?

pax et bonum

The American way

The Guardian has an interesting comment article on the current state of the Anglican Communion. This comes in the wake of the Episcopal Church of America’s recent General Convention, at which it was asked to and did apologise for offending the sensibilities of other churches worldwide by ordaining a gay bishop three years ago.

The American church is to be commended for quietly carrying on with its life. The entire Anglican communion has risen up against it, Lambeth Palace included. But it has chosen to maintain its dignity. Last week Katharine Jefferts Schori became the first woman leader of an Anglican church anywhere in the world when she was appointed to head the US Episcopalian church and said there should be “room at the table” for gay and lesbian members of the church.
Meanwhile in Britain, those of us who supported Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury still dream that he will reveal his masterplan for establishing the open, liberal church in which he and we used to believe. Then we look at the realities emerging over the last five years and the dream disappears.
The official line is that we are engaged in a listening process. Both sides – the liberal Americans and the homophobic Africans – were asked to apologise. Everyone was asked to listen to the experience of gay people, so that we might learn and move forward together. In the meantime, there were to be no more gay bishops, and parishes or individuals who could not bear the liberal regime in their own area could apply to a new international commission for special anti-homosexual pastoral care.
America complied, apologising for the hurt that it might have caused to others by its actions. It agreed that for now there would be no new bishops at all, gay or otherwise. The Africans issued no apology, denounced all gays and liberals once again, and crowed at their success in establishing the commission.

(Thanks to Father Jake for the tip.)

pax et bonum

Who killed Jesus?

Sven continues his excellent look at the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and how they relate to God’s justice and our salvation.

God’s justice is not simply aligned towards the guilty perpetrators of sin, but it is also orientated towards the victims of sin… This is not the justice that is pitted against the divine desire to save, but rather it is the justice that saves. God is the Judge, but this does not simply mean that “he must punish sin.” What is does mean is that God must also undo the damage caused by sin… For his justice to be truly established, he has to go further and not only eradicate the sin, but also transform the nature of the sinner…
As our Great High Priest and the head of the human race, [Christ] turns us back to the God that we have rejected. On our behalf, he undergoes the baptism for repentance and is faithful to God in everything. Yet as one of us, he also comes under the judgment that is part of the human lot. Crucially, unlike all the human race before him, when confronted with the divine judgment, he does not rebel, he obeys… Christ does not shirk the judgment. In perfect obedience he says “Amen” and goes to his death. God has become flesh and taken his own judgment upon himself…
The reason for the judgment upon Christ is not to balance the universal equation between divine holiness and divine love, or simply because God will not tolerate sin. The judgment is simultaneously an act of love and holiness and justice because it will ultimately lead to the overthrow of sin and death, and the end of man as a sinner and the beginning of his holiness. It is a just judgment because it will put things to rights.

pax et bonum

The urge to separate

There’s a lot of fuss and noise in the Church at the moment about schism. Especially given the current tensions in the Anglican Communion over the ordination of women and gay people, and the possible separation between the Episcopal Church in the USA and the African churches over the Americans’ election of a gay bishop (and the election yesterday of a woman as Presiding Bishop – the head of the Episcopal Church). And it strikes me that the main problem isn’t homosexuality, or women’s ordination, or authority, or biblical exegesis, or any of the usual candidates. No, the main problem at the moment is arrogance.

(click for more)

Words to the wise

Sven has posted a list of ten Christian teachings that are sadly lacking in much online discourse. And what’s particularly interesting is that a Christianity without these characteristics seems curiously to be lacking Christ-like-ness.

pax et bonum

Who killed Jesus?

Given various recent discussions of the subject on the web, Sven has a nice explanation of why it’s both incorrect and harmful to our theology to say that “God killed Jesus”.

One of my problems with Adrian’s summary of the Gospel is that apart from anything else, it does not mention the resurrection of Jesus. Take the resurrection out of the Gospel, and not only does it cease to make sense, but there is no Gospel at all…
The central question in the discussion seems to be the question of the wrath of God [but] Mankind’s “biggest problem” is not, in the first instance, the wrath of God: it is idolatry…We might consider the example of Israel in the Exile. Being in Babylon was not their “biggest problem”, their chief problem was the idolatry and rejection of God that had brought them there in the first place.

pax et bonum

Mustard

Sitting in church this morning, listening to the Gospel, a thought struck me (remarkable, but it does happen sometimes!). The reading was a parable – the parable of the mustard seed.

He also said, ‘With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.’

What suddenly struck me about this was that I’ve always heard this parable conflated with the other mustard-seed parable: “For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, “Move from here to there”, and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.“ That is, in the top passage, “the mustard seed” is assumed to be our faith, and that God will make it and the Kingdom grow until it is the largest of all plants.

But what I think this passage is talking about is Israel. God chose Abraham, the “smallest seed”, and has grown him into a great nation. And, importantly, that the birds of the air will come and rest in it. (Of course, the seed here may also be Jesus, founding the new Israel, but the point remains.) So, what this parable seems to be about is saying that God has chosen Israel and made it grow so that the Gentiles may come and rest in her. For what else can the birds of the air be? The tiny seed has grown out of all proportion (mustard is usually a small plant) and become the place that all nations come together in peace.

And one other point that our vicar mentioned in his sermon is that mustard was probably chosen deliberately. Not just because it has a small seed, though – many plants have small seeds. If we look at the immediately preceding verses, we see that it’s a parable about the Kingdom being like wheat, a good food crop. Mustard, though, is a weed. It steals resources from the main crop to grow; just so, perhaps, the Kingdom lurks within the world.

pax et bonum

Women priests in the CofE

Maggi pointed me to this excellent lecture by Vivienne Faull, Dean of Leicester Cathedral and one of the most senior women in the CofE.

I believe that the time has come for the Synod to vote on the Reception of women priests and declare unequivocally that, at the level of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, the orders of women priests are valid…Those who in conscience cannot accept that fact no longer represent the mind of the church.

It’s an excellent read, and I’ve quoted more extensively from it below.

(click for more)

God fails to save idiot in lion enclosure

The Register report a sad story of a man killed by lions in a zoo in Kiev.

An official at the zoo said: “The man shouted ‘God will save me, if he exists’, lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions.”
The man got his answer when an affronted lioness grabbed him by the throat and killed him in front of horrified visitors. The official helpfully explained: “A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery.”

This “God will save me, if he exists” thing smacks of putting God to the test – echoing the story of Daniel in the lions’ den. But it’s missing the point of the Daniel story. Daniel didn’t enter the lions’ den to test whether God would save him. Nor, for that matter, did he choose to enter the den at all. Daniel was condemned to death for worshipping God. After Daniel had already demonstrated his commitment and faith, he was thrown to the lions. We aren’t even told that he expected to survive – King Darius asked Daniel’s God to save him, but we don’t find Daniel hoping at all.

The point is, here, that surviving the lions isn’t what Daniel hoped for. He faced death because he worshipped God determinedly – with no expectation of survival. That’s the message of the story, not that we should face lions and expect to survive.

pax et bonum

For one and all?

I’ve occasionally been involved in discussions about the nature of the atonement – specifically, whether Jesus died for everyone, or just for a few (the elect). Usually, one finds Calvinists and other folks who believe in predestination going for the latter, and Arminians and other folks who believe in the primacy of the human will going for the former. The debate is, essentially, about whether Jesus’ death accomplished the potential for anyone to be saved, or whether it accomplished the salvation of a few.

(click for more)

Feeding the hungry

Father Jake offered some thoughts yesterday on US National Hunger Awareness Day.

There is a tendency among programs reaching out to the poor to separate the “worthy” and “unworthy” poor. [However, we] have a bias for the poor, not because they are worthy or unworthy, but because they are deserving of the dignity and respect of a creation of God. We do not feed the hungry because they are worthy, but because they are human, and thus children of God.
We do not feed the hungry because we are good people…
We do not feed the hungry because we believe we can make this a better world…
We feed the hungry because Jesus told us to do so…Sometimes, simple is best. Jesus cared for the hungry. Christians care for the hungry.

pax et bonum

The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism

Maggi pointed out this rather amusing Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism. In case you’re wondering, it’s a riff on the old catechisms – basic question-and-answer outlines of the Christian faith. But this one’s…biased. And rather funny

pax et bonum

Lava Lamp

Dekhomai linked to this computer-based aid to prayer: the Lava Lamp. You click on blobs of wax, type your prayer in, then let it go on its way. Kind of cool

pax et bonum

Staying together

Father Tobias of In a Godward Direction has written an excellent piece at Episcopal Life, emphasising how central it is to Anglican identity that we stay together not because we are the same but despite the fact that we’re different.

To listen to some folks these days, one would think that consensus was the cornerstone of Anglican identity. On the contrary, in the past the genius of Anglicanism has been the ability to stay together in the same church even with serious disagreements on core matters of faith. The classical Anglican settlement emerged, after all, in response to strong theological differences about the Eucharist itself…The question [now] should not be, “How do we split?” — but, “How do we stay together?” — for better, for worse.
I raise that matrimonial language with due seriousness. Whenever dissension threatens a relationship, there is a temptation to take the easy way out and end it…What if we removed ecclesiastical divorce from the table, even as an option? What if we were to agree on one thing: that we have to stay together even if we disagree about other things? What kind of accommodations might we work out?

He also writes:

An additional thought came to mind early this morning, in relation to the civil rights movement…To put it bluntly, I am willing to stay on the back of the bus. I am willing to accept the reality that my ministrations as a priest would not be acceptable in parts of the Anglican Communion, even in parts of the Episcopal Church. As long as I get where I need to go, the back of the bus works for me…The problem at present is that I get the feeling that some in the front of the bus don’t want me on the bus at all. They’d rather I walk. What I ask of them is a willingness to let me stay on the bus. I am not asking them to leave; I am only asking them to let me stay. Because I believe the bus is going where we all want to go.

pax et bonum

Things that aren't in the Bible

I’ve just been reminded of how unlovingly Christians can treat one another. A certain fairly prominent American teacher has been sending emails to various people, baldly telling them (explicitly) that they’re in league with the devil and are condemned to Hell. His basis for this claim (and his appalling rudeness)? The fact that these people don’t think that penal substitution is the be-all and end-all of biblical teaching about the atonement. Now, these letters to one side, it still amazes me that some people believe that penal substitution is both the model taught in the Bible and a complete description of the atonement. Neither of these is true, for very obvious and trivial reasons.

(click for more)