Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
- Robert Frost (1920)
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
To Kill a Mockingbird
After spending a fair period of time in 19th century Europe, I've decided to cross the Atlantic and travel forward in time a century to read "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee. I know that I've made some fairly critical comments about 20th century literature in the past, but I'm really enjoying this book. I'm about a hundred or so pages through "To Kill a Mockingbird" so far and I'm really enjoying what I am reading. In particular, the narrative of the story through the eyes of a six year old girl is a particularly interesting approach, considering that innocence and ignorance are two major themes the author is trying to convey.
It's also worth recognising the comparative youth of America as a nation and the framing narratives around which American identity derives its existence. It is perhaps for this reason that the whole "coming of age" paradigm seems to be so prominent in the history of American literature. Youth, innocence and the corruption thereof seem to be fairly standard metaphors for the development of the collective American conscience. It is interesting in this respect that there seems to be a dearth of these paradigms in European literature, which seems to focus upon much broader metanarratives. Perhaps the whole "coming of age" genre is idiosyncratically American partly due to the strong emphasis on individualism in American culture.
I must admit that I haven't read a great deal of Australian literature yet, but I suspect that the abovementioned paradigm would also exist, albeit with somewhat of a colonial twist. From the little that I know, the Australian environment seems to be a prominent feature of our literature. Again, the harshness of the Australian environment is a profoundly apt metaphor for our history, especially with respect to our indigenous brothers and sisters. The wounds of history are still quite deep at present, so I suspect that perhaps the best Australian work may be some decades away, hopefully when the legacy of our past can be looked upon in proper perspective.
It's also worth recognising the comparative youth of America as a nation and the framing narratives around which American identity derives its existence. It is perhaps for this reason that the whole "coming of age" paradigm seems to be so prominent in the history of American literature. Youth, innocence and the corruption thereof seem to be fairly standard metaphors for the development of the collective American conscience. It is interesting in this respect that there seems to be a dearth of these paradigms in European literature, which seems to focus upon much broader metanarratives. Perhaps the whole "coming of age" genre is idiosyncratically American partly due to the strong emphasis on individualism in American culture.
I must admit that I haven't read a great deal of Australian literature yet, but I suspect that the abovementioned paradigm would also exist, albeit with somewhat of a colonial twist. From the little that I know, the Australian environment seems to be a prominent feature of our literature. Again, the harshness of the Australian environment is a profoundly apt metaphor for our history, especially with respect to our indigenous brothers and sisters. The wounds of history are still quite deep at present, so I suspect that perhaps the best Australian work may be some decades away, hopefully when the legacy of our past can be looked upon in proper perspective.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Madame Bovary
A few nights ago I finished Madame Bovary, the infamous 1857 novel by Gustave Flaubert. It took me a little while to get into the book, but once I did, I realised that it was well worth the effort. Flaubert's use of language and imagery is very clever, but there were times when it was so subtle I was only able to appreciate the significance of what was going on with the benefit of hindsight. That said, the novel gave me plenty to think about.
In short, the novel is about a middle-class woman who has because bored with her provincial life and her rather dull husband. In search of excitement, she throws herself into two love affairs, seeks to purchase pretty things well beyond her means, and seeks to escape by reading literature of graduating intensity, starting with fairly innocuous women's fashion magazines and ending with violent pornography. In particular, it is her debts which cause her the most trouble, culminating in the financial ruin of both her and her family. The story gets more depressing from there, but I don't want to spoil the plot too much.
Perhaps the most interesting theme that is explored in the novel is that of fantasy and reality. In many respects, this novel seems to be a forerunner for novels of more recent vintage - the best example being "Requiem For a Dream". Each character in "Madame Bovary" seems to have their particular dreams which may or may not accord with reality. In Emma Bovary's case, it leads to disaster. In the case of Homais, it leads to a somewhat affected narcissism and this character convinces himself that he is more worthy and thus more self-entitled than those around him. Charles Bovary, the least ambitious of all of the characters, has found his dream in Emma Bovary and can imagine nothing else being necessary in life. While this contentment seems to be positive, it also blinds Charles to the deceit that is occurring around him, and the precarious nature of his financial position. Ignorance is not always bliss, especially when one wakes up from his or her hangover.
The whole exploration of fantasy and reality also reflects Flaubert's enduring contribution to the history of literature. If early nineteenth century European literature is guilty of anything, it is its overly romanticised and saccharine nature. Flaubert's novel is a landmark in that unlike the literature of his predecessors, it produces a story of gritty and perhaps even jarring reality. While even today the romanticism of the "Hollywood ending" is popular, the realism of "Madame Bovary" was quickly reflected in classic works such as Fyodor Dostoevsky's "The Idiot" (1869) and Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" (1877). In this respect, Flaubert was able to produce a work which ushered in an era in which literature would be not merely a form of escapism, but could rather be a sharp criticism of contemporary society.
In short, the novel is about a middle-class woman who has because bored with her provincial life and her rather dull husband. In search of excitement, she throws herself into two love affairs, seeks to purchase pretty things well beyond her means, and seeks to escape by reading literature of graduating intensity, starting with fairly innocuous women's fashion magazines and ending with violent pornography. In particular, it is her debts which cause her the most trouble, culminating in the financial ruin of both her and her family. The story gets more depressing from there, but I don't want to spoil the plot too much.
Perhaps the most interesting theme that is explored in the novel is that of fantasy and reality. In many respects, this novel seems to be a forerunner for novels of more recent vintage - the best example being "Requiem For a Dream". Each character in "Madame Bovary" seems to have their particular dreams which may or may not accord with reality. In Emma Bovary's case, it leads to disaster. In the case of Homais, it leads to a somewhat affected narcissism and this character convinces himself that he is more worthy and thus more self-entitled than those around him. Charles Bovary, the least ambitious of all of the characters, has found his dream in Emma Bovary and can imagine nothing else being necessary in life. While this contentment seems to be positive, it also blinds Charles to the deceit that is occurring around him, and the precarious nature of his financial position. Ignorance is not always bliss, especially when one wakes up from his or her hangover.
The whole exploration of fantasy and reality also reflects Flaubert's enduring contribution to the history of literature. If early nineteenth century European literature is guilty of anything, it is its overly romanticised and saccharine nature. Flaubert's novel is a landmark in that unlike the literature of his predecessors, it produces a story of gritty and perhaps even jarring reality. While even today the romanticism of the "Hollywood ending" is popular, the realism of "Madame Bovary" was quickly reflected in classic works such as Fyodor Dostoevsky's "The Idiot" (1869) and Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" (1877). In this respect, Flaubert was able to produce a work which ushered in an era in which literature would be not merely a form of escapism, but could rather be a sharp criticism of contemporary society.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Honourable Paedophile?
In response to my recent post about Calvinist soteriology, Craig asked an excellent question, the answer to which I believe deserves its own blog entry. Responding to my criticism that Calvinists seem to believe that coming to the wrong conclusion on homosexuality is a "hanging offence", Craig asks:
The first thing is should point out is that at least on one level, the evangelical schema does not make any distinction between different types of sin. According to the evangelical schema, the 7 year-old who disobeys his parents is no less under the judgment of God than the fully grown adult who molests him, for both have sinned and as evangelicals are quick to assert, "the wages of sin is death". It is simply that something like child molestation is something that causes a profoundly greater sense of moral outrage in most people.
With the abovementioned consideration taken into mind, I feel that I am more effectively able to answer the questions that Craig asks me. So to take each question separately:
Would this cause you a problem?
The first thing to point out is that child molestation troubles me greatly. Obviously, it is a criminal offence - and so it should be, regardless of whether or not the perpetrator is aware of the gravity of his or her offence. This is because one of the objects of the criminal law is protect potential victims, as well as to punish offenders. This said, if an individual was truly unaware of the gravity of his or her actions in this respect, this consideration might be considered a mitigating factor at sentence, although its also possible that the lack of remorse could be considered to be an aggravating factor.
To get back to the theological side of the equation, I don't see how the existence of a child molester who was unaware of the sinfulness of his or her behaviour should alter my original concern that if ignorance of one sin should be a hanging offence, that ignorance of any sin, no matter how seemingly malign, would also be a hanging offence. That is, if we insist that the child molester who is unaware that he is sinning but calls himself a Christian in good faith is in actual fact unrepentant, we would have to conclude that the person who disregarded the scriptural exhortation to head coverings would be unrepentant if it turned out that the had got the wrong end of the stick on this issue. Both are sinning despite their ignorance, and thus both are under the judgment of God in the evangelical schema.
Would you have some doubt about their salvation?
The issue, as I see it, is not whether I have doubt about their salvation, but whether I can emphatically state that a person cannot simultaneously be a child molester and a Christian, just as most Calvinists seem to emphatically state that a person cannot be homosexual and Christian at the same time. At this point, I'd like to remark that I find any moral equation of consentual adult homosexuality to child molestation deeply distasteful and I shall have to assume that Craig was not meaning to relate the two concepts in this manner. But to digress from this observation, who am I to make the emphatic declaration that anyone who claims to be a Christian, even a child molester, is not who he or she claims to be? It could very well be that their declaration of ignorance is a facade, but how am I to make this assessment? I must admit that most of the time I have enough trouble trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling to make declarations on the spiritual status of others. Quite simply, it is God alone who is capable and entitled to make a judgment of the hearts of people, and anything that I should think cannot be but mere speculation and profoundly irrelevant.
I should say in closing that the point of my previous post is to highlight what I see as the inconsistency in Calvinist praxis with respect to doctrinal disagreement. Quite often, they seem to be quite happy to believe that their sweet, but racist grandmother was still a Christian because her racism needs to be understood in the context of the era in which she lived. They are happy to believe that their loving, but slightly sexist father was still a Christian because he lived in a culture where he simply didn't know any better. But, presuming that homosexuality is a sin, they are not willing to extend the same grace to the gay man who honestly believes in the propriety of his sexual orientation. Why this seemingly obvious inconsistency? What is it about homosexuality that makes it the one great, unforgivable sin to Calvinists?
Let's take another example. Say someone searched their conscience and the Scriptures, and told you that molesting young children was ok, and so they were going to continue doing that, as well as proclaiming they were a practicing Christian.
Would this cause you a problem? Would you have some doubt about their salvation?
The first thing is should point out is that at least on one level, the evangelical schema does not make any distinction between different types of sin. According to the evangelical schema, the 7 year-old who disobeys his parents is no less under the judgment of God than the fully grown adult who molests him, for both have sinned and as evangelicals are quick to assert, "the wages of sin is death". It is simply that something like child molestation is something that causes a profoundly greater sense of moral outrage in most people.
With the abovementioned consideration taken into mind, I feel that I am more effectively able to answer the questions that Craig asks me. So to take each question separately:
Would this cause you a problem?
The first thing to point out is that child molestation troubles me greatly. Obviously, it is a criminal offence - and so it should be, regardless of whether or not the perpetrator is aware of the gravity of his or her offence. This is because one of the objects of the criminal law is protect potential victims, as well as to punish offenders. This said, if an individual was truly unaware of the gravity of his or her actions in this respect, this consideration might be considered a mitigating factor at sentence, although its also possible that the lack of remorse could be considered to be an aggravating factor.
To get back to the theological side of the equation, I don't see how the existence of a child molester who was unaware of the sinfulness of his or her behaviour should alter my original concern that if ignorance of one sin should be a hanging offence, that ignorance of any sin, no matter how seemingly malign, would also be a hanging offence. That is, if we insist that the child molester who is unaware that he is sinning but calls himself a Christian in good faith is in actual fact unrepentant, we would have to conclude that the person who disregarded the scriptural exhortation to head coverings would be unrepentant if it turned out that the had got the wrong end of the stick on this issue. Both are sinning despite their ignorance, and thus both are under the judgment of God in the evangelical schema.
Would you have some doubt about their salvation?
The issue, as I see it, is not whether I have doubt about their salvation, but whether I can emphatically state that a person cannot simultaneously be a child molester and a Christian, just as most Calvinists seem to emphatically state that a person cannot be homosexual and Christian at the same time. At this point, I'd like to remark that I find any moral equation of consentual adult homosexuality to child molestation deeply distasteful and I shall have to assume that Craig was not meaning to relate the two concepts in this manner. But to digress from this observation, who am I to make the emphatic declaration that anyone who claims to be a Christian, even a child molester, is not who he or she claims to be? It could very well be that their declaration of ignorance is a facade, but how am I to make this assessment? I must admit that most of the time I have enough trouble trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling to make declarations on the spiritual status of others. Quite simply, it is God alone who is capable and entitled to make a judgment of the hearts of people, and anything that I should think cannot be but mere speculation and profoundly irrelevant.
I should say in closing that the point of my previous post is to highlight what I see as the inconsistency in Calvinist praxis with respect to doctrinal disagreement. Quite often, they seem to be quite happy to believe that their sweet, but racist grandmother was still a Christian because her racism needs to be understood in the context of the era in which she lived. They are happy to believe that their loving, but slightly sexist father was still a Christian because he lived in a culture where he simply didn't know any better. But, presuming that homosexuality is a sin, they are not willing to extend the same grace to the gay man who honestly believes in the propriety of his sexual orientation. Why this seemingly obvious inconsistency? What is it about homosexuality that makes it the one great, unforgivable sin to Calvinists?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Does Calvinist Soteriology Equate to Salvation by Faith ... in Correct Doctrine?
Recently I've been engaging with a few Reformed Christians on the question of homosexuality. While I am happy to concede that these people honestly believe homosexuality to be a sin, I have pushed them on the question of whether one can be both gay and Christian at the same time. Almost unanimously, I have received a reply to the negative. To use their oft used euphemism, they would suggest that actively gay and lesbian people "are still under the judgment of God". As I understand it, here is their process of reasoning:
1. The gospel requires an individual to repent of their sins
2. Homosexuality is a sin
3. Therefore, homosexuals are still sinning
4. Therefore, homosexuals have not repented
5. Therefore, homosexuals, by very definition cannot be Christians and are still under the judgment of God
I find this perspective problematic for a number of reasons. According to this argument, it doesn't matter that some gay people have searched their consciences and the Scripture and honestly do not believe that their homosexuality is a sin. Nor does it matter that these people have identified those aspects in their lives that they understand to be sin, have repented of these sins and have elected to follow Christ. All of this is irrelevant in the abovementioned worldview. According to those who hold this worldview, an individual is not a Christian if, notwithstanding the fact that they have acted in all good faith, they have gotten their doctrinal position on homosexuality wrong. In short, this is salvation by belief in correct doctrine.
To take this position to its logical, but rather unconsidered conclusion, I wonder what might happen if it turned out that Calvinist climate change skeptics were wrong about the responsibilities they had to the environment. Using more or less the same process of reasoning I've described above, the result is rather scary:
1. The gospel requires an individual to repent of their sins
2. An irresponsible use of carbon is a sin
3. Driving a V6 is an irresponsible use of carbon
4. Therefore, people who drive V6s are still sinning
5. Therefore, people who drive V6s have not repented
6. Therefore, people who drive V6s, by very definition cannot be Christians and are still under the judgment of God
I should make it very clear at this point that I certainly do not believe that driving a V6 automatically excludes one from the community of the faithful and that they have not, by very definition bought themselves a one-way ticket to Hell. This said, if Calvinists are right in their assertion that homosexuals cannot be Christians, then each and every one of us should be extremely concernly about our status as part of the elect. Quite simply, if they are correct in this assertion, then any person who calls themselves a Christian and has even the slightest blind spot with respect to any sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is in real trouble and is headed straight to the eternal pit of fire.
POSTSCRIPT: In the comments section, Craig has asked an excellent question about my stance on the child molester who believes that he is not sinning and that he is a Christian. I think that this was a question worthy of a proper response, which I've done so here.
1. The gospel requires an individual to repent of their sins
2. Homosexuality is a sin
3. Therefore, homosexuals are still sinning
4. Therefore, homosexuals have not repented
5. Therefore, homosexuals, by very definition cannot be Christians and are still under the judgment of God
I find this perspective problematic for a number of reasons. According to this argument, it doesn't matter that some gay people have searched their consciences and the Scripture and honestly do not believe that their homosexuality is a sin. Nor does it matter that these people have identified those aspects in their lives that they understand to be sin, have repented of these sins and have elected to follow Christ. All of this is irrelevant in the abovementioned worldview. According to those who hold this worldview, an individual is not a Christian if, notwithstanding the fact that they have acted in all good faith, they have gotten their doctrinal position on homosexuality wrong. In short, this is salvation by belief in correct doctrine.
To take this position to its logical, but rather unconsidered conclusion, I wonder what might happen if it turned out that Calvinist climate change skeptics were wrong about the responsibilities they had to the environment. Using more or less the same process of reasoning I've described above, the result is rather scary:
1. The gospel requires an individual to repent of their sins
2. An irresponsible use of carbon is a sin
3. Driving a V6 is an irresponsible use of carbon
4. Therefore, people who drive V6s are still sinning
5. Therefore, people who drive V6s have not repented
6. Therefore, people who drive V6s, by very definition cannot be Christians and are still under the judgment of God
I should make it very clear at this point that I certainly do not believe that driving a V6 automatically excludes one from the community of the faithful and that they have not, by very definition bought themselves a one-way ticket to Hell. This said, if Calvinists are right in their assertion that homosexuals cannot be Christians, then each and every one of us should be extremely concernly about our status as part of the elect. Quite simply, if they are correct in this assertion, then any person who calls themselves a Christian and has even the slightest blind spot with respect to any sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is in real trouble and is headed straight to the eternal pit of fire.
POSTSCRIPT: In the comments section, Craig has asked an excellent question about my stance on the child molester who believes that he is not sinning and that he is a Christian. I think that this was a question worthy of a proper response, which I've done so here.
Monday, April 14, 2008
The Great Sola Scriptura Debate
I hate having to start an article like this, but I want to preface my comments by suggesting that I am feeling rather exhausted this evening. That said, I wished to share a few of my thoughts on the subject, so hopefully what I write will come into some sort of coherent order ...
Perhaps one of the things that remains difficult about the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the notorious ambiguity concerning its definition. To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure where Sola Scriptura stops and the three-pronged emphasis on "Scripture, Tradition, Reason" starts. I think the least I could say is that the conception of Sola Scriptura where the Bible is interpreted in a vacuum simply does not exist in any kind of historical context. If one goes to the famous Diet of Worms, Martin Luther is recorded as saying:
This certainly places Scripture in a high position, but what kind of Sola Scriptura is it really? Certainly Luther seems to have rejected the infallibility of tradition, but he clearly sees reason as an important element in the interpretive process. Importantly, Luther sees that a correct understanding of Scripture is not always self-evident and thus that the interpretation of the Scriptures does not occur in a vacuum. Indeed, shortly thereafter Luther and Melanchthon are responsible for the creation of the Augsburg Confession, a statement that extensively quotes the Church Fathers. I can't imagine any reason for doing this if Luther did not see the importance and authority of tradition.
Perhaps the question I'd like to know is whether Scripture is truly the definitive authority when tradition and reason are used in the interpretive process? Of course, the common appeal is that tradition and reason are merely aids to understanding the authoritative text and so in this way it is said that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is preserved. But once any text (for example, Calvin's "Institutes") is understood to be a reliable exposition of Scripture, doesn't this become the authority in the place of the Bible? And perhaps even beyond this, is it not the individual making the determination about what tradition correctly understands Scripture and what type of reason (think different approaches to systematic theology) achieves this purpose? What then can be said to the Catholic accusation that Protestants have merely replaced the authority of the Church and the magisterium with the convictions of the individual? That is quite literally, that each and every Protestant is a pope of his or her own? I would tend to suggest that some 30,000 protestant denomination attest to this fact, rather than to the proposition that it is Scripture alone that is regarded as authoritative in the Protestant worldview.
Perhaps one of the things that remains difficult about the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the notorious ambiguity concerning its definition. To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure where Sola Scriptura stops and the three-pronged emphasis on "Scripture, Tradition, Reason" starts. I think the least I could say is that the conception of Sola Scriptura where the Bible is interpreted in a vacuum simply does not exist in any kind of historical context. If one goes to the famous Diet of Worms, Martin Luther is recorded as saying:
Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God.
This certainly places Scripture in a high position, but what kind of Sola Scriptura is it really? Certainly Luther seems to have rejected the infallibility of tradition, but he clearly sees reason as an important element in the interpretive process. Importantly, Luther sees that a correct understanding of Scripture is not always self-evident and thus that the interpretation of the Scriptures does not occur in a vacuum. Indeed, shortly thereafter Luther and Melanchthon are responsible for the creation of the Augsburg Confession, a statement that extensively quotes the Church Fathers. I can't imagine any reason for doing this if Luther did not see the importance and authority of tradition.
Perhaps the question I'd like to know is whether Scripture is truly the definitive authority when tradition and reason are used in the interpretive process? Of course, the common appeal is that tradition and reason are merely aids to understanding the authoritative text and so in this way it is said that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is preserved. But once any text (for example, Calvin's "Institutes") is understood to be a reliable exposition of Scripture, doesn't this become the authority in the place of the Bible? And perhaps even beyond this, is it not the individual making the determination about what tradition correctly understands Scripture and what type of reason (think different approaches to systematic theology) achieves this purpose? What then can be said to the Catholic accusation that Protestants have merely replaced the authority of the Church and the magisterium with the convictions of the individual? That is quite literally, that each and every Protestant is a pope of his or her own? I would tend to suggest that some 30,000 protestant denomination attest to this fact, rather than to the proposition that it is Scripture alone that is regarded as authoritative in the Protestant worldview.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Don't Trust Your Satellite Navigator
But more on that later ...
Unfortunately I lost my first round this morning - I ran out of time, no less. Had I actually realised that I was so short of time, I would have been able to secure a draw fairly easily. Not to worry, because these things happen. After all, I was reasonably happy with the way I played.
After the upset of the first round, I bounced back with a fairly quick win in the penultimate round. This gave me the theoretical opportunity to come equal first if I won my last round and the leader lost his. I was able to complete the first half of the equation, albeit not without a considerable degree of difficulty. Both myself and my opponent were down to a minute each on our clocks in a very messy position. However, I managed to hold my nerve, while my opponent lost his. The player who beat me then won his final game to score a deserved win in the tournament, while I had to be content with equal second. And content I was, considering how I played throughout the tournament.
On my trip back all was travelling smoothly until my sattelite navigator told me to take an unexpected route which was meant to be a short cut. I was a bit skeptical about the directions given, but decided to obey the Sat Nav because he seemed to know what he was talking about. Little did I know that this route would take me along a narrow road, partly unsealed and very foggy. To make matters more interesting I had to negotiate a kangaroo that jumped out in front of my car. I did so successfully, thankfully. And so, I managed to survive unscathful and with another adventure to cap off an enjoyable weekend.
Unfortunately I lost my first round this morning - I ran out of time, no less. Had I actually realised that I was so short of time, I would have been able to secure a draw fairly easily. Not to worry, because these things happen. After all, I was reasonably happy with the way I played.
After the upset of the first round, I bounced back with a fairly quick win in the penultimate round. This gave me the theoretical opportunity to come equal first if I won my last round and the leader lost his. I was able to complete the first half of the equation, albeit not without a considerable degree of difficulty. Both myself and my opponent were down to a minute each on our clocks in a very messy position. However, I managed to hold my nerve, while my opponent lost his. The player who beat me then won his final game to score a deserved win in the tournament, while I had to be content with equal second. And content I was, considering how I played throughout the tournament.
On my trip back all was travelling smoothly until my sattelite navigator told me to take an unexpected route which was meant to be a short cut. I was a bit skeptical about the directions given, but decided to obey the Sat Nav because he seemed to know what he was talking about. Little did I know that this route would take me along a narrow road, partly unsealed and very foggy. To make matters more interesting I had to negotiate a kangaroo that jumped out in front of my car. I did so successfully, thankfully. And so, I managed to survive unscathful and with another adventure to cap off an enjoyable weekend.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
So Far, So Good in Dubbo
Well, it's been a fairly fun twenty-four hours or so. After work I came back to the Central Coast before a five hour drive to Dubbo. Cessnock and Branxton were fairly interesting little places, but once I got onto the Golden Highway the trip was pretty boring. Still, I love driving long distances by myself because it gives me a real chance just to relax and reflect on things, all while listening to some of my favourite music.
As expected, I am top seed in the this tournament. It's not necessarily a place I like to be, since everyone thinks that you will win the tournament. Anything less is underperforming. Not that I care all that much - playing in the tournament is just an excuse for me to get out of Sydney for a weekend. That said, it's not as if I want to deliberately try to lose games!
So far we've had three rounds, and I've had three wins. Considering that I haven't really played chess in about nine months, I'm playing really well. Two of the opponents I've had so far can be quite tricky if you're not careful, but I managed to dispatch them fairly easily. I am joined by two other players on 3 out of 3, one of which I have to play tomorrow morning. If I can win the game tomorrow morning, I should be well on my way to winning the tournament.
After the final round in the main tournament, the Dubbo Open continued its tradition of having a meal together, followed by a lightning tournament. I could have just as easily picked something up from Red Rooster, but I didn't want to be antisocial, so I just paid for my overpriced bistro meal in the company of the other chess players. I won the lightning tournament with 6 out of 6, which was also nice.
As expected, I am top seed in the this tournament. It's not necessarily a place I like to be, since everyone thinks that you will win the tournament. Anything less is underperforming. Not that I care all that much - playing in the tournament is just an excuse for me to get out of Sydney for a weekend. That said, it's not as if I want to deliberately try to lose games!
So far we've had three rounds, and I've had three wins. Considering that I haven't really played chess in about nine months, I'm playing really well. Two of the opponents I've had so far can be quite tricky if you're not careful, but I managed to dispatch them fairly easily. I am joined by two other players on 3 out of 3, one of which I have to play tomorrow morning. If I can win the game tomorrow morning, I should be well on my way to winning the tournament.
After the final round in the main tournament, the Dubbo Open continued its tradition of having a meal together, followed by a lightning tournament. I could have just as easily picked something up from Red Rooster, but I didn't want to be antisocial, so I just paid for my overpriced bistro meal in the company of the other chess players. I won the lightning tournament with 6 out of 6, which was also nice.
Friday, April 11, 2008
On the Road Again
This weekend I think I might drive to Dubbo to play in a chess tournament. I must admit that I haven't played competitively for some time, but that really isn't the point. To be honest, it's just a good excuse to get away for the weekend before a fairly busy week coming up where I will be in court for the next five days.
Not entirely sure what my access to the internet will be like, but I will keep you posted. Or not, as the case may be ...
Not entirely sure what my access to the internet will be like, but I will keep you posted. Or not, as the case may be ...
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Minister Embarrasses Sydney Diocese with Gay Slur on Kirby
For conservatives in the Sydney Diocese, His Honour Michael Kirby must be their worst nightmare. Kirby is proud to call himself a Christian and an Anglican. He is also openly gay. However, unlike the many gay Christians that have been beaten into submission by the prevailing Diocesan line, Kirby is not afraid to stand up and be counted. He is clearly an articulate thinker and knows his Bible well. And He's not the type of individual who can be quietly taken out of play by the Sydney Anglican thought police. In short, he is a worrying prospect for those ministers who are scared that their parishioners will think for themselves.
Last year, Michael Kirby suggested in an interview on the ABC that Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Jensen, of the Sydney Catholic and Anglican Dioceses respectively, made it hard for people to take a more tolerant attitude to gays. Enter Reverend Richard Lane, an obscure Eastern Suburbs Anglican minister. Rather than extend some degree of hospitality to Kirby to demonstrate that conservative Christians could indeed be loving towards the homosexual community, he manages to systematic validate Kirby's concerns by launching into a violent personal attack against the High Court judge. Likening Kirby to the infamous Herod of the gospel narratives, Lane then proceeds to suggest that Kirby is a "coward, liar [and] a deceiver". Charming, isn't it? And Lane has the audacity to suggest that this is "speaking to you the truth in love".
The one thing that I find rather shocking about Reverend Lane's malicious attack is its pure senselessness. I'd really love to know what he was hoping to achieve when he sent the letter. Even if Reverend Lane happens to be right on the issue of homosexuality, was he really naive enough to believe that Kirby did not know that his practice was condemned by many other Christians? And was he really so arrogant to think that Kirby had never examined the texts that conservative Christians so love to use to promote their homophobic agenda for himself? Reverend Lane's behaviour in this respect shows astounding ignorance. The only right thing for him to do under these circumstances would be to resign from his position as an Anglican minister if he truly loves the Lord and wishes not to further undermine the Sydney Diocese. Sadly, I suspect that Reverend Lane will not repent.
Last year, Michael Kirby suggested in an interview on the ABC that Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Jensen, of the Sydney Catholic and Anglican Dioceses respectively, made it hard for people to take a more tolerant attitude to gays. Enter Reverend Richard Lane, an obscure Eastern Suburbs Anglican minister. Rather than extend some degree of hospitality to Kirby to demonstrate that conservative Christians could indeed be loving towards the homosexual community, he manages to systematic validate Kirby's concerns by launching into a violent personal attack against the High Court judge. Likening Kirby to the infamous Herod of the gospel narratives, Lane then proceeds to suggest that Kirby is a "coward, liar [and] a deceiver". Charming, isn't it? And Lane has the audacity to suggest that this is "speaking to you the truth in love".
The one thing that I find rather shocking about Reverend Lane's malicious attack is its pure senselessness. I'd really love to know what he was hoping to achieve when he sent the letter. Even if Reverend Lane happens to be right on the issue of homosexuality, was he really naive enough to believe that Kirby did not know that his practice was condemned by many other Christians? And was he really so arrogant to think that Kirby had never examined the texts that conservative Christians so love to use to promote their homophobic agenda for himself? Reverend Lane's behaviour in this respect shows astounding ignorance. The only right thing for him to do under these circumstances would be to resign from his position as an Anglican minister if he truly loves the Lord and wishes not to further undermine the Sydney Diocese. Sadly, I suspect that Reverend Lane will not repent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
