Invisible Ads

Picking on the advertising industry is a little like shooting sloths in a barrel.  But when they keep offering themselves up for light-hearted critique, who am I to argue?

Ads in the old days used to be simple.  The TV would show you a picture of the product, a man with a loud voice would tell you to Buy Now To Avoid Disappointment, and you would (but usually still be disappointed).  The point is, you KNEW what you were buying and what it was supposed to do.

Just recently there have been a number of ads on Aussie TV that have been less than forthcoming about what it is that they are advertising and what they expect you to do about it.

Example: Qantas.  Thankfully the schoolgirl choirs have been put back in the closet and (for a year at least) "I Still Call Australia Home" has been silenced from public broadcast.  But one thing that the old ad had going for it was...pictures of planes!  The ad invited us to gaze up at the Aussie sky, always on the lookout for that red-tailed symbol of hope and patriotism streaking across the sky.  If the Kangaroo was soaring, then we all could soar in our own way.  What other airline could there be for us Colonial Scum?  NOW however there is not a plane in sight!  Not even a jetstream.  Instead (accompanied by the classical wanderings of Daniel Johns), the viewer looks down from on high at ordinary citizens going about their everyday business, not even thinking about the miracle of flight taking place right above their heads.  But Qantas will always be there, for the airline is now a Service.  Something that will be there in times of trouble. But the Individual is now at the centre with the airline looking in.  You would be forgiven for thinking it was a Tourism Australia ad.

Now, this is OK because Qantas is a reasonably cuddly company (unless you're an airline mechanic or a baggage handler).  If the average Australian takes one trip a year on a Qantas plane they're not doing too badly.

Sadly, another ad shows that this Invisible Product trend on our screens is far from benign.  During the Olympics a new ad for Crown emerged...

A footman leads the viewer of a tour of a Typical Crown Resort.  We pass through ballrooms, kitchens, luxury suites.  Attention is drawn to the large numbers of people Crown is employing and training (implication: A successful Crown makes a successful Country).  We're invited to think, "You know, that looks like a great place to spend a relaxing/romantic getaway."

What's missing?  Poker Machines.

Lots and lots of poker machines.

Apart from one coy reference to "gaming", there is little to suggest in the advert that Crown is in fact a very large and powerful chain of casinos.  All the wonderful images of the ad are really the garnish next to the steak.  The whole aim of Crown is to fleece as much money out of their guests pockets as is legally possible in the shortest amount of time.  What Crown are in effect selling is not an opportunity for a comfortable retreat.  They are selling a corporate whitewash of their record of targeting the most vulnerable in society (the working class, pensioners, new migrants, and gambling addicts) and robbing them blind.

I know that advertisers get a positive hit from a Reveal.  But nothing is being revealed in Crown's ad, and with a product that continues to do so much damage to our society I think there is a model obligation for this industry to advertise itself honestly.

Men, Women, and "Investments"

On occasion my Dearly Beloved will come to me saying that she wishes to "invest" in a new pair of shoes (or similar product).  For a moment my heart will brighten with the expectation that she has found a new way to supplement the family finances.  Then reality dawns.  We are having one of those classic Genderspeak moments...

Simply put, "to invest" means to move existing capital in the hope of generating a profit either through periodic dividends or increased sale price of assets.  If you have no realistic expectation of a financial return, what you have isn't an Investment, it's an Expense - you have spent your resources on a product or service to suit your needs or wants.  The persistence of my wife to use the language of Investment to describe expenditure on accessories has been a continual source of bafflement.  I haven't taken a survey, but I'd be willing to wager there are other men out there who have had similar feelings.

Then the light dawned - what was at stake (for She Who Must Be Obeyed at least) was not so much WHAT money was to be spent on, but HOW they money was to be spent.  This was a question of Gender Philosophy, not economics.

Investments are usually matters of family consultation, as they involve sacrificing short-term wealth for eventual satisfaction.  You may put your savings down on a house that will last you until retirement, but this will mean that the ski trip to Hokkaido may have to wait until the mortgage is paid off.  In these situations, all interested parties must be informed and supportive of any use of family funds for investment purposes.  The Female Of The Species sees this as a perfectly applicable model for her discretionary spending.  Her purchase of a $400 handbag this year will mean that she does not have to buy four $150 handbags over its working lifetime.  The woman will see the benefits of having an item that best suits her needs, the pleasure of owning the same, and the reduction of conversations on the topic of Having Nothing To Wear/Carry as sufficient grounds to identify it as an Investment.  And since Investments are for the benefit of The Many rather that The One, its almost like not spending money at all!  The man will see the situation for the Lose-Lose it really is, but if he is wise he'll hold his tongue.

Men, by contrast, never classify their purchases as Investments.  Men are happy to simply Spend Money.  Often lots of money.  On stupid things.  Without even bothering to consult their conjugal partners.  Here's how it works...

Men are merely Big Little Boys.  Little Boys need Toys.  Therefore, Big Little Boys need Big Toys.  Big Toys cost Big Money.  Therefore, a Man who spends thousands of dollars on motorcycles, jet skis, golf clubs, guitars, and other life necessities without discussing it with his Significant Other is merely meeting the needs of his kind.  The value is simply in the enjoyment of the item rather on the potential resale price or how it will affect the children's food budget for the next 5 years.  So when The Man comes home with a Guess What I Just Bought grin on his face, he will be genuinely astonished that his life partner's natural reaction will consist of Stony Silence and Slammed Bedroom Door.

What we need is a shift in the language of Expense Justification from both sides.  Here's what I propose:

Ladies - "Investment" language will not only confuse your Man, such doublespeak is more likely to raise his blood pressure than decrease it.  Instead, when you bring home a new purchase, simply tell him, "I bought this today.  Isn't it pretty!"  The Man will understand this - The Woman needs clothes/shoes/accessories on a regular basis and they like pretty things.  Therefore, such a purchase is natural.  If the Man is smart, he will have already carved out space in the budget so the issue of cost won't occur to him unless YOU make the mistake of suggesting it using "Investment" language.

Gentlemen - By all means, spend your money on the framed 1991 Wallabies jersey for the Pool Room.  However, you are going to have to provide some justification to the Woman when you get it home.  Don't make the mistake of thinking you can just sneak it into the house.  You're going to need an Excuse.  It doesn't have to be a GOOD Excuse, it just needs to be something plausible so that the money spent can be moved in her mind from Waste to Capital Expenditure.

Once you as a couple have established the lowest common denominator to justify ongoing outgoings, both Man and Woman can continue spending with impunity, at least until the bank account is dry and the debt collectors come knocking.  But even if you don't get to keep the Burberry handbag and the new surfboard, at least you have the comfort of knowing that your game of Mutually Assured Financial Destruction has strengthened the bonds of marriage for you both.  Now that's an Investment worth making!

Election and Anglican Baptism

One of the greatest privileges I have in my job is taking our Youth Ministry leaders through some basic Christian leadership training once a fortnight. They are a wonderful group, eager to know the Lord Jesus, engage with their Bibles, and lead others to Christ. They always push back against some of my more provocative ideas and are seldom satisfied with easy answers. Perhaps that's why our meetings always run overtime.

Recently we have been discussing the theological commitments of our Church. Last week I asserted that, if we are committed to a Protestant Reformed Evangelical faith then I believe that there are grounds for saying that the Anglican system provides the best (not "the perfect" or "the only") ecclesiastical "hardware" (to borrow Michael Jensen's terminology) to run this "software". One of my points was that, if Anglican churches stick to the Prayer Book (a shocking idea!) then our sacraments should express our Reformed theological principles, particularly with respect to Election in Baptism. I have written about some of my views on this matter earlier. This caused a bit of confusion in the group, as several people had stated that they had never heard of Anglican baptism having this theological basis and had interpreted the act of baptism differently. On checking the wording of An Australian Prayer Book (the most used modern resource in Sydney for these rites), I had to agree that the language of election or predestination was not present, nor do I think it would be easy for the laity to pick up on the theological nuances unless they had been trained to do so.

At first I feared that I had overstated my case. I must confess to not being an expert on the theological foundations of the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer. As such, I was uncertain as to how strongly the Anglican rite of baptism (particularly of the Infant variety) was shaped by a Reformed understanding of election. Was it really as straightforward as I had been led to believe? Was the language left "vague" on purpose?

After going back to the sources and looking at some commentary on the matter I have reassured myself that a Reformed understanding of Election is indeed at the heart of Anglican baptism. For the benefit of my Youth Ministry leaders (and anyone else who might possibly be interested), I make the following observations:

1) The 1662 BCP baptism service (which is an update of Cranmer's 1552 service) takes Mark 13 as its Scriptural basis, drawing attention to Jesus' promise to receive all little children brought to him. The response to this is one of thanksgiving and prayers for actual grace to the child in the future, rather than conferring on the ceremony itself any sacramental grace. The words of preparation to the godparents express confidence in what Christ has promised to do for the child rather than relying on the imputation of adult faith onto the child. While the language of election and predestination is not used, the wording of this rite only makes sense if the theological basis is on what has already been achieved in Christ rather than what is achieved by the ceremony itself.

2) Article XXV states that Anglican sacraments are understood as "certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will toward us". Obviously, the way that Anglicanism interprets the operation of grace will affect our understanding of the use of baptism. This is not spelled out in detail in this Article and so we must look for clues elsewhere.

3) Article XXVII states that baptism, as well as being a rite of acceptance into the Christian community, is the means by which "the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed". Given that the Article also states that the application of baptism to young children is consistent with the teaching of Christ, we must conclude that the framers of the Articles believed that those infants who were baptised had been forgiven and adopted by God prior to the rite and that the application of water was merely the physical sign of what had been promised in Scripture.

4) G. W. Bromiley in Baptism and the Anglican Reformers provides a survey of the Reformed views on infant baptism that were key influences on the Anglican reformers (e.g. Bullinger, Beza, Calvin, etc). He concludes that the Reformed position on baptism on infants is that it was done "not to make them God's but because they were God's already".

5) Michael Jensen and Tom Frame in Defining Convictions and Decisive Commitments: the Thirty-Nine Articles in Contemporary Anglicanism state that the understanding of grace which was behind the framing of the Articles was of a character different from medieval theology, which saw it in terms of "substance". Rather, grace was seen as an attitude of God towards humanity. Sacraments could be effectual signs because they could mediate this graciousness of God to sinners. With respect to baptism they state that it "is not primarily a human response to God but rather a sign of God's grace in forgiveness".

None of the above points are definitive proof that the Reformed understanding of election was paramount in shaping Anglican baptism. In fact, as I did my (admittedly preliminary and patchy) research, I was surprised at how little considerations of election and predestination arose when dealing with baptism. However, I interpret the evidence as it stands as lending a strong circumstantial case for seeing a relationship between election and baptism. The wording of the Articles and Prayer Book are consistent with the view that the eternal election of God formed the theological background for the practical application in the sacraments. Concepts of election are, therefore, a few steps removed from the practice of baptism and so the language will rarely be used together, but this does not mean that the relationship is incidental or unimportant.

Rockin' Christmas Books 3: "Faces - Before, During and After"

Yes yes, I know that Christmas has well and truly past us by! Some of you may still have the odd ornament hanging from your front door/wall in order to keep that "little bit of Christmas" throughout the year. One year when I was a kid we kept our (fake) tree up the whole year because Dad couldn't be arsed to put it back in the roof (from memory we grew mushrooms underneath it). However, I have been astonished in recent weeks to receive increased activity on this blog, principally in response to my review of Ace Frehley's book some weeks ago. Indeed, that particular review has had double the number of reads of any other of my posts. Now, it could be that KISS fans are insane (disclosure: I am one and am married to an even bigger one), or it could be that somewhere along the line I missed my calling to be the Antipodean Lester Bangs. All that money on theological college wasted. Neverthemore, I hereby present for your edification my thoughts on "Faces - Before, During and After" by Andy Neill.

Picture a concert by one of the great stadium rock acts of our age (U2, Foo Fighters, Bon Jovi, etc). Dazzling arrays of co-ordinated lighting. Special effects and pyrotechnics. Choreography. High levels of musicianship and professionalism...

This bears no resemblance to a concert by The Faces.

Instead imagine yourself at a no-frills music auditorium sometime in the early 1970s. On entering the venue you discover roadies passing out cheap bottles of plonk with the instruction to "have yerself a good time!" While you sip the revolting nectar you notice some movement on the side of the stage. Without any introduction, five drunk Londoners wander out, apparently arguing over what song to play first. The singer sports a tartan suit and a rooster haircut. The other members of the band wear a combination of glam fashion and whatever they happened to find on the floor of their hotel rooms. As they plug in it becomes apparent that they are painfully out of tune. Another argument ensues, until a stagehand brings out a tray of drinks and peace returns. Over the next two hours the band will play a rollicking rock 'n roll set, punctuated by many jokes and flubbed notes, until they are too tired and inebriated to continue, at which point they invite the audience to join them in a celebration at the local tavern.

Ladies and Gentlemen: The Faces! Over their too-short career they would have no #1 hit singles or albums, receive precious little critical praise (not that they cared), and never played a perfect show if they could help it. They were torn apart by creative and personal tensions, with two of the members going on to bigger and brighter things. Yet The Faces remain one of the greatest rock bands of all time - a direct influence on the Punk revolution and a touchstone for every young rock band since that loves it loud and bluesy. This latest biography is only the second serious modern work on the band after "Last Orders Please" by Jim Melly, which was as much a sociological study as a rock bio.

"Faces" is probably the most thorough work on the band to date. Neill is meticulous in his research and strives to create a vibrant narrative that is free from hagiography (not easy when the author is a fan of the subject). Along the way inconsistencies in the received tradition are ironed out and certain myths are dispelled. This is not to suggest that the book is dry - far from it! There are many stories of life on the road. In fact, there would have to be as The Faces seemed to spend a large part of their existence on a sort-of Neverending Tour. It's no wonder, in fact, that conflicts arose so quickly, especially when Rod Stewart's solo star began to rise in earnest. Hungover and jet-lagged is no way to run a band.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the book is that the story of The Faces is of a legend unfulfilled. Despite a solid place in rock history, they never were able to produce The Single that would cement them in the public mind forevermore. While a cool DJ might occasionally play "Stay With Me" on the radio, it's almost a guarantee that few listening would correctly identify the group. As a result there is no grand climax in this rather lengthy narrative. Just when you think you are getting somewhere the rug is dragged out from under you. Moreover, the members of the band don't stand close scrutiny very well. Rod Stewart and Ronnie Lane both come across as egocentric and petulant. Ronnie Wood is revealed as being a little self-destructive. Kenny Jones and Ian McLagan are just a couple of booze-soaked boys along for the ride, but even they are not immune to bouts of juvenile behaviour that no doubt hastened the demise of the group.

Neill's work is perhaps best classified as an Unauthorised Biography With Significant Assistance. Many insiders are thanked in the Acknowledgments, and McLagan was an enthusiastic collaborator. The other three surviving members gave no significant assistance to the work (though it is revealed that Ronnie Wood's memory of the period is so bad any stories he does have would be considered highly suspect). The rest of the book is diligent in chasing up facts.

So, who would like this book? Well, serious music history nerds like me will wish to read it more than once - there is so much trivia to digest that a cursory reading is nowhere near enough. Anyone who is a fan of British rhythm and blues music will definitely want to give it a look. However, those expecting the consistent tabloid fodder of Ace Frehley's autobiography will be disappointed. This is a serious piece of rock history, not for the faint-stomached, but well worth the meal!

See ya down the pub!

The ALP and Fatso The Fat-Arsed Wombat

Cast your minds back, dear readers, to the dawning of the new millennium - the year 2000. 'Twas a time of happiness and joy for those of us blessed to live in the Harbour City for a momentous event was ready to take place - the Sydney Olympic Games! Even the most jaded got into the spirit of things for that glorious two weeks. We shined our shoes, put away the Drop Bears routine, and tried to be as helpful as possible to the Unwashed Foreign Filth who had come for the celebrations and were trying to understand the complexities of our public transport system.

But 20 million Australians couldn't be on their best behaviour for that long! Someone was going to have to take the piss in a major way at some point. There were, naturally, only two men for the job...

Olympic Mascots have had a certain amount of Groan Factor for a number of decades now. Perhaps since LA '84 no-one has paid them much respect, but they are acknowledged as part of the kitsch that goes along with hosting the Games. For the Sydney Games the organizers came up with a particularly uninspiring set:

Not only were these nauseating natives extremely ugly, but the fact that there were THREE of the buggers screamed loudly that the Games Committee were less than optimistic about making their money back and had put the family silver on tripling their merchandising revenue. Such a balloon was ripe for bursting.

Enter "Rampaging" Roy Slaven and H.G. Nelson! Visitors to our shores (particularly those from the USA) were bewildered at the fact that not only were these two loonies conducting a public satire of this prestigious event (including merging Greco-Roman wrestling with Barry White music), but that they were allowed to be broadcast on the Official Television Channel in prime time! If American comedians had attempted something similar (assuming that they understood the concept of "satire") they would have been subject to a long stint in Guantanamo Bay.

Roy and H.G. unmasked the Official Mascots for what they were - a symbol of the fact that the Games had been removed from the control of the People. Australians would never have voted for these critters (soon dubbed "Syd Ollie & Dickhead") if they had been given a free choice. So Roy and H.G. put up their own mascot. One that could be embraced by the Australian Public. The Little Guy, the People's Prince...

Fatso The Big-Arsed Wombat!!!

Fatso was a sensation. His fame spread throughout the land, while the Games Committee did their best to stop it. The Australian athletes entered into the spirit of the rebellion, bringing Fatso up onto the podium and throwing him off the high diving board. In the end the Games Committee admitted defeat. A statue of Fatso is now a permanent fixture outside the Main Stadium at Homebush. To my knowledge, no memorial of Syd Ollie and Dickhead has yet been erected.

This morning a former Prime Minister, who was elected on a huge wave of popular support, was denied the opportunity of returning to the highest office by the same cabal who had knifed him in the back 20 months ago. Australian Labor Party ministers and members spewed forth vitriol of the most poisonous type over the weekend to defend their view that Kevin Rudd should never again be given the keys to the Lodge, even as the party heads towards a massive electoral defeat and the return of a conservative government. At the same time, popular support seemed welded solid to Mr Rudd, even as tales of mismanagement and temper tantrums flooded the airwaves. His polling has been significantly above that of Prime Minister Julia Gillard for well over a year. Overnight busloads of True Believers headed to Canberra to protest outside Parliament House, hoping against hope that their chosen leader, Kevin Rudd, would be brought back to lead our nation. Those hopes have now been dashed, and it is unlikely that they will ever be revived. Our elected representatives have chosen Syd Ollie & Dickhead over Fatso.

I am not a member of the ALP, my political loyalties lie elsewhere. I don't think the ALP made a bad decision today, I think they made bad choices long ago and today's leadership ballot was a consequence of repeated and systematic failures.

Note: I also think Kevin Rudd is in the wrong party. Kev, call me! It's not too late.

What the events of the last 5 days have taught us is that something is fundamentally wrong with the manner politics in our nation is being conducted. People have been complaining about the system, as though it is the system's fault that the will of the people is failing to be heard. But there is something much more rotten in the state of Orstrailya. The power is out of our hands. We can't choose who leads us. Faith is put in political parties that have long since stopped being accountable to the people they represent. What happened this morning should not, by all political logic, have happened - members of Parliament have voted in a way that has guaranteed that they will lose their seats in another 18 months. They no longer represent their electorates but their political masters. I'm not just picking on the ALP; the Libs are just as bad. But they have us all convinced that we have No Other Option but to go for the lesser of two evils when we put the slip of paper in the box. This, my friends, is a lie!

Fatso The Fat-Arsed Wombat has achieved something that few characters in Australian culture have - he has a Legacy. I imagine I will be explaining that statue at Homebush to my grandchildren one day. Whether Kevin Rudd will have a similar monument dedicated to him remains to be seen. He probably deserves one, given that he walked into the lion's den this morning on a matter of principle knowing that it was the will of the People, his true masters. Somehow, I don't think that those who have retained power today will be getting a monument of any sort.

J. Gresham Machen on Public and Private Education

I came across this quote recently and am using it in a speech tomorrow on the Christian Vote in Contemporary Australian Politics. I couldn't have said it better myself:

A public-school system, in itself, is indeed of enormous benefit to the race. But it is of benefit only if it is kept healthy at every moment by the absolutely free possibility of the competition of private schools. A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument of tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of the parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to then to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted thought at least to be free.

J. Gresham Machen. "Christianity & Liberalism", pp.11-12.

Reformed Romantics: Ezekiel 24 and the Death of Marriage

It has been a while since I posted, for which my sincere apologies. The business of preparing for and then receiving a new baby in the house has occupied my mind considerably. But Onwards and Upwards I say...

I'll also flag that it is at this point that my reflections on Biblical marriage will take a slight deviation from the mainstream. I'm also going to skip over a lot of material so we can move forward to Ezekiel 34, which I believe marks a turning point in God's plans for human marriage in relation to his plan of redemption.

Marriage as a human institution takes a bit of a backseat for most of the Old Testament. There are, of course, passages in the Torah regarding the regulation of marriage for the nation of Israel (e.g. Leviticus 18, Numbers 36). Following this, it is assumed that human marriage continues, with young people being given in marriage to each other, begetting children, and so progressing the covenant. When marriage is discussed it is usually when there is a problem (e.g. Samson's taking of a Philistine wife in Judges 14). These problems function as warning signs that spiritual trouble is not far away. Solomon's taking of many wives from foreign kingdoms and Jezabel's domination of Ahab may also be cited as examples. Song Of Songs is a notable exception, but the restraint and yearning of this romantic drama contrasts markedly with the absence of such behavior in actuality.

As Israel moves into the Prophetic Age, "unfaithful marriage" is an image used by the Pre-Exilic prophets in particular to describe the deterioration of the relationship between the Jewish nation and God. In all cases, God is described as the husband betrayed by an unfaithful wife (e.g. Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 16). The prophet Hosea is even commanded to take a woman of soiled reputation as a public display of the shame that Israel has brought upon their God.

As the situation cannot continue, God eventually brings things to a head and judgment is visited on Israel and Judah in turn. Yet the question must be asked: does the end of the spiritual marriage between God and Israel signal an end (or at least a shift) in the physical marriage of Man and Woman?

I believe that the answer lies in Ezekiel 24:15-27 and the death of the wife of the prophet. For years I spent wondering if God was a Moral Monster. Here was a woman, who had apparently committed no great sin, brought to an early death by a God intent on making a point. Moreover, her husband was not allowed even to mourn for her death as a sign of the coming judgment. Ezekiel's pain is evident even through the restrained narrative. I could understand and accept God taking away an unfaithful wife as a symbol, but to wrench the delight of a man's eyes away from him seemed heartless and cruel.

After much thought, I have come to a tentative solution:

The death of Ezekiel's wife represents the end of human marriage as the central mode of covenant progression and identity.

What has struck me as I read through the promises of deliverance from exile in Ezekiel and Jeremiah in particular is that the concept of marriage is not "resurrected". God does not "divorce" his bride and then "remarry" again. The image of marriage is basically insignificant to the Post-Exilic prophets as well. Instead, the image of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 is God forming a new covenant with the lost who have been scattered through their rebellion. Those who will be part of the New Covenant will be Spiritually rather than Physically begotten. However good human marriage remains in its created state, it will never occupy the same central role in the redeemed community as it did for Israel under the Old Covenant. Marriage will no longer be the procreative means to a redemptive end and will not theologically dominate the covenant community.

Rockin' Christmas Books 2: "No Regrets" by Ace Frehley

In the early 1970s American rock 'n roll was at a shockingly low ebb. Few of the superstars who ruled the heights of Woodstock survived into the following decade. New harder acts like The Stooges and Alice Cooper showed the way of the future but had little impact within the mainstream. From 1970 to 1973 British bands ruled the States - The Who, Stones, Yes, and (of course) Led Zeppelin. Then, astoundingly, the USA produced two bands who became primary influences on mainstream rock for the next two decades - Aerosmith and KISS.

Between them, Joe Perry and Ace Frehley encouraged a generation of teenage boys (who otherwise would have become climate scientists or health care professionals) to spend hours striking rockstar poses in front of their bedroom mirrors. Perry and Frehley took the blues-rock of the 60s British superstars (Peter Green, Mick Taylor, Clapton, Townshend, etc) and gave it a major American shot of adrenaline and glitz. While Perry has so far elected to Let The Music Do The Talking, Ace has recently shed some light on his glorious and alcohol-soaked career.

Let me start with some of the same gripes that I had about Tony Iommi's book. First up, No Regrets has to be one of the most unimaginative titles ever presented. It appears to have no reference to Ace's career. I can think of several better titles off the top of my head - Trouble Walkin', Insane, even Rock Soldier. It's the same Work Experience Kid doing the cover as well - boring fonts, boring pictures. Most unattractive.

These flaws are easily forgiven, however, because Ace Frehley is one hell of a storyteller! This book has everything the serious (or even casual) fan of KISS could want. KISS were never a band to do things by half, collectively and individually. Each of the four original members were given licence by their fame to indulge in their passions. For Ace, this involved alcohol, drugs, fast cars, and card games. In the midst of it all we have the story (from Ace's perspective) of the band who gave the world some of the greatest rock riffs of all time.

Unlike Iommi, Ace Frehley has no problem with exposing his own faults and failings. Car chases and accidents are recounted in gory detail. The reader learns that Frehley was (twice) saved from drowning while under the influence of alcohol by the eternally sober Gene Simmons. Many other stories of life on the road and experiences in the studio permeate the narrative. It is a gripping tale from first to last.

Of course, no great tale is complete without a great villain. Frehley's nemesis, unsurprisingly, is the driven bassist Simmons, who in the past has had some blunt assessments of the impact of Frehley's addictions on the well-being of the KISS brand. The animosity between the two dates to their first meeting, but neither could deny the chemistry that Frehley brought to the band. One of Frehley's aims in publishing this book is to directly refute some of the barbs that have come from Simmons over the years, as well as firing a few return shots of his own.

Of course, the book isn't perfect. Frehley does gloss over the less glamorous period of the late 1980s and dire predicament his career was in by the time of the reunion of KISS in 1996. Additionally, readers may be somewhat alarmed that he firmly believes he was abducted by aliens. Yes, you read that right. This story first came out during an interview on the Eddie Trunk radio show about five years ago, where a clearly drunk Frehley related a tale of strange lights in his backyard to a bewildered and increasingly uncomfortable Trunk. Amazingly, he does not back down from the story (or even consider the possibility that it may have been a tequila-induced hallucination. What this does to the credibility of the rest of the narrative is a matter of individual judgment.

On the whole, No Regrets is a much more satisfying account of the story of KISS than the highly airbrushed "official" accounts currently on offer. In addition, the reader gains an insight into the mind of one of the true legends of rock guitar. Highly recommended.

Four bottles of Cold Gin out of Five.

Reformed Romantics: Marriage and OT Covenant Progression

If we are correct in our observation that the place and function of marriage and sexuality is related directly to God's character and rule, then we would expect to find that the coming of the Abrahamic covenant would impact on a theological view of human relationships. This is exactly what we find.

Genesis 4-11 continues in establishing the theological worldview of the first Jew, Abraham. These chapters are better read through Theological rather than Historical glasses (though I believe historical facts are contained there). A reader cannot help being struck by the rapid progress of humanity within God's creation, which is attested to in the genealogical lists. Far from being "space fillers", these lists show that the marriage and sexuality functioned exactly according to God's purpose even while the relationship between Human and Divine was ruptured. Humanity was fruitful and multiplied. However, this fruitfulness was about to be given a special dignity in a particular instance.

To a childless man of pensionable age in southern Iraq, God made promises of Land, Descendants, Nationhood, and Blessing. Of all the families in the world (who had no trouble in reproducing) God selected the most unlikely candidate for fathering a dynasty. It was done in order to show God's power and grace to the whole world and to repair the damage done by the first man in Eden. For Abraham and Sarah, marriage and children were no longer merely part of a creation mandate, but they were now to be the method of transmitting God's grace not only to their descendants but to the whole world. The sign of circumcision was not a random choice, but a deliberate red flag that Fertility was the hope for the future. Moreover, it symbolised the spiritual marriage between God and Israel, an image prominent in the Old Testament.

As the story of Genesis progresses the reader is made aware that not all activity within covenant-oriented marriages seems to advance God's cause. In fact, the actions presented are a mixture of Covenant Progressive and Covenant Subversive. Sarah bears Abraham a son (Progressive) but also directs her husband to adultery and allows herself to be a sexual plaything for foreign rulers (Subversive). Rebbecca bears two sons to Isaac (Progressive) but dishonours her husband by supporting the younger son to deceitfully gain the covenant blessing (Subversive). This will be a pattern repeated though the Old Testament, indicating that while marriage and childbearing will be the means of covenant progression it was never a perfect means. The system prospered only because God's faithfulness was stronger than the faithless families to whom he swore his covenant.

Rockin' Christmas Books 1: "Iron Man" by Tony Iommi

The approaching festive season for me (and many others) usually means Books. Books as presents, books for presents, books to divert the kids, books to prop open doors/windows, etc. Many of my clerical colleagues no doubt use the slower pace of the post-Christmas period to read some of the serious theological works published in the previous 12 months that have joined the rapidly growing Must Read List. I hope to do a bit of that as well. But I also like to relax a bit and so I require books that Rock! Or rather, I love books about People Who Rock.

One of my more popular posts was this from last year, which described the various types of musical biography out there (along with some of my favourites). Well, now that I've cleared the path for you, I thought I'd devote a few posts over the next week or so to some of the latest offerings in the Rock Biography genre which you may be tempted for that Special Headbanging Someone this Christmas.

First up: Iron Man by Tony Iommi.

Iommi is the guitarist in Black Sabbath, whose detuned riffing and blistering solos gave birth to the genre of Heavy Metal. He has also shared the stage with some of the most prominent, talented, and controversial figures in rock music. Tony should have a bunch of good stories up his sleeve.

I'll get my biggest gripe out of the way first - the graphic design of this book is TERRIBLE! Front cover is a close up of Tony's face with unimaginative block lettering down the bottom. For some reason the "M" in "Man" is written in Iron Maiden script. Huh??? Given that Sabbath weren't short of good fonts on their album covers surely it couldn't have been too hard to use something that even vaguely embodied the band the author actually played in. Seriously, they either gave this cover to the Work Experience Kid or (more likely) the publisher had to put out something in a hurry to meet a deadline. Given that Sabbath announced their comeback album and tour a couple of weeks ago I get the impression that time wasn't a luxury.

Of course, we can't judge a book by the cover, and surely once we get inside Tony will keep us enthralled with tales of Excess On The Road...

Well, yes and no. Tony gives us his perspective on Sabbath's long and controversial career, and that alone makes the book important. He has chosen to construct his memoir as a chronological series of anecdotes. Each chapter runs about 3-5 pages and is presented in a conversational style, which is helpful for those (like Ozzy) with ADHD, but more than a little frustrating for anyone who graduated primary school. At best, it feels like you are sharing a pint or 60 down the pub with Tony while he shares his Best Recollections. Actually, if the publisher had framed the book in that way it would have been a much more enjoyable read. Tony has been presented by bandmates past and present as being little more than a Control Freak, and he takes the opportunity here to answer his critics and provide his side of the story. He even comes off as moderately likeable and I even found myself thinking, "I reckon I could have been in a band with this guy. He's just misunderstood." Nevertheless, Iron Man lacks two things that could have turned it from Decent Read to Quality Memoir.

Lack #1 - Effort. This book feels like someone pressed the Record button, transcribed the results, and stuck a cheap-ass cover on it. Not everyone is going to go to the level of Nikki Sixx, whose Heroin Diaries were a work of art as well as being hilarious and revolting. But even those who have followed a more traditional format (Steve Tyler, David Lee Roth, Tommy Lee, Anthony Kiedis, etc) have made sure that the reader walks away with more than a collection of short stories. Again, perhaps time pressures were an issue and Tony didn't get to realise his vision. That said, Tony has held the status of Rock Legend for several decades now - this book was going to come out sooner or later and Tony had plenty of time (in the last decade in particular) to have cobbled together something a little better than this.

Lack #2 - Juiciness. You know those cakes you sometimes get at the houses of Old People, that dry sponge with no icing that you need two pots of tea to wash down? Imagine that in book form. Black Sabbath was a band whose level of craziness on the road was at least a match for Led Zeppelin. Ozzy Osbourne has boasted that while in Sabbath he took LSD for a year just to see what would happen. You would think Tony would have some fantastic tales to tell. Well, he does, but in this instance he is keeping his mouth shut. Sure there is the occasional road story, but most are fairly tame and if you are even moderately acquainted with Ozzy and the boys you will have heard much worse elsewhere. Either Tony is so ashamed of his and others' behaviour that he has chosen to expunge it from the record (unlikely) OR the cordial (and profitable) relationship that he has re-established with the Osbourne camp (re: Sharon) and the potential for future earnings meant that he chose to keep many such stories under wraps. As such, there is no REAL insight into what it was like to be in Black Sabbath during the glory days of 1969-1983. Sure, the comings and goings of musicians and managers is documented accurately and each album is analysed for its merits (or lack thereof). The keen fan will already be aware of much of this, and will probably come away with amazement that Tony chose to keep flogging the dead horse for so long.

To be fair, maybe one of Tony's problems is that he is English, a race not known for self-examination and public confession. Even the working class of Birmingham, it seems, retain a Stiff Upper Lip at all times. In my experience, works on English musicians tend to work best when someone else is observing and interpreting the events and characters. Chris Welch's biography of Yes was a great example of a trusted insider getting notoriously reticent British musicians to say what they really thought about each other. Because Iron Man is totally Tony's story there is no-one to probe his inconsistencies and get beyond a purely subjective re-reading of events.

Fans of heavy metal and those new to the Black Sabbath story enjoy Iron Man. Despite its shortcomings it is not a bad book and gives a useful overview of the progress of such an important band from the perspective of its main creative voice. However, hardcore fans will be disappointed by its shortcomings and won't easily forgive the lack of detail regarding the band's most sordid periods.

2.5 War Pigs out of 5.

Reformed Romantics: Fallen Sexuality, Relationships, and Genesis 3

For those who might be panicking slightly, I am not intending to give a chapter-by-chapter reflection on marriage and relationships for the whole Bible! I will be moving on more quickly if you bear with me for a little longer. A quick recap:

The creation of humanity as relational beings by God is a reflection of Trinitarian character and action. With respect to character, human beings are "like" God in that they are able to relate in within a matrix of intertwining personal similarities and differences. Relationships extend outside of Self to include Other through love. In action, Male and Female are created to be partners in the work that God has given them to do which reflects godly priorities. In Genesis 1-2 this is the stewardship of the earth and the expansion of humanity. While this work remains ongoing, it is not necessary that this remain the primary task of humanity. In fact, the context suggests that the relationships between Male and Female will necessarily adapt to new tasks emanating from the priorities of God.

Total Depravity is a theological touchstone of the Reformed tradition. As John Calvin puts it:

...all parts of the soul were possessed by sin after Adam deserted the fountain of righteousness. For not only did a lower appetite seduce him, but unspeakable impiety occupied the very citadel of his mind, and pride penetrated to the depths of his heart. (Institutes II.i.9)

It is obvious that human sexuality and gender relations must be impacted by the rebellion. The question is how far this fallenness extends. Has marriage been "ruined" by the Sin of Eden?

There is no need to read into Genesis 3 any Freudian symbolism with respect to reptiles and fruit. Corruption of interpersonal relationships, with particular pertinence for the romantic variety, is evident from Gen 3:7. Romantic dysfunction is a result, not a cause, of the Fall. Yet it appears this is not an Epic Fail scenario. While in v.16 an increase in childbirth pain is given as a curse, the woman also receives an assurance from God in that the whole process of childbirth and marriage remains a blessing. The waw at v.16b should best be read as disjunctive, implying that despite the agony the woman will retain a desire for her husband and he will retain headship over her in a marriage covenant. The NRSV gives, I believe, the best translation ("...you shall bring forth children, yet your desire..."). The NIV ignores the particle, making it unclear as to how the second half of the verse should be interpreted. The HCSB is way off the mark by ignoring this first particle and translating the second waw into a disjunctive when it is obviously meant to be a connective (Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will dominate you."), thereby rendering v.16b as a curse when it meant to be an extension of grace. Two observations can be made regarding marriage and relationships from this chapter.

First, romantic relationships between Male and Female remain blessed by God and are obviously meant to be continued in some form even given the fallen state of humanity. God did not rip Male and Female asunder in his judgment - if he did, there is no reason why the Man and Woman left Eden to continue their lives together. In bearing children they still appear to be fulfilling the work that God had given them to do. When children are finally born it is said to be with the Lord's help (Gen 4:1). At this point we cannot say that Marriage Is Doomed by sin.

Second, despite the blessings that remain with the Man and Woman, we need to take the fallen nature of sexuality and relationships seriously. I have noticed a particularly American synonym for "virginity" cropping up in Australian circles - "purity". I think it is partially due to a certain Anglo-Saxon middle-class aversion to being blunt. "I have a Purity Problem" sounds a lot more palatable than "I can't stop watching gay porn on the internet." There are two problems with the "purity" word. First, the few instances of 'agneia in the NT do not specifically refer to sexual behaviour but to a consistent pattern of godly behaviour in all matters of public conduct. A thief has as much of a "Purity Problem" as an adulterer. Second, "purity" implies the a priori existence of something pure. However, the reality is that the Chaste Virgins of Victorian Romances share the same fallen sexuality as Bangkok Lady-boys. It is not surprising, therefore, that measures designed to "safeguard" the purity of Christian youth such as Purity Rings or Abstinence Only Sex-Ed should end up being abject failures in practice. This fallen sexuality will therefore continue to manifest itself in relationships, including marriages between mature Christian persons. There is no place or context in the current age where fallen sexuality cannot undermine true love and service of either God or Neighbour.

Reformed Romantics: Helpers and Genesis 2

Much ink has already been spilt in recent times with respect to the nature of the created genders in Genesis 2. Attention has been drawn, by Ash amongst others, to the fact that the Woman is to be a "helper" (Heb: 'uzer) to the Man in his God-given tasks. Woman is to play a central role in this work. She is not Man's companion, cook, whore, go-fer, or any other demeaning functionary. Man's task would be impossible to accomplish without Woman. Tracing the use of "helper" in the Old Testament we find it applied most often to God himself. God is the Helper of Israel, the one who delivered his people from Pharaoh (Exod 18:4), protected them from their enemies (Deut 33:7), and because of his protection is the one to be praised (Ps 28:7). The fact that Woman is called a "helper" is, according to the use of the label in Jewish culture, a term of the highest honour and respect.

Two questions must therefore be answered if this passage is to serve in ongoing edification for Christians.

First: What exactly is the task that Man needs a helper for? The clear answer is to have dominion over the whole of creation by the exercise of God-shaped rule. This is to be achieved through subduing all creatures of the earth and bearing of children to be a future generation of stewards. This is a task that will continue as long as the present age. In order for humanity to continue a new generation must always be born and animals that are not continually subdued will turn feral, which would not serve either their purpose or ours. We must say that in the plans of God the ongoing institution of marriage between Man and Woman must be considered Good.

Second: Does this Imperative Of Eden remain central to humanity's place in the purposes of God? If we marry and keep a few chickens in the backyard are we then "truly human"? When the biblical narrative is taken as a whole it is clear that, in terms of human relationships, God desires more from us than simply pairing up for procreation. In fact, I am tempted to ask whether this facet of our humanity, Good as it remains, shifts from Centre to Periphery in the purposes of humanity.

As the Bible unfolds more and more is commanded of humanity by God. Our task, in other words, shifts from one of Dominion to one of Redemption following the entry of Sin in Genesis 3. If this is the case, then it is only logical to assume that the way in which Woman continues to be the helper of Man must also change. It follows that, if procreation is not the main game, then patterns of godly relationship should shift away from the Marriage, though the Goodness of such relationships as they are proscribed by God remains.

Next time: How does the marriage relationship support the shifted task of humanity once Eden is in the rear view mirror?

Reformed Romantics: Trinitarian Love and Genesis 1

Thesis: If we want to have good teaching about the place of marriage/relationship in the Christian life we must start with serious reflection on the Persons of the Trinity.

At the heart of the Creator God there are relationships between three Persons bound together by a mutual indwelling of Love. These Persons do not exist as mere modes of an ultimately unknowable divine being, but this God has His being substantially in three Persons - Father, Son and Spirit. These Persons are not confused though they are united in the one Godhead. Christians worship a God for whom love and relationship are foundational rather than secondary activities. Each Person is in ordered relationship with the other two Persons. The creative and redemptive activity of God is an outworking of this reality.

Notice that in the New Testament two of the Persons are given the familial descriptions of Father and Son. A proper understanding of the funtion of divine analogy means that we cannot think of these titles as being projections of our limited experience of family relationships onto the divine, but that the created order reflects what is in accord with the divine nature. Human fathers and sons, therefore, are analogies of the higher reality, rather than the reverse. Since God has chosen to reveal Himself in familial terms we must approach any discussion of the question of family and relationships with the utmost seriousness. It is unfortunate that books on marriage are frequently filed under Christian Living rather than Theology in our bookstores. This may be an indication that the authors mistakenly feel that serious theology has no place in these texts. I would beg to differ.

The consequence is that when humanity is created in Genesis 1:26-27 they are deliberately brought in to a sphere of already existing relationships between God and Creation. They are not merely creatures, but are intended to share in the rule over Creation that God as Father, Son & Spirit already enjoys. They are more like their Creator than what He has created. They have the capacity to relate to what is Other. They are given blessings before they are given instructions (Gen 1: 28-30). The commissions to fill the earth and rule over all animals should be seen as expressions of the Divine-Human relationship rather than separate from it.

The primary purpose of created humanity was not to be either gardeners or procreators, but to enjoy and participate in the sphere of divine relationships. Male and Female were created not for each other but for God. In the tasks of each they celebrate the other-person centred love that they were meant to enjoy with God.

Reformed Romantics: a few thoughts

I have now reached the age where wedding invitations have slowed to a trickle. This is a great comfort to me. I am now spared from a succession of steamy afternoons in non-airconditioned sandstone monstrosities while a pair of dear friends plight their eternal troth, not to mention the neverending argument with She Who Must Be Obeyed as to whether it is important to "like" the purchased wedding present. [I am of the opinion that the first item that can be located on the register that is within budget is the ideal present. I don't care what it looks like or what it does - if the Happy Couple put it on there then they will be overjoyed to receive it. Let all the Men say 'Aye'!] My present occupation also means that I am now more likely to be conducting a wedding service than having to stay awake through one. The demographics of my faith community peers (mostly in their early 30s) means that most of them have paired up now anyway.

Except for those who haven't.

I am friends with a number of single Christian men and women whose youth (like mine) is slowly fading. They are, almost without exception, godly and kind people. For some their singleness (note: I hate that word but have yet to come up with a better one) is a peripheral fact of life. For others it is a crushing burden that impairs their natural Christian joy. These people are not selfish or immature or "unwilling to settle". The door to romance has simple not been opened to them up to this point.

The advice given out to the unmarried in our Christian circles is often very unhelpful, and I believe this stems from a lack of sufficiently theological reflection on the place of marriage. Several years ago I sat in a Men's Hour led by a pastor whom I greatly respect. His advice to the young men was that they had no excuse not to get married as there were more women than men numerically in the church, so if they didn't find a husband there then they would be tempted to seek an unbeliever who would most likely lead them away from faith. The implication of this, of course, was that if any single women fell away under this shepherd's leadership then it wasn't really his fault but was instead the fault of the young men for not "snapping her up quick enough". I had thought that this sort of advice was no longer given, until I heard it being basically repeated by another pastor I greatly respect several weeks ago.

Over the last few years I have been reflecting that perhaps some of the pain being felt by single Christians today is a result of a dysfunction in our overall view of what Christian marriage could and should be. In my final year at Moore College I did a theology paper on Marriage & Children in response to the rise of the Quiverfull and Childfree Christianity movements. As I did my research I came to the conclusion that much of the "Christian" view on marriage is not much more than natural theology blended with Anglo-middle-class morality. Even in solidly evangelical works such as those by Christopher Ash the theological focus is firmly on Genesis 1-3. Almost nothing is said about the deeply familial language of trinitarian relationships, not to mention the radical re-evaluation of our social patterns that the Cross of Christ must bring. In light of this, it is not surprising that the messages of encouragement in the chapters on Singleness in many books rings resoundingly hollow.

I believe that we need to start again. We need to take a fresh look at how the Gospel should shape our patterns of love, marriage, family, and children so that the Christian pattern of living is transformative rather than conformative. It will mean rethinking how we order our public gatherings, how we structure our youth and children's ministries to be informed by these principles. It will mean repenting of hopes that were never meant to be and of finding joy where we never thought possible for it to be found.

I'm planning on writing these posts as I go. While I have done some work on this area in the past, there is a lot which I have not yet thought about. I'm hoping that as I put some of my ideas out there that many of my readers (whether married or single) may challenge me on my exegesis and interpretation.

Album Review: "Unity" by Garage Hymnal

[Disclaimer: The author is married to a backing singer on Garage Hymnal’s debut album, Take My Life.]

The rise of Garage Hymnal as a major contributor to the local worship music scene has been nothing short of impressive. Their 2006 debut, Take My Life, was a slightly patchy affair, born out of the environment of a loose collaboration of musicians bound by a healthy dose of raw talent and a delight in the Word of God. Nevertheless, it boasted several strong moments (the title track and “Rejoice” in particular) that signalled that these were a young bunch to keep an eye on. By the time of their self-titled release of 2009 the group had coalesced into a much tighter unit, with the focus on the honeyed lead vocals of Alana Rodgers and Stephanie Vanden Hengel. Sonically the group offered delightful tunes that betrayed the influences of modern pop rock (e.g. Coldplay, Evermore, Something For Kate) and quirky indie (e.g. Architecture In Helsinki).

However, by this stage it was clear that they band had grown into a different kind of “worship band”. While spins on Christian Radio increased, precious few of the band’s songs made it into widespread congregational use (with the possible exceptions of their home churches). Is it possible that Garage Hymnal were making a genre switch from Worship Music to Christian Pop?

Perhaps in an attempt to ‘get back to their roots’, Garage Hymnal elected to make Album #4, Unity, a live album. Not only that, but it was to be recorded at St Stephen’s Anglican Church, a traditional edifice amid the hip grunginess of Newtown. Their website says that Unity...

“...offers twelve new songs for churches to sing together. Centred around the theme of our life together as a church, this album is a passionate prayer for unity...”

It is also a strong bid for mainstream acceptance of their worship vision.

While live worship albums have on the increase in recent years, following on the success of the Hillsong and Sovereign Grace teams, it is worth remembering that such recordings have been popular ever since the days of Thomas A. Dorsey. Yet bringing a set of new songs in front of a live audience and counting on their enthusiastic support is an act of courage. Judging by the applause, Garage Hymnal seemed to have had no trouble winning over their crowd on this occasion.

In keeping with its title, the lyrics on Unity abound with plural pronouns. The songs remind the listener that individual salvation has both contemporary and eternal communal applications. Worship is not restricted to my heart or voice, but only when the voices of the elect are joined together is Christ truly honoured. We live together, we worship together, we expect together...

Unity grounds part of its message in an homage to Christian worship of past generations. The adaption of Charles Wesley’s lyrics in “Psalm 140” isn’t revolutionary, but the theological focus on the uplifting of Christian affections through the work of Christ is most welcome (particularly following the recent visit of John Piper). “We Praise You” on the other hand taps into a more ancient stream through its reworking of the Te Deum, revealing a maturity and knowledge of worship history that is encouraging. Unfortunately, “Fairest Lord Jesus” (based on a 19th Century translation of lyrics from German Jesuits) has roots more in Romanticism than Scripture, and the winsome vocals make the song more than a little twee.

The original songs on offer follow a theme of faithful perseverance while awaiting eschatological redemption. “Unity” takes its cue from Jn 17:11 in applying Trinitarian relationships to the proper expression of Christian unity. “Stand Firm” reminds of the necessity of waiting together for the return of Christ in faith. The fact that there is no Penal Substitution song does not mean that the cross is absent, but rather the death and resurrection of Jesus are the unspoken foundation of present hope.

Musically, this album aims for high standards and unquestionably delivers. Arrangements are tight, with the piano and guitar interplay of Andy Judd and Greg Cooper tastefully done. Perhaps the greatest strength of the album is that the lyrics consistently scan well and are emotionally engaging. For example, the opening verse of “Sunday Came”:

Sunday came, darkness hides in shame
Desert plains, greet the morning sun
Mourn no more, feel the rising joy
Hearts revived, dust returns to life

Pure poetry!

So, if all that is true, why am I less than enthusiastic about this album?

First, there are sonic problems. Producer David Nicholas has an impressive pedigree, but the high ceilings of the recording location have produced a cavernous echo that results in a sonic wash which obscures many delicate musical moments (particularly in the quiet passages). While echo worked for Pink Floyd in Pompeii it doesn’t work so well for Garage Hymnal in Newtown. Another issue (common to live worship albums) is that the audience applause often intrudes on the beginning of songs, making it awkward for under-resourced churches who may rely on recorded music to lead their congregations.

But, more importantly, I am unconvinced that Unity has achieved its stated goal. Garage Hymnal wanted to make a Contemporary Worship album; what they made was another Christian Pop album.

A music co-ordinator who is keen to find appropriate material to introduce to their congregation will find the pickings on Unity sadly slim. Melodies are not well developed and are unnecessarily syncopated. The result is that those songs which are potentially singable would require too much work by a time-poor worship leader to rearrange with no guarantees that a congregation would pick up the tunes easily. The songs are undeniably catchy, but more “sing along in the car” than “worship together in church”. This is a shame, as Garage Hymnal is better than a Sydney Anglican version of Cold Chisel.

Garage Hymnal’s track record suggests that they have the potential to make a great contemporary worship album. Sadly, Unity ain’t it. As it is, this is still a fine collection of tunes that would be perfect for your next carpool up to Katoomba.

Hebrews 10:25 and Confidence In Christ

If you had to pick the Top Christian Guilt Trip Verse, I reckon Hebrews 10:25 would at least make the short list. Beloved of pastors and Bible Study Leaders everywhere, this verse is likely to appear in any conversation that begins with the words, "Soooo...where were you last Sunday?"

Any absence from regular fellowship can be elegantly dealt with by appealing to this remarkable proof-text. The wayward sheep will be rebuked by the plain words of Scripture and will (hopefully) return to an acceptable attendance pattern.

But to what exact situation does Hebrews 10:25 refer? What is the cessation in meeting that the writer is warning his readers against? Can this verse be used as a catch-all for the spiritually slack?

In his very thorough commentary Peter O'Brien admits that the exact circumstances of those who have ceased fellowship are not clear, though the fact that the writer has raised the "falling away" issue several times previously (and will do so again later) shows that apostasy was likely to have been a pressing concern for the Jewish-Christian receivers of the letter. O'Brien suggests factors such as persecution, indifference or apathy can be broadly implied from the text. While these issues probably played a role in halting regular meeting, I am of the opinion that the most important issue for these apostates was a lack of Confidence In Christ.

The stress on Jesus as the New and Better High Priest in Hebrews is hard to ignore. In fact, once the writer has reminded the Jewish Christians of the basics of belief, chapters 5-10 are devoted almost exclusively to this issue. A viable scenario is that a lack of a cultic system or priesthood in this new Christian movement would have given those believers of a Jewish background a certain amount of unease. For centuries the descendants of Abraham had relied on a Levitical priesthood to intercede with God on their behalf. The ceremonies and duties were strict - a failure to follow them correctly would have resulted in a break in fellowship with God. Now these Christians seem to have done away with all of the ritual rigmarole - no priests, no sacrifices, no incense, no ritual washings. Was God going to accept this as proper worship? Was the holiness of the Creator being denied? Maybe it would be better if we left these Christians to their hymns and prayers and brought a nice lamb to the Temple Priest to make sure God is going to accept us...

As I have been leading my weekly Bible studies on Hebrews, it occurs to me that the advocation of Jesus as the new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek appears to have been for the sake of restoring confidence to those Christians who were struggling with the lack of cultic practices. It was hard to believe, given the strict nature of the Mosaic regulations, that God could be happy with simply Faith Alone. There would have been many who were Just Not Sure, and so they needed reassurance.

What does this have to do with the use of 10:25 in our age? Well, I believe that this verse is not the Rebuke To The Self-Indulgent that it so often becomes. Instead it is the reassurance to those whose confidence in Christ is wavering, for those who feel burdened with sin, and those who feel that God does not hear their prayers.

I have been challenged in the last few days by Scripture to be very careful as to how I use Hebrews 10:25 pastorally from now on. Don't get me wrong - if someone isn't at church for no better reason than they went to see the Tigers lose again then they should definitely receive a boot in the backside. I'll just use other verses of Scripture to do it and instead save Hebrews 10:25 for the person who needs their confidence in Christ reaffirmed.

Tools and Carbon Taxes

When I comes to climate change I believe that I am neither an alarmist nor a skeptic.

Having done a bit of science at university level, I am aware that there is precious little about scientific knowledge that could be deemed Uncontested. Absolute scientific proof can usually only be determined in Controlled Lab Conditions, something that the global atmosphere distinctly lacks. Scientific tests can give at best imperfect results when attempting to prove abstract theories in Real Life. Moreover, long range climate predictions given by scientists who have only the vaguest idea as to whether it will rain next Tuesday need to be taken with a large shaker of salt.

On the other hand, it is only common sense that an increasing global population that consumes a growing percentage of natural resources and is only moderately interested in cleaning up after itself may have some negative impact on future generations. It would be nice, if not polite, to at least make some attempt at considering consequences and acting appropriately.

It seems as if the weight of Conventional Wisdom in our antipodean nation has swung towards the idea of a Carbon Tax as THE way to curb carbon emissions into the future. Levels of carbon emissions over a certain amount by the Big Polluters will incur a government levy under this scheme, the idea being that companies want to keep their running costs low and so will avoid behavior that lands them with a large Pay Now Or Else bill from Ms Gillard. If there is to be a solution to environmental Armageddon then it must come by and through the Market, the final arbitrator of all that is Good and Right in our modern times. Economic experts are almost unanimous, we are told, in declaring that this will be the most Cost Effective way of lowering greenhouse pollution in our nation.

So why am I uncomfortable about all this?

The story starts in my granddad's shed. Pa spent most of his retirement years making furniture out of wood (one of his chairs has a special place in my office). The beauty of his handiwork was partially achieved through personal skill, but just as important was the use of the right tool for the right job. Pa impressed this upon me from an early age, and the sheer number of tools in his workshop was a testimony to his belief in this principle. Using, for example, a spanner to knock in a nail would not only produce a dodgy job but would also damage the tool so that it could not do the job that it was made to do.

My point is this: trusting in Economics to solve a Social Problem is a case of using the wrong tool for the job at hand.

The way that economists and politicians (not only from the Left) talk you would be forgiven for mistaking the Market and Society for the same thing. This is a bleed from early 20th Century socialists, who had no problem in reducing individuals to the status of economic units. It is assumed that what is good for the Market must, by definition, be good for Society. If society needs a little tweak of its direction, then it is only natural that a push of the economic tiller will adjust our social direction.

I didn't do much study in economics in high school or any at all at university, but there is one thing that appears blatantly clear: the only function that the Market has in this world is Making Money.

Markets are under no obligation to fix the environment. Share prices don't care if you bought a hybrid car or a 4WD. Balance sheets aren't interested in whether the polar ice caps are melting. Corporate boards do not serve secondary agendas, only the bottom line. Implying that a federal tax on an aspect of business production will necessarily deliver the social change desired is a Hit And Hope scenario of major proportions. It's using the wrong tool for the job. In fact, it's worse than that, as it is using the tool most likely to deliver the opposite outcome from the one intended.

A carbon tax places the responsibility for environmental solutions in the hands of those that even the politicians admit are principally responsible for the present situation. It requires corporations to be proactive in cutting emissions rather than simply passing on associated costs and eventually to trade carbon credits as a viable commodity (one that has had a distinctly rocky track record where it has been tried so far). The only way this ends is with those already with Market Power growing stronger while the government rakes in more money from the pockets of working Australians while crowing about The National Interest. Local innovation and small business will be crushed under the weight of higher prices across the board. Those who have swallowed the socialist view of Market=State, whether they currently sit on the Left or Right, are equally responsible.

Surely the more prudent approach should be to take the power away from the corporate giants who have no vested interest in change and instead place it where it will achieve lasting results: community solutions arising from local innovation and small business. Economic regions must be given the power to decide what is in the best interest of those living within them rather than the interests of international corporations or foreign investors. Development grants for clean energy research and implementation need to be front and centre. Planning for energy generation needs to be taken out of central administration and given to those who know their areas best - wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear solutions could be possible while making long-term investments in regional education, thereby cutting reliance on Chinese or American conglomerates.

We need to think Smaller not Bigger. The disadvantages to this way of doing things are obvious: it will cost more and take longer. This is true. But didn't our parents always tell us that if something was worth doing it was worth doing right the first time? There is a reason that old growth forest logging has endured so long - it's Cost Effective! It's easier and cheaper to chop down an old tree than plant a new one and wait for it to grow. This is where Market Forces always let us down.

Those on the Left love centralized solutions because it feeds their need for total social control and those on the Right can be happy to go along with it if it makes their rich mates happy in the meantime. But the time has passed for self-interest. Along with looming environmental challenges, Australia faces a growing concern for its economic independence, with the manufacturing sector battered at every turn and growing rates of youth unemployment.

The answer for our environment lies in communities taking ownership of how they are impacting their environment and harnessing the know-how of those who have a vested interest in success. The solution is in our youth, who demonstrate again and again that they care about the future of their planet and are champing at the bit for an opportunity to make a difference. The solution is in local business and community empowerment, together a mighty combination that could move mountains if given enough room to show what they could do.

This is why I hope our leaders vote No on a Carbon Tax. Not only is it the wrong tool for the job, it would destroy the only tools we have that could do the job properly.

The Church Planters: A Musical

(Apologies to all for my lack of inspiration over the last month. Apologies also to Mr Brooks for this sudden burst of inspiration!)

OK, lemme pitch ya this for a plotline. Think we could get it made?

A worn out church planter sits in his midtown office counting his woes. His last few church plants have not been successful and the current state of diocesan poverty makes it unlikely that he will succeed again. The arrival of a financial whiz-kid who dreams of the glamourous life of a church planter heralds a new dawn.

The kid explains that, with a little "Creative Accounting", it is possible for a church plant that flops to make more money than one that succeeds if donations/pledges exceed evangelism expenditure. The elder sees the possibilities in an instant and embraces the young man with glee.

Together they start on a massive fundraising drive while simultaneously constructing a church model that is Doomed To Fail. They decide that the essentials for such a church will be:

• A distant relationship with the Jesus of the Bible. If people heard the truth of his teaching they would be convicted of sin and turn to God in repentance. You can't escape from Jesus, so best to say that he was a mystic-hippie with a primarily socio-political agenda (like so many others before and since). No-one will fall for that one!


• Making the Gospel all about The Self. Why would people come to a church that just tells them what they already believe?


• Promote ungodly virtues. Emphasise at all times Success over Suffering, Choice over Obedience, Greed over Contentment, Experience over Wisdom, Pleasure over Joy.


• Teachers who are personally distant and logically incoherent. No-one will follow them.


• Make the people work for God's Grace. Only if they sing louder, slave harder, and give more will they be worthy of salvation. If you can convince them that there is a Higher Level that only the most Spiritual can achieve then so much the better!
  

The church planters then start such a gathering, convinced that no-one would belong to a church that bore such scant resemblence to the faith of the apostles...

To their dismay, the church is the Runaway Hit Of The Season! People arrive in droves, keen to get a spiritual pick-me-up without the need for radical personal change. The faithful saints who had given money now demand its return, unwilling to be associated with such rank apostacy a moment longer. The church planters, caught between a rock and a hard place, are forced to continue their Runaway Hit in order to stay ahead of their creditors. The show ends with them bewailing their amazing success.

Pink Floyd, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Power of Prayer

It appears that Roger Waters is about to bring his recent production of The Wall to Australian shores after successful tours around America and Europe. Despite the overwhelming commercial success of Dark Side Of The Moon, it is The Wall that is closest to Waters' heart and the work that embodies his philosophical and artistic vision. This fact alone should alert the world to the fact that the composer/author may be more than a little sociopathic with shades of paranoia. If you need confirmation, go ask David Gilmour.

However, the truth is that The Wall is more than Waters' dream. It is also the soul-cry of the Baby Boomer Generation as it is hounded by its twin fears of Economic Depression and World War. In the story a young man, Pink, suffering from the loss of his father in war and the harsh austerity of English society, attempts to find fulfilment through rock music. As his star rises he finds his isolation growing, represented by a huge wall that separates musicians from audience. Finally, Pink lashes out at his situation and breaks down the wall, but the truth is that this is a Utopia Moment. Destroying the social disconnection means surrendering significant personal power, something which is anathema to Waters and his generational contemporaries. This is evident also in the spiritual choices of that generation and those subsequent - conformity to traditional structures is forsaken in favour of "my own path to God". Despite the often fair criticisms of traditional religion, it is clear that Western culture continues to drift even further away from God and true community. The Wall remains standing...

My own studies have led me to read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, a controversial figure from the late 1st Century AD. Some have seen in his writings evidence of a firm ecclesiastical hierarchy with the presence of an aposotolically appointed bishop as the safeguard of Christian unity. It is true that Ignatius had a very tidy mind when it came to church polity and wanted proper respect shown to those placed in positions of authority. Those who see the seeds of a One-Denomination-For-All-The-World position equated with that of the early church I believe misread Ignatius' intention, which could be accurately summarised as, "Hey, fellow Christians in yonder city! I've met your bishop and a bunch of your presbyters and deacons and they are Most Righteous Dudes! They believe in the Gospel of Jesus, so a really good thing to do is to be united with them and listen to their teaching. Don't chuck away God's blessing by trying to start your own thing on the side - that's like giving a free kick to the False Teachers who have been causing so much trouble lately."

The real kicker for me was a comment Ignatius made regarding unity and prayer:

Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. (Ep. Eph. V.)

Now, Ignatius is not saying that the bishop is a Prayer Signal Booster who gives group prayers more power to be received by God or get to the front of the cue. His contention is that if the whole of the church is united with godly leaders in petition to God then there is a certain "spiritual weight" that exceeds that of those who willfully abstain from proper communion (even if they have not yet succumbed to heresy). Prayer has power when God's people speak with one voice.

This had me thinking about the resources that are available for our communal prayers that often get under-utilized. Prayer diaries are available not only diocesan leaders but also our key mission organizations at home and abroad. Often these resources are treated as "a good source of ideas" for those composing our weekly prayers but with no compulsion to use. Yet would it not be a significant step if our weekly communal prayers were more coordinated, whether at a regional or diocesan level? Obviously, our ecclesiastical structures are much more complex than they were in the 1st Century and we must beware of applying Ignatius' advice inappropriately. But I believe that it would give our congregations encouragement (not even mentioning the added power to prayer) if they knew that there were things every week that there were things that all the other congregations in their mission area/region/diocese were also praying for, particularly if those responsible for leading these structures had made unity of prayer a priority. At significant moments or times of crisis when our leaders have called for unity of prayer I have found our congregations more than happy to respond. How good it would be if this pattern were the norm rather than the exception.