believe me good will come

(you can click on the photos to link through to the webpages from which I took them…)

Thousands of Burmese monks have been staging protests over the last three days in support of the All-Burmese Alliance of Buddhist Monks’ nation-wide monastic boycott of the military government.

Find out more here and here.

See more images here.

Not even sure where Burma is? :P –

Did you hear the one about the bumbling party-hopping MP, the fundamentalist wannabe-MP, and the MP under investigation for corruption who united to form a “Christian” party?

The topic for one of my seminars today was US Failure in the Middle East (2003-2006). Coincidentally, today’s Dominion Post published some interesting articles on the situation in Iraq (originally from The Times).

One reports that Alan Greenspan, who was head of the USA’s Federal Reserve (central bank) for 18 years, has stated that the war in Iraq is really about oil. In his recently published autobiography, Greenspan says: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

In an interview with the Guardian, Greenspan said that Saddam Hussein had wanted control of the Straits of Hormuz so that he could control Middle East oil shipments out of the Gulf. This would have been “devastating to the west”, bringing “the industrial world to its knees”.

If it really is all about oil, it will be interesting to see how the USA maintains enough order in Iraq to keep the oil flowing, while also withdrawing enough troops to satisfy domestic pressures.

Another article outlines the shifting justifications for the USA’s invasion and presence in Iraq:

2002: to disarm Saddam Hussein of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and create a breathing space for democracy in the Middle East (the WMDs were not there; the breathing space became anarchy).
2003: to allow chaos in order to create a “fly-paper” for every jihadist in the world to come and get slaughtered by the US (“Bring it on!”).
2004: to create a new democratic constitution (achieved on paper, but at the price of creating sectarian voting blocs that actually intensified the ethnic and religious divisions pulling the country apart).
2005: to protect Iraq from a powerful and growing Sunni insurgency and disarm the Shi’ite militias (failed).
2006: to quell surging sectarian violence, target a new and lethal Al-Qaeda in Iraq and restrain the passions unleashed by the bombing of the Samarra mosque (failed).
2007: to prevent genocide and a wider regional war and create enough peace for a settlement in the centre (the surge has reduced violence to levels of summer 2006, and no agreement in Baghdad has been reached).

And so the question becomes: what will the objective of the Iraq war be next year? Given the dizzying succession of rationales presented and subsequently withdrawn by the president and his supporters, the possibilities are many.

[Spot the racist countries:] 

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples after 22 years of debate.

The General Assembly passed it, with 143 countries voting in favour and 11 abstaining.

Four nations - Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States - each with large indigenous populations, voted against.

- BBC (see also Radio NZ)

p.s. SIS backs down over Ahmed Zaoui

funny - Charlie goes to Candy Mountain:

scary - children go to Jesus Camp:

[cheers to Charlie (not the unicorn) for the links]

 and you can see the rest on my Facebook

Members of an Australian TV comedy show, one dressed as Osama bin Laden, drove a fake motorcade through two APEC security checkpoints on Thursday before being stopped one block from the Sydney hotel where George W. Bush is staying.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/06/2026442.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20620312/
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/11-charged-over-chaser-motorcade-stunt/2007/09/06/1188783379963.html

WWJD, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Left Behind, The Purpose Driven Life, The Prayer of Jabez (ever wondered what happened to the author of The Prayer of Jabez?), The Passion of the Christ…

John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart joins the list of recent Christian fads. The first copy I received I exchanged for a book on Christian apologetics. I was sent another copy while in China, but stopped reading it when I got to the part where Eldredge implies that Jesus is more like Braveheart’s William Wallace than Mother Teresa (p. 24). Last week I borrowed Wild at Heart and decided to [try] read[ing] it with a more open mind (third time lucky?).

Eldredge argues that men “long for adventures and battles and a Beauty” (p. xi). Wild at Heart’s basic thesis is that men are wild at heart because God is wild at heart. Both men and women need to understand this so that men can live the wild lives for which God created them.

Wild at Heart provides an interesting critique of political correctness and how it has negatively impacted gender roles. Eldredge obviously wants to help hurting people. But anyone with a basic understanding of the Bible will find [some of] Eldredge’s approach problematic. Too many Christian authors manipulate the Bible to fit their arguments, presumably because they feel pressured to back up their claims with scripture. Yet the misuse of scripture doesn’t strengthen an argument, it weakens it. For example:

• Eldredge begins by arguing that man was meant to be wild and undomesticated because Adam was created outside the Garden of Eden and then placed there by God (p. 3-4; Ge 2:7,8,15). Eldredge implies that Adam’s place in the garden was less than ideal, that man’s true place is in the wilderness. But presumably God put Adam in the garden because it was the ideal dwelling place for him. Eldredge’s interpretation suggests that even God doesn’t fully understand the wildness of man’s heart…

• Eldredge argues that nature’s fierceness – tigers, killer whales, the jungles of India – reflects the nature of God (pp. 29-30). But others would argue that nature’s fierceness is a consequence of the Fall. Furthermore, the Bible says that the Messiah will usher in an age even more tranquil than that described in Eden – “The wolf will live with the lamb”, etc. (Isa 11:6-9; Isa 65:17-25; Rev 21:3-5; Rev 7:17). Eldredge’s wild masculinity would be out of place in a peaceful heaven where there may be adventure, but there will be no battles to fight or beauties to rescue.

• Eldredge states that God’s wild nature is evident in His “willingness to risk” (pp. 30-32). A risk implies uncertainty and the possibility of failure. But the Bible states that God is all-powerful and all-knowing (Eph 1:11; Isa 46:9-10). By claiming that God takes risks, Eldredge has to conclude that faith in God is a risk: “He rigged the world in such a way that it only works when we embrace risk as the theme of our lives, which is to say, only when we live by faith” (p. 200). But “faith” and “risk” are not the same. The Bible says faith is not risky, but is “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Heb 11:1). Christian faith is anchored in the objective, historical figure of Jesus.

• Eldredge derides the “false self” that desires a “guarantee of success” before following God (p. 213). Yet Jesus guarantees success – following him has no risk of ultimate failure (Jn 10:28-29; of course worldly success is not guaranteed: Mt 6:19-21). It seems that Eldredge fails to understand the earthly aspect of our existence in light of the heavenly (Mt 6:33). For the Christian, following God is success.

• Eldredge says Jesus is like William Wallace, as depicted in the film Braveheart (pp. 22-25). Christ “picks a fight” with the Pharisees; He is fierce and wild (p. 24). Yet the Bible focuses not on Jesus’ wildness, but on His complete submission. Jesus only said and did what the Father wanted Him to (Jn 8:28-29; Php 2:5-8). He condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and drove the moneychangers from the temple, but these demonstrate obedience to the Father as much as they indicate wildness.

• Jesus’ anger and ‘wild’ actions (such as driving the moneychangers from the temple) were not a reaction to wrongs against Him, but were carried out in defence of the Father (Jn 2:16). Throughout the Passion story, Jesus would not defend Himself physically against his attackers, and hardly even defended Himself verbally. As Christians, we are not to seek justice or revenge for ourselves (Ro 12:19-21; Mt 5:38-42). Contrast that with Eldredge’s advice to his son to meet violence with violence when confronting a bully (pp. 78-79).

There are many articles that go into far more detailed criticisms, particularly relating to Wild at Heart’s theological problems. I don’t agree with all of these criticisms, but they raise many interesting questions. Some of the more comprehensive reviews:

Rut Etheridge, ‘God in Man’s Image: A Critique of John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart’
“Wild At Heart is a heartfelt, emotionally moving but ultimately dangerous book because it is severely lacking in biblical truth….Eldredge rightly points out that men and women have fallen prey to culturally popular but deplorable ideas about masculinity and femininity. Eldredge wants men to be real men and women to be real women.  But Eldredge’s unbiblical methodology of helping people along this road is what necessitates the rejection of the key principles of the book.”

Gary E. Gilley, ‘Wild at Heart - Part 1’
“But what is so bad about Wild at Heart?  Are we just picking apart something because it is successful?  I trust not, for Wild at Heart is so full of unbiblical content and downright error that even Christianity Today wrote a negative review….Christianity Today implied that Wild at Heart is a “syrupy pop book that pleases undiscerning ears” and then stated clearly, “The therapeutic virtues of the book, however, do not outweigh its theological and cultural vices….Theological error emerges by page three.”

Randy Stinson, ‘Is God Wild At Heart? A Review of John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart‘
“With all of the good insights Eldredge offers in this book, it is actually a little painful to mention two of what should be considered very significant problems which undermine the entire book.”

-

“It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not.” – C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Book II.