Couldn't Help Noticing

Publishers and martyrs

All of us at Matthias Media are saddened to read of the murder in Turkey of three Christians who were working for a Christian publishing house there, and apparently involved in the printing of Bibles.

We are thankful that we do not currently face such risks in this country where we conduct our own publishing ministry. And we join with others in praying for the families of those killed, and also asking that God would enable the work of making the Scriptures available in Turkey to continue.

The Chinese Bible Gap

I was struck by the figures in a fundraising brochure from Bible League Australia that hit my desk the other day. It showed that there is a growing gap between the number of Christians in China and the number of Bibles available to them. This is the diagram:

That is, in the space of 17 years, the number of Christians trying to live out their Christian lives in often difficult circumstances without access to their own copy of God's word has grown from around 30 million to around 50 million in China, even though some 25 million Bibles have been made available in that time through organisations like the Bible League, the Bible Society, and others. I understand that the same sort of growing Bible gap is also occurring in Africa.

It is certainly time Western Christians started putting more resources into this serious problem.

Rowan and Romans

I received an email from my former New Testament professor regarding Rowan Williams' recent comments about Romans 1-2. Dr Gagnon has been the leading defender of the Biblical position on homosexuality. His recent response is of particular interest to those within the Anglican Communion:

Dear friends,

I posted today on my website a response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's widely reported remarks yesterday that Paul's primary point in Romans 1-2 was that believers shouldn't judge others and that this primary point was being missed by those in the church who are opposed to the church's validation of homosexual practice. My response is entitled: “Rowan Williams' Wrong Reading of Romans”

Feel free to distribute this information as widely as possible, and to link to the article.

Blessings,

Robert Gagnon

I love Powerpoint

I love PowerPoint. Really, I do. I used to just look people in the eye and preach to them from the Bible, but it wasn't working. I could sometimes tell people weren't listening well, and it always made me lift the pace a bit, or bring in an illustration or make things a bit more animated so that people could sense that what I was saying from the Bible was really important. And that was a huge effort for me—it was very difficult—so that's what I mean about it not working, and that's why I'm such a fan of the new, up-to-date ways of getting the message of the Bible out there.

Yep, it's true. I'm really pleased because, erm, because ... oh, look if we can just wait for a moment until this next slide comes up, I'll explain why. Er ... okay ... er ... can we get that up now?

Hang on a moment. Oh look, while we're waiting, sorry about the mix-up with the verse and chorus of that last song. I've got the remote control here but it's not working very well, and the PowerPoint people up the back were a bit caught out. So that's why we had 2 verses where you could only hear the song-leaders; it wasn't because the mikes were turned up too high like last time.

... Oh ... okay, hang on, here we go—no stop there. No, not there, just stop on that picture of the flower that bears no resemblance to anything I was actually saying. I found it on Google Images and the passage from Isaiah mentioned trees clapping their hands, and sorry if it distracted a bit. I noticed people sort of looking away at that point, but that's partly my fault I know. This remote—something's gone funny with it ... er ...

Oh, hang on, here's Fred. Fred knows how this works. Oh. Look, er Fred, how about I just turn this off—is this the button? Look, maybe if you can just run up the back of the church and help Dave fix it up there. Dave's just filling in this week, everybody, and he's doing a great job too. Give him a hand! That's it, thank you, that's it. Thanks Dave, thanks, yep, er ... Dave's great but I think we just didn't quite get our briefing straight before our meeting ... er ...

—Oh, no, that's the next point. Go back again, please! Look, how about I just read it to you out of the passage. I'm going to keep going and I'm sure it will come up in just a moment—thanks for that—I mean they say that the machines sense your frustration don't they, ha ha ha ha ... er ... okay, here we go!

Oh, no, that's something else. Actually, no, that's great—keep it on that web link because it points to an article in The Sydney Morning Herald ... okay, you can find it at

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/04/03/1175366240499.html

Oh, er, Fred and Dave, I didn't mean for you to actually click on the link to that Herald article. Everybody's reading it now instead of listening to me. What's that, you say? The article talks about how using PowerPoint actually detracts from listening to the sermon, because there's too much going on? Even reading the Bible on screen or from the pew Bibles at the same time as hearing it spoken by the person up front is leading to information overload? This means that, in reality, even less information is absorbed? That we should seriously reconsider the educational value of using PowerPoint at all?

Look to be honest—Fred, Dave, everyone— the thought had crossed my mind. No, really, it has. Maybe instead of relying on extra visual stimuli, images and tricky film clips from Mr Bean movies to grab people's attention, and so on, I should have just put a bit more time and effort into explaining God's word—working on what I was actually supposed to be preaching about.

What's that? Yes, you're right, Mrs Nurks. Yes, yes, I could maybe even have used my extra preparation time that wasn't taken up with pulling together the PowerPoint slides to cut down on material so that what remained was the really important stuff from the word of God.

Yes, yes, I did notice that the Bible in its original form didn't come with pictures, or dot-point summaries, or illustrations and diagrams and charts. And you may be right: maybe it wasn't a mistake. But just speaking for myself personally, I loved it when those Good News Bibles came out—the ones with the line drawings. What's that? No, it didn't actually help me understand the words better, but I liked to colour them in during sermons—or during that day when the Scripture teacher wasted 10 minutes trying to fix the overhead projector. Isn't it great we've moved on from those days? Hahaha ... er ...

Oh, look, here we go! Thanks Fred. Good on you! Thanks Dave. How about another little round of applause? ... Yep ... Anyway, the next slide will explain everything ...

Rules for the virtual playground

You know the internet has finally come of age when its veterans start calling for a “Blogging Code of Conduct”. Tim O'Reilly, who first came up with the phrase “web 2.0” has caused a firestorm in the virtual world by daring to suggest that bloggers should curtail their online behaviour.

His proposal came about after one of his good friends, programming instructor and game developer Kathy Sierra started receiving death threats on her blog which were then followed up by images of, among other things, a noose held up next to her head, along with sexually derogatory comments, on several sites which have since been shut down. On her own blog, she also received posts from anonymous commenters who gave out her social security number and home address. This led her to cancel her speaking engagement at a San Diego conference and temporarily shut down her blog.

While the majority of the blogosphere would in no way condone what happened to Sierra, many are up in arms about O'Reilly's code. Some have labelled it ridiculous. Some are calling it an infringement of free speech. One commenter wrote, “So-called ‘community standards’ are merely the latest example of the agents of normalcy and entrenchment subconsciously attempting to organize, dictate, tame and pacify”.

But looking at O'Reilly's first draft, many of his points are principles that should govern all polite social behaviour—for example, “We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person”, or “We connect privately before we respond publicly” (which sounds just like Matthew 18:15-20). These things ought to be obvious (though perhaps they need to be re-emphasized, given the poor example of individuals on reality TV shows like Big Brother, or celebrities like Naomi Campbell who didn't think twice about hitting her assistant with a mobile phone). Indeed, rather than being rules which “organize, dictate, tame and pacify”, the code is simply a practical expression of how to love thy virtual neighbour.

However, in the midst of the debate about how the code should be implemented, whether or not it can be enforced and what symbol the badges should use (yes, there are badges), there was one idea that was curiously missing: the real motivation behind the love your neighbour principle. We don't do it because it's the right thing to do (even though it is). We don't do it because we love others and we desire their good (even though we do). We do it because our neighbours, virtual or otherwise, have been created in the image of God. The Book of James points out that with our tongues we “bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God” (Jas 3:9). Slander, death threats, misogynistic behaviour and trolling are all wrong because, in transgressing against another human being, they ultimately transgress against the person of God himself.

Though we may not be able to see God's image reflected in a user's avatar, screen name or buddy icon, we still have a responsibility to relate to them in love. Given the ubiquitous nature of trolls, flame wars and pie fights, the people of God created in the image of God have a real opportunity here to let their light shine just as brightly in the blogosphere as anywhere else in the real world (Matt 5:16).