Here in Australia, one of the growing social and economic problems is the increase in petrol (gasoline) prices. A number of politicians and organisations are vowing to investigate what they see as "price gouging" and collusion between oil companies.
This appears to be all the more important when you compare bowser prices to the current price of oil - which according to the real time Nymex indicator, is just under US$64 per barrel as I write this. The price of the petrol/gasoline you buy to fill up your car normally follows the price of crude oil. This time, however, it is different. The price of oil has dropped from its Katrina high of $70 to what it is now, but the price of petrol continues to rise.
The problem is not confined to Australia, as anyone who peruses international news sites will discover. Petrol prices all over the world have risen, seemingly breaking its causal link to the price of crude oil. This is not about price gouging or collusion, it is something else entirely.
There are three major reasons why petrol prices have risen, and will continue to rise.
Hurricane Katrina
The first is that the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina on oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is still being repaired. This is a short-term problem that will balance out within the next month or so. Crude oil is both produced and refined along the Gulf coast, and the Hurricane has damaged oil rigs, pipelines, storage sites and refineries. We need to remember that crude oil needs to be refined into petrol before it is shipped to your local Petrol Station/Gas Station. We also need to remember that oil which has been refined into petrol can then be re-shipped to other countries.
According to the Wikipedia article on the economic effects of Hurricane Katrina, 10% of America's petrol is produced from crude oil extracted from the gulf, while 50% of America's petrol is processed from refineries located in that same area. Moreover, many of the oil tankers that ship oil to the US deliver their product to various oil terminals located there.
With many Gulf refineries knocked out, there is a shortage of petrol/gasoline. Whenever the supply of a product fails to meet demand, its price rises to reflect that shortage. Since America can import petrol refined from overseas, this shortage is now being felt the world over. The problem at the moment is not a lack of oil, but a lack of petrol/gasoline caused by the damage to the oil infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico from Hurricane Katrina.
Light Sweet Crude
Not all oil is the same. Oil differs from reservoir to reservoir and from country to country. The most desireable oil is called "Light Sweet Crude". "Light" means that the oil has a low viscosity (thickness) and so is easier to transport and recover. "Sweet" means that the oil has low levels of impurities like hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide.
Light Sweet Crude is thus the ideal oil because it is easier to refine and turn into various petroleum products. Chances are that the petrol/gasoline you pump into your car has been refined from light sweet crude.
The August 2005 Monthly Oil Market report from OPEC, however, had bad news regarding the availability of light sweet crude. While total oil production had increased over the past twelve months, the production of light sweet crude has actually declined. This means that the oil that has been shipped to various refineries has been of a lower quality.
When oil refineries are presented with lower quality oil, they are either unable to process it, or take a longer time to do so. Either way, the time that it takes to turn lower quality oil into petrol/gasoline for your car has begun to increase. This means that the supply of petrol/gasoline will decrease over the medium term.
One way for this to change is for an increased amount of light, sweet crude to be produced overall. But this is unlikely to occur. Oil reservoirs do not contain an homogenous type of oil - in many cases the reservoir produces light, sweet crude initially, but as time goes by and the reservoir begins to drain, heavier and more impure oil is extracted. Another solution would be to build more refineries - but no additional refineries have been built in the US for many years. Besides, they take time to build.
The bulk of the world's oil fields - especially those located in the Middle East - contain oil that is increasingly impure. Unless an exceptionally large new reservoir is discovered, the days of light, sweet crude are over.
Peak Oil
Oil prices have risen dramatically over the past two years. The Wikipedia article about the subject shows that oil prices have risen from US$25 per barrel in September 2003 to nearly US$71 in late August 2005.
As a result of this massive price increase, an influential theory has again been touted as a reason for this - it is the theory known as Peak Oil.
Basically the theory is that geological research has proven that oil extraction follows a "bell curve". This means that when an oil reservoir is tapped and the oil extracted, the speed of extraction increases accordingly. However, after a while, the rate of extraction reaches a peak, and then declines.
In terms of historical proof, many Peak Oil advocates (or "Peakniks" as they are known) point to the example of the US oil industry. According to ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas), America's production of crude oil peaked in 1971 with around 10 million barrels per day. The CIA world factbook shows that in 2004, America produced 7.8 million barrels per day - a substantial decrease in production since 1971. Why such a decrease in production? It is because the American oil fields have passed the peak of the bell curve - they are producing less because the oil is harder and harder to extract. If oil could be extracted as simply as turning on a tap, why isn't America simply extracting their oil faster?
In terms of economics, the problem of peak oil is simple. It's not that oil has run out - it's just that oil can't be extracted fast enough to meet demand. When supply cannot match demand, the price rises. The "knock-on" effect should be world recession.
Many economists are unable to cope with the theory of peak oil. They cannot understand that oil producers cannot simply "produce more oil" on demand. The economists that have understood and accept the theory are predicting dire consequences for the world economy.
The only way for the effects of peak oil to be negated is for a large and plentiful oil supply to be discovered. This is very unlikely. Unconventional oil sources, such as oil shale or tar sands, are now likely to be taken seriously - the amount of oil that can be recovered from these sources in North and South America combined are more than double the conventional oil reserves that exist in the Middle East. The problem is that the infrastucture to produce such oil is expensive and time consuming to build, and will take at least a decade before production levels can make any major impact on world oil supplies.
As a "peaknik" myself, I was initially sceptical of the theory of Peak Oil. But after doing the research I was convinced. Please look into it for yourself - examine the logic, examine the science and you too will be convinced.
From the Osostrian School Department
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
On 16 September 2001, I was to preach at Redhead Presbyterian Church. I was to continue my series on 1 John, but it became obvious that the 9/11 attacks were such a momentous event in world history that it needed to be addressed. This is the sermon I preached that day...
Introduction
There is no doubt that the terrorist attack last week will be recorded as one of history’s momentous events.
In the 20th century, there have been a number of different tragic events that have seared themselves into the minds and memories of people and their children.
The sinking of the Titanic;
the destruction of the Hindenberg;
the attack on Pearl Harbour;
the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
the assassination of President John F Kennedy.
To this sad list we can now add the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, and upon the Pentagon in Washington.
It is the scale of the disaster that affects us the most.
No pictures of the Titanic survived, but we have all seen the Hindenberg exploding,
the burning ships in Pearl Harbour,
the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima
and the shot that killed Kennedy.
No one knows how many people have died in New York,
but given the 50,000 people who worked in the two towers,
it is possible that the death toll could reach beyond 20,000.
To give you some information for comparison, nearly 80,000 died at Hiroshima.
The images will be with us forever.
The smoke, the flames,
the Boeing jet crashing into the tower,
the people trapped in the upper floors, many deciding to jump to their deaths,
and then the final, terrible collapse of two of the world’s tallest buildings.
The world will no longer be the same,
it is as though the final vestiges of the 20th century is like the dust covering the streets of lower Manhattan.
But disasters have always been with us.
800,000 died in April 1994 in a civil war in Rwanda.
Possibly 650,000 died in an Earthquake in China in 1976.
Over 21 million died in the Influenza outbreak in 1918.
Some 20 Million died of famine in China between 1959 and 1961.
And historians estimate some 20 Million died of the Black Death in the mid-14th century,
a quarter of Europe’s total population at the time.
Please don’t think that I’m somehow trivializing the events last week by quoting you these figures.
All I am saying is that human history is full of tragic events
- of death, destruction, pain, anguish and sorrow.
Yet here we are in Church.
We have come here today to worship God and listen to what he has said in his word.
But no reasonable Christian should ignore the issue of death, suffering and evil in the world.
God does give us comfort, and he does give us answers.
But they are not always the answers we like to hear.
Like everyone who believes in God, we are faced with the problem of how we can believe in an all-powerful God
- a God who oversees history
- and yet reconcile that with the tragedy we witnessed last week.
When I sat down to prepare this week’s sermon, I realised that our journey through 1 John would need a break given the events that transpired in New York and Washington.
I started to write down a number of questions that people would naturally ask
- these questions are on your handout, and I’ll be looking at each of them in turn this morning.
These questions are:
1. How can God allow Suffering?
2. Is God in control?
3. Why does evil prevail?
4. Where does forgiveness fit in?
5. What should I feel?
6. What can I do?
Naturally our time this morning is limited.
Each of these 6 different questions could take up an entire sermon,
so please bear with me as I give only a brief overview of each one.
I’ve decided to approach it this way in order to cover all the questions that last week’s attack would have raised in people.
But you’ll also see that as we examine each one of these questions, a picture will emerge of how we can cope with the tragedy of our world.
I have to say before I begin examining these questions that I have yet to see any close relative die.
I do not know what bereavement feels like
- I have not lost a mother or father, or wife or child.
But I know that one day my parents will die, and that I will outlive some of my close friends.
I have not witnessed a tragic accident, nor have I endured the pain of war.
In many ways, my generation has little or no idea of what it is like to live in desperate times.
So while I come to you today inexperienced in matters of grief, I am confident that God will use his word to comfort us all.
I am not preaching from any particular passage, so please have your Bibles ready as we flip between different passages.
1. How Can God Allow Suffering?
The first point in your outlines is “How can God allow suffering?”
Suffering is part of the human experience.
No one here has gone through life without suffering.
So why does God allow us to suffer?
Why does allow people to suffer and die?
If God is all powerful, why didn’t he stop the jets before they hit the tower?
Many people have used this thinking to deny that God exists.
The fact that God does not stop evil means he is not all-powerful.
And since God claims to be all-powerful, the logical step to make is to deny God’s existence.
Let me read to you from Genesis 3.17-19
To Adam, God said “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘you must not eat of it’, cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
This passage tells us a couple of important things.
The first is that when God cursed Adam, he cursed his life on earth and doomed it to suffering.
Because of sin, Adam’s life was no longer to be the idyllic paradise of Eden, but the hard labour of raising crops to stay alive.
Because Adam and Eve rejected God’s rule, God cursed their life on earth to be one of hardship and suffering.
The second important thing is that sin brings us mortality.
God tells Adam that at the end of his life he will “return to the ground”.
Sin not only brings us pain and suffering, it also brings death.
The last time I was here I explained sin to be the rejection of God as ruler of our lives.
Because we have all rejected God as our ruler, we suffer the natural consequences
- we undergo hardship, we suffer and we die.
Suffering is an integral part of being human because we have rejected God as our ruler.
The curse is a universal curse, no one is exempt from it.
Some people believe that particular sins result in particular punishments from God.
Now this is partially true, but it can’t be applied in all circumstances.
If I go out and murder someone, and the police track me down and find me, then my punishment - life in gaol - is a direct result of my sin.
But this can’t be applied consistently throughout.
If I hate someone, will God make me have a car accident?
If I cheat someone, will God let someone cheat on me?
You can’t make that link - nowhere in scripture does it say that.
There is no doubt that there are people who are hateful, greedy liars who live rich and happy lives,
while there are honest, sincere and loving people who undergo hardship after hardship.
The fact is that our suffering is universal in its scope, but biased when it is meted out.
Those people who died last week in New York were not somehow more evil than we are.
Some of them undoubtedly were greedy and immoral people,
but some were undoubtedly honest, sincere and loving as well.
God allows suffering because it is the natural effect of sin upon our world.
We bring it on ourselves, even though it is indiscriminate in who is chooses.
2. Is God in Control?
But the second point on your outlines is also important here - Is God in control of our world?
There are some people who see God like an absent watchmaker
- he has created the world to run automatically while he is distant and aloof from it.
That’s not the way the Bible sees it.
Jesus in Matthew 10.29 says
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.
And Daniel 2.21 says about God
He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.
So what we have here is a God who is not only interested in human history, but who is in control of it.
When Jesus in Matthew says that no sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of the Father, he is using an understatement here.
Sparrows are not very important
- they are the equivalent to about 5 cents in this passage
- but these very unimportant things cannot exist outside God’s will.
Jesus is saying here that even if the unimportant things can’t exist outside of God’s will, neither do the important things.
So what we’re left with here is the realisation that nothing happens in history outside God’s kingly oversight.
God knew from the beginning of time that we’d be here this morning in Redhead.
He not only knew it, he made it happen.
The only reason why we are meeting here this morning is that God has ordained it to happen.
Now of course anyone who is confronted with this teaching therefore has to reconcile it with what has happened last week.
If God ordained these events to take place, then surely he is a terrible, uncaring God.
He is a God who has it within his power to stop these events from occuring,
yet he does nothing about it.
People who are confronted with this situation have one of three paths to take.
The first is easy - God cannot exist.
The second is similar - God exists but has no power over history.
Both of these paths are false.
The third path is to realise that God is in control of history, and that we need to look a little bit deeper into the issue to find out what God has done.
We need to remember that God’s sovereign actions never mean that a person’s actions are somehow excusable.
I remember as a young Christian trying to come to terms with Judas.
For a while I believed that Judas was actually in heaven
- after all, he was only doing God’s will in betraying Jesus and ensuring that he died for our sins.
This is partly true, but Judas acted out of his own evil desires and thoughts.
He acted on his own initiative, even though it was within God’s will.
Judas paid the price for his betrayal of Jesus.
So when we look at the events last week,
we need to remember that those who planned and participated in it were acting out of their own sinful nature.
They are to blame for it.
God is not to blame, even though he ordained the event to occur.
I know that is hard to comprehend, but as I have said, all these different questions will build upon each other and give a broad picture of what is going on.
3. Why does evil Prevail?
The third question on your outlines is “Why does evil prevail?”.
This is a natural question, and it has been asked many times in the Bible.
Let me read to you from Psalm 22.1-2:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night and am not silent.
Last week’s events remind us that our world is an evil place.
There is no doubt that the deaths of so many people was an evil event.
For all the good that happens in our world, we are always reminded that evil is around and active.
So when we as Christians believe in a good God who is all-powerful, we can naturally begin to wonder why it is that evil always seems to be winning.
Let’s be clear about one thing - sin is universal.
The bible says that everyone is sinful.
This is not talking about the actual acts of sin as it is about the extent of sin’s influence.
Those terrorists who crashed into the World Trade Centre were undoubtedly more sinful than any of us,
but sin lives in the hearts of all people.
Because of sin, our world is an evil place.
We are incapable of living holy and godly lives because we have all rejected God as ruler.
Evil is prevalent in our world because we are evil.
There are certainly extents of evil behaviour, but we are all evil - we are all sinful.
So while the psalmist in Psalm 22 cries out to God, he recognizes that God will act against evil.
In verse 24 he says
He has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.
We need to understand that God is a just God who hates all evil.
He promises judgement upon all evil
- but he will not act until he chooses to act.
The Old Testament prophets write about an event called “The day of the Lord”.
On this day, God will save his people and bring all evil into judgement.
There are actually two days of the Lord.
One day has already been, one day is yet to come.
The day that has already been is the day in which Jesus was resurrected - by defeating death, Jesus acts to defeat evil.
The natural result of evil and sin is death - by rising from the dead, Jesus defeats death and evil.
On this day, Jesus brings life and saves his people.
The second day of the Lord
- the day which is yet to come
- is the day in which Jesus returns.
On this day, he will take his people into his kingdom,
and he will destroy evil in the fires of hell.
We need to remember then, that God has set a day of judgement in the future.
We may rail against all evil and injustice now,
but we need to realise that God will judge in his own time.
God is a just judge, and justice will prevail - not evil.
4. Where does forgiveness fit in?
Which brings us onto our next question - where does forgiveness fit in?
Throughout this whole episode,
you’ll notice that most people are concerned with justice and retribution.
Is Osama Bin Laden responsible?
If so, how should we bring him to justice?
I have yet to see any discussion on the subject of forgiveness.
You may remember in the early 1980s when Pope John Paul II was shot.
It was soon after the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan,
and both Reagan and the Pope survived their ordeal.
But then the Pope did something that caused a great deal of consternation the world over.
After his recovery in hospital, he went to gaol and visited the man who attempted to assassinate him.
With the world press with him, he spoke to the man and forgave him.
While I do not agree with the Pope or what he teaches, he did force people to rethink their attitudes.
Where is forgiveness in New York at this moment?
Is there any desire on the part of America, both as a nation and as a group of individuals, to forgive?
Is there any desire on our part to forgive as well?
We need to remember that according to God, we have all rejected him as ruler.
Instead of flying a plane into a building, we did something worse.
Collectively, all of us participated in the crucifixion of Jesus.
We may not have handled the controls of a plane,
but collectively we have all picked up the hammer and nailed Jesus onto the cross.
And God, like us, is angry.
He wants justice.
He knows what we have done.
We know the might and power of the United States armed forces
- we know that they can obliterate any enemy they choose to attack.
But that power is nothing compared to the might and power of an angry God.
But he also loves us.
Not only that, but he is willing to forgive us.
What a strange God he is - that he can be so angry and concerned with justice, but so willing to love and forgive.
If he so choses, God can unleash his power of destruction and annihilate our world in an instant.
That he does not is testimony to his grace.
I spoke before about keeping things in perspective.
That the thousands who died in New York are nowhere near as tragic as those who have died in other historical events.
I also spoke of the fact that the image of the jet plane hitting the towers and the collapse of the towers as searing themselves into our collective memory.
But let’s keep things really in perspective.
The most tragic event in the history of mankind was not the holocaust.
It was not the black plague or influenza.
It was not the world wars or the the cultural revolutions under Mao and Stalin.
It was not the 11th of September 2001.
The most tragic event in our history was when God sent his son to us, and we murdered him.
And when you lie in bed at night with the image of the jet plane hitting the second tower of the World Trade Centre,
remember that that image is nothing compared to the son of God, lying dead on the cross,
tortured and murdered by our own collective hands.
Yet paradoxically, this moment of man’s absolute and depraved rejection of God as ruler,
is the same moment that God acts in grace and forgiveness.
Jesus’ death as a sin sacrifice ensured that the just punishment for our sins fell upon Jesus, thus enabling God to be both loving and just,
to be forgiving, yet exacting appropriate retribution.
And it is the extent of this forgiveness that is astounding.
We feel it is unfair, but even Osama Bin Laden can be forgiven for his sins.
But forgiveness is not about fairness, it’s about love and grace.
No one deserves God’s love or grace
- if they were deserved, it would no longer be grace.
5. What should I feel?
So what should we be feeling?
That is the subject of question 5.
Whenever we see pain or evil or injustice in our world today, it is right and appropriate for us to feel angry, to feel sorrow and to feel pain.
Why? Because we reflect the mind of God.
We can only imagine how horrific last weeks events were for those who suffered and died, but only God knows each person’s story.
What went through the minds of those airline passengers just before they hit the tower?
What events led up to people choosing to leap to their deaths?
Only God knows, and he mourns like we do at the evil and injustice of it all.
Anger is appropriate because we know that what has happened is unjust.
God is not impressed with uncontrollable anger
- anger that acts before thinking
- but it is right and appropriate for us to feel anger at injustice.
Sorrow is also appropriate.
When I woke up on Wednesday morning to the tragic news I could not contain my tears.
It is right and proper for us to feel sorrow for those who have suffered and died,
and for those who loved them.
These feelings are an indication to us that we understand God’s word more than just intellectually.
We know that what occurred was wrong and evil.
Anger and Sorrow are natural feelings for Christians to have.
6. What should I do?
That is how we should feel.
What about what we should do?
That is the subject of question 6.
The first thing we need to do is pray.
We need to pray for those families who have lost loved ones.
We need to pray that they not only find comfort in their sorrow, but that they find comfort in Christ.
We need to pray that God will lead them to turn to his word for comfort,
that God will provide godly, caring friends and relatives to show them the love of Christ.
We also need to pray for order in our world.
No government exists without God allowing it to be there,
and we need to pray that world governments work together to prevent anarchy and injustice,
and promote justice, peace and order.
We also need to be pray for the Islamic world.
Terrorism seems to be part and parcel of the Islamic world, which is unfortunate because the vast majority are not terrorists,
including may I say those who live in Australia.
We need to pray that God will work in their hearts that they turn to Christ and be saved.
So the first thing we need to do is pray.
The second thing we need to do is to trust that God is in control.
Regardless of how we feel, or what happens to us, God is in control.
We need to acknowledge that we cannot know the mind of God in all things,
but to realise that he loves us, and has provided an eternal home for us.
We need to remember that nothing can take us away from the love of God.
The final thing we should do is speak to others about our hope.
These events are still fresh in people’s minds, and they are naturally interested in what we believe as Christians.
We need to show them both our love for God’s justice as well as the forgiveness that has been granted to us.
In this time of uncertainty and pain, it is important for us to show others our trust in Christ and our confidence that God is in control.
Conclusion
Let me conclude.
Last week we witnessed an act of evil - there is no other word for it.
We were stunned by the audacity of the conspirators,
the scenes of horror in New York,
and the sorrow of the relatives as they walk the streets of their city,
desperately looking for their loved ones.
But we need to remember that the greatest horror of history did not occur last week,
but occurred nearly 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.
We need to remember that we ourselves have collectively crucified Christ in our rejection of God as ruler.
We need to remember that the events that unfolded last week were merely the natural results of a fallen world
- a world that has rejected God, and suffers pain and death as a result.
And we need to remember that despite the uncertainty of the future and the stability of the world we live in,
that as Christians our eternal destiny is secure
- that we will inherit a kingdom with no more pain, sorrow, tears or injustice.
Let’s pray.
Lord God, you are the God of all history. Nothing can match your power, and nothing happens that is outside your will. We look at the events in America last week, and we, like you, rail at the injustice of it all. We ask that you comfort the families of the dead, that they may turn to you in faith. We ask that you be with President George Bush and all the world leaders as they decide what to do. We ask that they do nothing out of revenge or wrong attitudes, but that they act to restore peace and order throughout the world. We pray that people throughout the world may turn to you in faith, and we pray for those who plan violence and pain, that you will show them mercy and love. We ask that Osama Bin Laden, whether he is reponsible or not for this disaster, that he may know and understand the gospel of salvation, and that he may turn to you in faith and repentance, and sin no more.
Give us comfort, Lord, to know that you have our eternal future planned for us, and give us the desire to share this hope with those who do not yet know.
AMEN.
From the Kerygmatic Department
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Every evangelical who has an understanding of Church history knows about the grave threat posed to the church in the late 19th century - Liberal theology.
Influenced by The Enlightenment and Modernism, Liberal theology sought to demystify the Christian faith and bring it under rationalist scrutiny. While the movement brought with it much needed scholarship to the Christian faith, its effect was to slowly drain away the spiritual life of individual Christians who were caught up in it.
These days, of course, evangelicals are not so worried about the fight against liberal theology any more. Liberal churches and denominations are in terminal decline, while evangelical churches are stronger than ever. In terms of numbers, the evangelicals have won.
So why was it that early 20th century evangelicals like J. Gresham Machen and others spent so much time attacking the movement and defending the historic Christian faith? The problem was that theological liberalism was ascendent in the church at the time - it was highly influential and it appeared to be unstoppable. Machen, and others, kept true to the gospel, knowing that God would vindicate their stand over time.
I have been prompted to write this piece after reading Phil Johnson's blog Peddling Mormonism as mainstream Christianity. In this blog, Johnson speaks about the fact that Eerdmans, an Evangelical publishing company, has recently published a book A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter Day Saints. A book on Mormonism by an evangelical publishing company is hardly new - except that in this case the author himself is a Mormon apologist and goes to great lengths to present his faith as being consistent with historical Christianity.
I'll let you visit Phil's blog to read his comments about this particular book. There's actually no problem about such a book being published - except that it has the name Eerdmans attached to it.
Ever since IVP started to publish books by Open Theists, I started to wonder if there was anything that modern evangelical publishing companies were unwilling to promote. Heresy, unfortunately, sells more books than orthodoxy, and when these publishing companies are bought out by non-Christians (such as Zondervan being taken over by HarperCollins), it is shareholders, not God, who need to be served.
But its not the publishing companies that should be blamed - the problem is with modern evangelicalism itself. If the movement had stuck with the old fashioned method of preaching and teaching only that which is found in Scripture, and proclaiming only the Gospel of Christ, then none of this would have happened. In fact, it is sadly ironic that modern evangelicalism has deviated so much from the truth that it does not even meet the criteria of what historic evangelicals believed. If James Spurgeon's new book is to be believed, even modern Fundamentalists have departed from the truth.
The fact that Eerdmans can release a book written by a Mormon apologist is not really such a huge issue - it is, however, one of those important "road signs" that help establish where modern evangelicalism is going. It doesn't mean that the church is suddenly going to accept Mormons, but it does mean that the church generally is in deep trouble.
The problem is that I am obviously one of those in the minority. The very fact that this book can be sold in Christian bookshops points to the fact that there is a market for unbelievers to write books for the Christian market. More than that, the fact that I speak up about it ensures that I will be pilloried for being judgemental or pharisaical or whatever. And of course not just me, but every Christian who stands up to it.
This generation of believers needs Machen-like figures to stand up and be counted. There's no easy "box" to place this wholesale movement away from the truth since evangelicals of all different stripes have been affected by it. I spent a great deal of time writing a Wikipedia article entitled Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief as a way to help rebalance things for the future, but the problem of an unbiblical church is one that goes beyond our easily defined boundaries.
This is why it is so important for churches to become more confessional in their statement of beliefs. Churches need to explicitly link their system of beliefs to one of the historic evangelical creeds such as the Westminster Confession or the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. There should also be explicit adherences to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and, probably best of all, the 1996 Cambridge Declaration which addresses the very issues raised in this article.
The fight certainly needs to take place on the public stage, but it needs also to be taken into the pulpits. Although it is important to mention the many problems besetting modern evangelicalism, preachers need to commit themselves to the systematic exposition of scripture and to ensure that the Gospel is central to both their preaching and to public worship generally. This simple and undemonstrative activity will ensure that the listeners are empowered by the Spirit to continue to trust in Christ and respond to God's grace through loving obedience.
It was these churches - the ones that remained true to God's word and continued to preach the gospel - that were able to survive the liberal onslaught in the 20th century. It will be these same churches that will survive the heterodoxy that will increasingly typify the evangelical movement in the 21st century.
From the Theosalient Department
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
It has been interesting to read both left-wing and right-wing commentators in the days since Katrina flooded New Orleans. Virtually all of the comments have been directed at the plight of the poor who remained behind. Naturally enough, most of these poor people are blacks.
The right-wing commentators have been disgusted that blacks were roaming the flooded streets of the city, looting and inflicting violence. Why should people want to believe that blacks are victims of a racist system when they are obviously being the aggressor here? I even read posts where people lambasted the poor for not getting off their behinds and training themselves up to become more employable. If they weren't so lazy, they would have better jobs and be able to afford the cars needed to evacuate the city.
The left have also been arguing their standard line. The poor are poor because the entire system is geared against them. Put of out sight and out of mind, the poor in New Orleans were never at the forefront of anyone's mind until they started drowning by the thousands. Their deaths are the result of an economic and political system that does not care for people.
Those of you who know me will realise that I am more left-leaning in my politics and economics - which means, of course, that my own opinions lie pretty much with the left-wing commentators on this issue.
But I am not a formal part of the "left-wing blogosphere", which means that my postings are not going to be tiresome fusilades against incompetent Bush sycophants or arguing about how the Florida recount would've given Gore victory in 2000 and how yada yada yada. I hate overtly political posts that seem to be written by party hacks - from both sides of politics.
I have, however, discovered in my readings from various US newspapers that the tragedy has torn away some of the basic assumptions held by many Americans, and laid them bare for closer examination.
Many mainstream newspaper commentators naturally come from a left-wing bias, but in the past week these commentators have moved on from addressing the microcosm of the tragedy (the warnings, FEMA, the Superdome, etc) to addressing the macrocosm.
In short - the entire right-wing economic ideology is now being questioned.
What is this ideology? For those of you who don't know, it is essentially the tenets of Neoliberalism, or what in Australia is known as "Economic Rationalism". ie small government, tax cuts, welfare cuts and a continual shrinking of government influence in the market and in people's lives.
Quite a number of these commentators have pointed out that this ideology has been followed faithfully by every single Republican administration since 1981. Their argument is that in the 24 years that America has been subjected to neoliberal economic policy, why is it that the nation still has such massive problems?
By accident, the tragedy in New Orleans coincided with a Federal government report which showed that America's poverty rate has increased in the last four years. Apparently this rate has been declining for decades, but has, since George W. Bush became president, begun to rise. Considering the fact that America has experienced moderate economic growth and low unemployment over that time period, why is it that more people are poorer?
Moreover, other commentators have pointed out that, for all the hoo-hah that conservatives make over their "pro-life" stance, other statistics indicate that America's infant mortality rate has been bettered by Cuba. When the mortality rate is compared from city to city, there are some major US cities (like New York and Washington) that compare very unfavourably to places like Beijing.
So why, after 24 years of tax cuts, spending cuts and a "hands off" approach are things still so bad?
The answer now appears to be quite plain - the system does not work. Neoliberalism is now being seen as a failure. The fact that it has been adhered to for so long and given so much time to work - or in this case, not work - means that critics have been given a very powerful argument against it.
Typically, neoliberals and the right generally have used the Katrina experience to promote their politics. They point at Democratic politicians like Ray Nagin (the mayor of New Orleans) and Kathleen Blanco (Governor of Lousiana) as being the prime cause of failure. What is not needed, they argue, is increased statism - more government spending and influence in society/economy. They argue that the poverty in New Orleans was actually due to welfare dependence itself, and that by reducing or cutting welfare entirely, these lazy blacks would get off their collective behinds, learn how to look after themselves and have a bright future.
What this argument ignores, however, is the fact that welfare spending right across America has been slashed continually for 24 years. If poor people can be brought out of poverty by having little or no state-sponsored welfare, then surely this would have been reflected in real life since 1981. No matter how faithful you are to an ideology, no matter how philosophically correct it might seem, what is the point of holding to it if it doesn't work?
There is only one other historical parallel with this situation - except that it comes from the other side of the political fence. That parallel is Soviet Russia.
It was quite obvious by the mid-1970s that Communism in the Soviet Union was no longer able to compete economically with Western market economies. From 1945-1970, the Soviet Union was able to match every western nation in terms of economic output and continually improving social indicators (such as infant mortality rates, poverty rates, preventable disease rates and so on). During that time they also developed their own nuclear weapons and many conventional weapons equal to those in the west (eg. the AK-47 assault rifle and MiG-15 jet fighter). That the Soviets were also able to beat the US in launching the first satellite and the first man in space speaks volumes of their ingenuity and, to be honest, their threat to the West.
But by the 1970s, everything had begun to slow down. Despite all the theories and all the different programs initiated, Soviet economic growth had stagnated. Experts now understand that the entire collectivist system did not reward efficiency or productivity gains - gains that could not be made within a system that did not have any formal market structure. It wasn't until Mikhail Gorbachev begun his economic reforms in the mid-1980s that things began to change.
But during that period of stagnation, there were many theorists and economists within Soviet Russia that continued to argue for greater and greater adherence to communist economic ideology. The answer to their problems was not to depart from communism, but to enforce it even more strictly.
In the cold light of history, these people were dead wrong. The same can be said now for those neoliberals who advocate even more adherence to pure capitalism. If it's so good, why hasn't it worked for the last 24 years?
But for whatever reason, objective and scientifically constructed statistics which prove that America is lagging behind other nations are dismissed and even ignored totally. In almost every case, social indicators like infant mortality, poverty, preventable diseases, average educational attainment, murder and so on, America is embarrassingly behind more the more "socialist" nations that are found in Europe and other parts of the world.
There is no doubt that America rates better in issues like GDP and unemployment, but GDP is only high because the American rich are very rich. Moreover, it appears that the unemployed in Europe are better looked after and are generally happier with their lot than American low-wage earners.
You might think that I have too rosy a picture of Europe and a too negative view of America. I'll respond to that simply by saying that there is no way that Europe's system could be considered perfect - there is still much to be done in reducing unemployment levels and lifting GDP. As far as having too negative a view of America - maybe it's you that has a too rosy view of the US.
The fact is that the strict free-market capitalism that is promoted and adhered to by its ideologues in the US is as empty and as inefficient as the strict communism that was promoted by Soviet ideologues back in the 1970s. What is needed is a recognition that government and private enterprise can and should exist side-by-side in a truly free society. The market cannot produce from itself things like universal health care, law enforcement and public education - in the same way that the government cannot efficiently produce the raw materials, services and consumer goods that the market is so good at controlling.
What Hurricane Katrina has shown is the reality that is America - government inefficiency, hidden poverty and ideological stubbornness.
If you'd like to more about what I think about related topics, check out the following articles:
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
As I have said in a previous post, I am trying to keep my blog's links to a minimum. As I have travelled around the blogosphere, I have noticed blog after blog with so many "blogroll" links to that it actually becomes meaningless. It seems to be quantity over quality.
So the bad news is that I have decided that someone's blog has to be SUPER good in order for me to link them from my page.
The good news is, however, that I actually do have a private list of blogs that I will visit everyday. More than that, I have decided that each time I visit another person's blog, I will click on their advertising so that they get some $. Many blogs I visit don't have advertising, so I naturally don't click any.
The upshot of this is simple - every blog I like will be clicked on at least once per day, and will have ALL their advertising clicked each time I visit. There's actually nothing unethical about such behaviour since I DO actually read a lot of the advertising - there's some good books and CDs out there that people have linked to Amazon.com.
If you want me to check out your blog, write a comment below and give the URL. I promise I will check it out.
The Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) has called for an extraordinary General Convention to debate growing calls for the ordination of Metrosexuals.
Spurred on by changes in the Anglican Church of Canada, which in April recognised Metrosexuals as "equal partners in the body of Christ", proponents in the ECUSA are aiming to speed up the process.
The Reverend Warren Mitchell, the carefully sculptured and well dressed Vicar of Saint Marcouf's Episcopal Church in Strong, Maine, is one of the lobbyists responsible for calling the convention.
"There is no point in denying that Metrosexuals have a place in today's church" he said, while rubbing moisturiser on his hands, "I can't understand why anyone would want to oppose us."
Mitchell was ordained as a priest six years ago, but made headlines in 2003 when he publically identified himself as a Metrosexual. Since then he has been inundated with messages of support.
"I received all sorts of well-written letters on quality stationary from men who applauded my decision to 'come out' as it were."
Since Mitchell's public identification, a number of other Metrosexual priests have not been coy about going public. The Reverend John Bird, Vicar of St Appolonia's in Grants Pass, Oregon, made history by becoming the first ordained Anglican priest to grace the front cover of GQ magazine.
"Before morning prayers, I spend at least an hour brushing my hair, exfoliating my skin and trimming my nails." Said Bird "The congregational members are so impressed that I am now styling their hair as part of my pastoral work."
"My wife think's its wonderful, although she keeps stealing my lip gloss whenever she goes out with the girls."
"My choice of lifestyle is not harming anyone - why should the church hierarchy be concerned about people like me?"
Concerns have been raised, however, from a variety of sources. Antony Carrick, Lecturer in Modern Ethics at the evangelical Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, believes that ordaining Metrosexuals goes against the church's stand on Christian behaviour.
"The Gospel narrative of the rich young ruler is perhaps the best text to examine on the matter. Here was Jesus, presented with a man who was, essentially, a dandy. What kept him from the Kingdom of God? It was his foppery."
Strangely enough, concerns about ordaining metrosexuals can be found throughout the entire church.
The Most Reverend Frank Griswold, one of the most progressive and liberal bishops in the history of the ECUSA, argues that Metrosexuality is not consistent with the church's teachings about inclusiveness and social justice.
"The true Christian is one who is willing to get dirty helping the poor and the needy - the oppressed need a helping hand. How can they be helped by the hand of a man that is wet with moisturiser?"
"They set themselves up as the image of the perfect man. No one who is needy can live up to that."
Dr. Max Wall, professor of Liturgical Ethics at the St Joseph of Arimathea Seminary in Berkeley, California, has spoken out against this potential move.
"In 1977, the ECUSA lost thousands of members because of their liberal stance", Wall said "The sight of a man wearing good shoes and a fashionable cassock will distract the people of God as they celebrate mass."
Fr. Bernard Bresslaw, Rector of St. Hubbin's church in Beaverton, Oregon, and the Episcopal chaplain to Nike Inc, is one who argues that there should be no barrier to the ordination of metrosexuals.
"I like them. I'm not one myself, you understand, but I can't see any reason why they shouldn't receive the holy orders."
"The only worry I would have would be the effect of a manscaped Priest upon a congregation that contains single women. He would need to be very careful that he be an intermediary for God, not a gift from God."
The General Convention will commence in early November.
From the Department of Attempted Humour
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
The Daily Telegraph is a Sydney based tabloid newspaper. It is well known for its exceptionally bad writing, its pandering to the lowest common denominator and, occasionally, outright lies.
For those who are not from Australia, there was a major news story in Sydney in the week before Hurricane Katrina arrived. John Brogden, the NSW opposition leader and member of the Liberal Party (which is, ironically, a conservative political party like the US Republican party), had been reported in the media as saying some rather unsavoury things about his political opponent, former Premier of NSW, Bob Carr - or rather, about his wife, Helena Carr.
What had happened was this. Bob Carr announced his retirement some weeks ago. John Brogden, his political opponent, held a party with a number of journalists that night to celebrate his opponent's leaving. During that party, he got a little drunk, and described Carr's wife, who is Malaysian, as a "Mail-order Bride". He also pinched a female journalist's posterior and propositioned another female journalist. When all this came out in public, Brogden was humiliated. He did the only "honourable" thing open to him and resigned as opposition leader. He then attempted suicide, but was hospitalised in time. The outrage over Brogden's behaviour was soon lulled by genuine public concern over his wellbeing.
So what's all this about the Daily Telegraph? Well the Telegraph made some rather unsavoury reports of Brogden's past sexual escapades. It reported that in 2003, Brogden had proposed a "threesome" with two female journalists. For some reason it appears that the Telegraph named those journalists.
Media Watch, an Australian TV series that explores current media issues, was contacted by the journalists involved and has concluded that the Telegraph report was a lie. (Brogden sex claim branded a lie - SMH) The entire story was concocted by the journalist/editor of the newspaper in order to cash in on this sad episode. As a result, they have wrongly smeared the name of a man who has already destroyed his political career.
I was never a fan of John Brogden, and there was no other option but for him to resign. Nevertheless I was impressed by the man's honesty in front of the media when he confessed his wrong behaviour, and offered no excuses whatsoever. The man's career is ruined, his marriage is likely to be "on the rocks" and his own emotional state is delicate.
A friend of mine was once on a bus reading a fantasy novel. The person next to him commented to him "Still reading kid's books I see." The man was reading the Daily Telegraph. My friend related later how ironic such a statement was.
The media are so important in our society - but economic realities such as competition and advertising ensure that the media are always going to report things badly. The Telegraph is aimed at people with lower levels of literacy, so their readers don't always worry about whether they are being fed lies. More liberal and educated newspapers, like the Sydney Morning Herald, have readers that appreciate objectivity and facts more. That's not to say that the SMH is unbiased though, as any Sydney Anglican can testify.
I invented by own adage to describe my feelings about this: Entertainment is a Commodity; Truth is a Right. When it comes to entertaining us with TV shows and other things, the media are selling us a commodity via the selling of advertising space. Good on them - let them keep doing it. But Truth - especially truthful reporting of events and unbiased covering - is a right. No one should ever be led to believe falsehood by the media.
Oh, by the way, for my North American readers - the most repulsive and consistently biased news organisation you guys have is Fox News. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation too - the same owners of Sydney's Daily Telegraph. Feel free to blame Australia for that one.
From the Department of Wha's Happnin?
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I've begun a Frequently Asked Questions page for people to view. There's a link to it under "OSO Departments" on the right.
It's all about me...
