Painting Fakes

There's a fierce discussion going on over on Simone's blog about choices in education and specifically whether you should choose a "Christian" education or engage with the State system.  I wanted to comment but it ended up too long so I've posted here instead.  As usual, life is more complex than our theories and in fact schooling choice is a very complex thing. In our schooling system there are five options, as opposed to the discussion which seems to mainly revolve around their being two. It’s actually more complex than this, because each school is different. This range is then doubled because parents will make at least two schooling choices, one for primary and one for high school – more if they move or if they make a mistake the first time. The high school choice usually involves some input from the kid too. The five options A State school – either local, or a non-local school which has some feature particularly attractive to that parent or child (lik

So after one of the least inspiring election campaigns in living memory, Australia looks like it's about to have a hung parliament , which will be way more interesting than the campaign itself.  Most countries in the world have this situation all the time, and parties have to negotiate to form a government.  Our politicians aren't used to this, though, so it it will be interesting to see how they go.  I think there are a few things we can learn from this election. If the major parties don't appear to be very different from each other, electors will find it hard to make up their minds.  In this campaign the two parties have outdone each other on who will reduce the debt fastest, who will "stop the boats" (we're not stupid, we know neither can really do this), who will better manage health and education, and so on.  So we're left to try and decide who will do this more competently, and of course we don't know. If we can't make up our minds we a

I think we need a break from all this heavy gauge ethical and ecclesiastical discourse.  So, in my little bits of spare time I've been travelling the weird and wonderful world of The Cyberiad, quotes from which keep appearing at random on the header of this blog.   This is a collection of tales by the Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem , most famous in the English-speaking world as the author of Solaris .   Nothing could be less like Solaris than these fractured fairy tales, set apparently in the far future in a universe mostly inhabited by robots.  The central characters are two "constructors", Trurl and Kaplaucius, friendly rivals, tricksters who can make a machine for any purpose if the price is right.    Beware if you try to cheat them of their fee!  They get themselves both into and out of deadly scrapes much like the wizards and demi-gods of more traditional mythology.  Lem uses these tales to present oblique, quixotic and often highly perplexing views

We did a fascinating activity at church this morning.  We read the story of Nehemiah and the Israelites rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem.  Then someone got us all to line up around the edge of the church and represent the walls.  Each of us, they said, is part of the walls of the church.  Each of us play our part - whether we preach,  play music, go out as missionaries, make the morning tea, mow the grass, or just turn up, each of us is vital to the whole. Like all good visual/tactile activities, it made me think, and here is what I thought. 1.  The work of the church is in the world, not in the church What was left out of the list was as interesting as what was included.  On the list were all the activities that go on within the church institution, from the least prestigious and visible to the most.  All are equally valuable and important.  So far so good. What wasn't on the list was anything that took place outside the "church".  If the church is a body with a

In my first post on this subject I looked at what Paul said in his letter to the Galatians on the subject of the Law.  This time I'd like to have a look at what Jesus says on the same subject in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7). I recently read somewhere that this sermon could be described as "the best of Jesus".  In other words, Jesus probably didn't say all these things at once, he said them seperately and the author of Matthew put them together.  If this is the case, Matthew took a lot of care over it because the whole is so much more than the sum of its parts.  I know you're not supposed to have favourite sections of the Bible but I have to confess that this is the place I come back to most often, ever since I first read it in my teens and was blown away by the depth of its moral vision. The Sermon on the Mount is a sustained critique of the  torah as practiced in Jesus' day.  He starts by affirming his respect for the law in the

This Labor Party election flyer appeared in my mail-box yesterday.  My expectations of electioneering are quite low so I rarely react strongly but this one definitely got under my skin! Sustainable Australia: We are ensuring a sustainable Australia with tighter control of our borders and record investments in solar and other renewable energy. Since when was detaining aslyum seekers or diverting them to an as yet un-named third world country a sustainability initiative?  Is this what we get now in place of an ETS?  Get real, Labor Party!

A spirited discussion about gender over on Simone's blog has led me to think for the thousandth time about Paul's attitude to law, so I thought I'd share some thoughts.  This post comes with a warning - you may find its contents heretical.  It's also a little long, but then it's a big subject. The usual and orthodox view of how to read the New Testament is that Paul's instructions (and those of the other apostles) to the various churches in his letters are commands, and that these are generally binding on Christians everywhere and for all times, with a little allowance (but not much) for cultural change.  Paul is referred to as the chief lawgiver of the Christian church and his writings more than any others are the foundation of the long tradition of canon law. I have a problem with this view, and its this.  Paul himself made some very strong negative statements about law in general.  Would he have liked his words to become a new law? Let's start with