Monday, January 31, 2005 AD
I received one of those scam 419 emails last week: the usual stuff, you all know the drill:
But in an ingenious twist to the usual "fire and forget" approach of 419 scammers, the grieving "Mrs M____ S_____" (name omitted to protect the real Mrs M____ S_____ who - just to hazard a guess here - is not connected with this scam) has now demonstrated that she is all-too familiar with dealing with lawyers. I opened up my inbox today to find she had sent a chasing letter:
I am seeking for a business co-operation with you / your company to act as my Investment and fund manager / co-beneficiary to funds held in a financial Trustee, belonging to late Mr. D____ S_____ ... My late husband owns an investment account in the name of one of his Accountants Charles I. Alexander (esq) ... worth Nine Million British Pounds Sterling ... The sum of One million eight hundred thousand British pounds sterling shall be paid to you ... There is no risk whatsoever to bear in this venture ... Consider this as a cry of a widow in need of urgent assistance...All very tedious, straight into Deleted Items.
But in an ingenious twist to the usual "fire and forget" approach of 419 scammers, the grieving "Mrs M____ S_____" (name omitted to protect the real Mrs M____ S_____ who - just to hazard a guess here - is not connected with this scam) has now demonstrated that she is all-too familiar with dealing with lawyers. I opened up my inbox today to find she had sent a chasing letter:
In furtherance of the investment matter, of which you were contacted yesterday, I hereby suggest that you kindly contact Mr. C_____ A_______ strictly by fax at the Toll Free fax number +1 806 737 2*** for further details ... If you have not contacted him yet please do so and him your contact coordinates for effective communication. He awaits your response ... Please find a place in your heart to consider assisting me.In our most honest moments (no sniggering at the back, there!), we lawyers may occasionally own up to the fact that we can sometimes be less responsive to people's letters than we (and they) would like. But for email scammers to have picked up on this trait and to be making use of it to make their pleas seem more credible - well, if that's not a blot on the good name of our profession, then what is? :-)
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 AD
Chris Atwood, in the comments to my post on unbelieving children, writes:
(The problem is not that churches are following a "bride of Christ" model, but that they are following a "girlfriend of Christ" model. Discuss.)
But what sort of a bride is the church? Answer: she is the great answer to the rhetorical question in Proverbs 31: "An excellent wife who can find?". To her husband, Christ, she is indeed "far more precious than jewels".
And the Proverbs 31 wife is no simpering doormat. She is an admirable and capable woman, who does her husband "good, and not harm, all the days of her life". She works hard, helps the poor and needy, brings honour to her husband:
It also strikes me that Scripture describes the church as the bride of Christ, and Christians as soldiers of Christ. Problems come when individual Christians are encouraged to think of themselves as each being Christ's bride. It's easy to see why this can make many boys and men uneasy. Bigger problems come when the church takes on the mantle of being Christ's soldier.
That last quote from Proverbs 31 illustrates the point nicely: in those verses we have the husband (Christ), his wife (the church) and her children (us), who are to join in her Husband's praise by calling her blessed.
I think teenagers (girls too, but especially boys) respond better to a Christian culture heavy on self-discipline, intellectual defense of the faith, and standing against this decadent age (the soldier of Christ model), than to one solely devoted to tearful surrender, heart to heart fellowship, and moaning prayer circles (the bride of Christ model).While I'm sure he has a point about many boys (and indeed men) being put off by the increasing hugginess of large parts of the church, I wouldn't want to describe the latter as a "bride of Christ" model to which a "soldier of Christ" model is to be preferred. After all, the image of the church as the bride of Christ has far greater prominence in Scripture (Ephesians 5, Revelation) than the image of the Christian as a soldier, though the latter is certainly there (eg Ephesians 6).
(The problem is not that churches are following a "bride of Christ" model, but that they are following a "girlfriend of Christ" model. Discuss.)
But what sort of a bride is the church? Answer: she is the great answer to the rhetorical question in Proverbs 31: "An excellent wife who can find?". To her husband, Christ, she is indeed "far more precious than jewels".
And the Proverbs 31 wife is no simpering doormat. She is an admirable and capable woman, who does her husband "good, and not harm, all the days of her life". She works hard, helps the poor and needy, brings honour to her husband:
Her children rise up and call her blessed;If we're worried about the "feminization" of the church, perhaps we should first of all be worried about models of "femininity" that fall a long way short of that presented to us in Proverbs 31, not to mention other figures such as Abigail or, for that matter, Mary.
her husband also, and he praises her:
"Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all."
It also strikes me that Scripture describes the church as the bride of Christ, and Christians as soldiers of Christ. Problems come when individual Christians are encouraged to think of themselves as each being Christ's bride. It's easy to see why this can make many boys and men uneasy. Bigger problems come when the church takes on the mantle of being Christ's soldier.
That last quote from Proverbs 31 illustrates the point nicely: in those verses we have the husband (Christ), his wife (the church) and her children (us), who are to join in her Husband's praise by calling her blessed.
From the letters page in today's Times:
Sir, I have received an insurance company leaflet which suggests that I could save over £200 on my car insurance. The small print then explains:Note that this is a driver of a safe age and of the safer gender, living in a safe area, who is an insurance company's dream customer (fully comp with zero no-claims!), driving a safe number of miles in a car that is safe to the point of utter tedium and some way beyond (I mean, you try doing a handbrake turn in a Rover). Hmm.
All price saving comparisons included in this leaflet are based on a 44 year old female living in the Darlington area, with Comprehensive cover but zero No Claims Discount, driving 12999 miles per year in a 2002 Rover 25 1.4.
If she would like to get in touch with me I will pass the leaflet on to her.
Yours sincerely,
DAVID MOSSMAN
Tuesday, January 18, 2005 AD
The Internet Monk tackles that moment every Christian parent dreads: "Mum, Dad: I don't believe in Jesus anymore".
I was about to say, "I hope never to have to face this issue, but if I do, I hope I have the presence of mind to search out this article". In fact, I'm not sure I quite mean that. I would be devastated if our children rejected the faith permanently and outright as they grew up. But there is an alternative trajectory, one not all that dissimilar from my own, in which adolescent rejection of a childish faith gives way to a re-embracing of that faith in a more solid and lasting way in adulthood.
As the IM says:
In the same way, doubting God and the Gospel are things that it is, perhaps, not wise to leave until adulthood before experiencing for the first time.
I would not wish my own experience of atheism - of godlessness, in the most desolate sense of the word - on anyone, let alone my sons. But at least I now have a memory of how doubt and unbelief need not be the last word in my own life, of how the questions and accusations against Christianity can be answered or at least lived with, rather than finding myself mugged by first encountering these objections - many of which are facile, all of which the church has lived with in one form or another for 2,000 years - only in adulthood, perhaps in circumstances that make them more spiritually dangerous: for example, when suffering comes, and we are invited to "curse God and die".
So I can see where the IM is coming from when he counsels against "declaring a 'three alarm fire' over an unbelieving child". And many of his practical suggestions are very helpful: finding appropriate Christian peer groups in which your child can participate (though some church youth groups may do more harm than good); maintaining the practice of family devotions and church attendance in the home ("When [your child] has his own family, he may do what he wants. Your family will worship, pray, etc."); and above all, praying for your children.
That said, I don't always find it easy to resist the pleadings/pesterings of our children for a new toy or (yet) another biscuit. In a consumerist society, it feels almost like a form of child abuse to withhold material things from our children. ("He'll grow up hating me for not having bought him [x]", I find myself thinking; minutes later, having steeled myself to say "no" and endured the cries of anger and disappointment, the unpurchased [x] is completely forgotten.) It also feels hypocritical: I'm scarcely a model of restraint when if comes to buying myself a new "toy" or (yet) another biscuit.
And in the same way, it is difficult not to feel a twinge of panic at some of the things one's children can say, even at a very young age (as when our older son, not yet four, opined recently as we said grace that "God can't really hear us when we talk to Him, can He?"); and equally, not to feel a warm glow of proud satisfaction at the occasional flashes of childhood piety (for example, the insistence on having a Bible story every night, "as they're more important than other stories"). So I can't pretend it will be easy to take such a detached, "big picture" approach in practice, as our sons grow older and this becomes more of a live issue.
One other piece of advice in the article touched a particular nerve for me: ensuring the participation of children and young people in public worship, rather than hustling them off into separate activities. As the IM puts it:
I was about to say, "I hope never to have to face this issue, but if I do, I hope I have the presence of mind to search out this article". In fact, I'm not sure I quite mean that. I would be devastated if our children rejected the faith permanently and outright as they grew up. But there is an alternative trajectory, one not all that dissimilar from my own, in which adolescent rejection of a childish faith gives way to a re-embracing of that faith in a more solid and lasting way in adulthood.
As the IM says:
Why are we so convinced that an adolescent rejection of religion is to be avoided at all costs? I would far prefer to deal with the possibility of rejection early on than later, when a college age or young adult child decides to abandon Christ with true finality, fueled by resentment and a sense of being confined in a failed effort to produce an unsullied, and unchosen, Christianity.An analogy may be helpful here. Any halfway decent parent knows it is not healthy for children never to be contradicted, never to to be denied what they want (or think they want). One reason for that is that our children will experience contradiction and frustration throughout their adult lives, and they will be very poorly equipped to handle this if they have to wait until adulthood for their first experience of it.
In the same way, doubting God and the Gospel are things that it is, perhaps, not wise to leave until adulthood before experiencing for the first time.
I would not wish my own experience of atheism - of godlessness, in the most desolate sense of the word - on anyone, let alone my sons. But at least I now have a memory of how doubt and unbelief need not be the last word in my own life, of how the questions and accusations against Christianity can be answered or at least lived with, rather than finding myself mugged by first encountering these objections - many of which are facile, all of which the church has lived with in one form or another for 2,000 years - only in adulthood, perhaps in circumstances that make them more spiritually dangerous: for example, when suffering comes, and we are invited to "curse God and die".
So I can see where the IM is coming from when he counsels against "declaring a 'three alarm fire' over an unbelieving child". And many of his practical suggestions are very helpful: finding appropriate Christian peer groups in which your child can participate (though some church youth groups may do more harm than good); maintaining the practice of family devotions and church attendance in the home ("When [your child] has his own family, he may do what he wants. Your family will worship, pray, etc."); and above all, praying for your children.
That said, I don't always find it easy to resist the pleadings/pesterings of our children for a new toy or (yet) another biscuit. In a consumerist society, it feels almost like a form of child abuse to withhold material things from our children. ("He'll grow up hating me for not having bought him [x]", I find myself thinking; minutes later, having steeled myself to say "no" and endured the cries of anger and disappointment, the unpurchased [x] is completely forgotten.) It also feels hypocritical: I'm scarcely a model of restraint when if comes to buying myself a new "toy" or (yet) another biscuit.
And in the same way, it is difficult not to feel a twinge of panic at some of the things one's children can say, even at a very young age (as when our older son, not yet four, opined recently as we said grace that "God can't really hear us when we talk to Him, can He?"); and equally, not to feel a warm glow of proud satisfaction at the occasional flashes of childhood piety (for example, the insistence on having a Bible story every night, "as they're more important than other stories"). So I can't pretend it will be easy to take such a detached, "big picture" approach in practice, as our sons grow older and this becomes more of a live issue.
One other piece of advice in the article touched a particular nerve for me: ensuring the participation of children and young people in public worship, rather than hustling them off into separate activities. As the IM puts it:
You won't be surprised to hear me say that every church doesn't help you deal with a young person like Alex. Many trust the "youth program" to do the foundational work. This is a critical error. Church should be a family event, not an age-grouped event. Alex needs to hear the Gospel, even if he is bored with it and doesn't believe it. He needs to hear the Gospel and nothing else. He doesn't need a lot of manipulation or emotion. He needs to hear about Jesus Christ, the savior of sinners. He needs to hear it over and over, plainly and simply. I can't say this enough: find a church that is Gospel centered and go there regularly. If Alex is going to reject the idea of God and the message of Jesus, let's be sure he's hearing it so there is no confusion.It depresses me intensely that in 99.9% of churches, it seems the first experience most children will have of regular participation in public worship and the liturgy will come only after they have turned 18. I'm determined that, one way or another, that will not be our sons' experience. So I agree wholeheartedly, with sung hosannas indeed, with Pr Joel Humann's observation that:
As the "conservatives" and the "liberals" continue to devour one another, neither consider the more fundamental way in which they are cut from the same cloth ... no one thinks it the slightest bit curious that the catechesis of the young does not make praying and expounding the liturgy its first (would it be too bombastic to say "only"?) order of business.The principle that we are called to believe, not an abstract Gospel, but the Gospel as proclaimed to us in and through the church's ministry of Word and Sacrament, surely applies to our children as much as it applies to us.
Monday, January 17, 2005 AD
Max Frisch wrote this "Questionnaire" in 1967. I happened to hear it on Radio 3 last night and tracked down a version on the web here.
If you feel inclined to answer any or all of these questions on your own blogs or in the comments, then please do, though I don't think that's the point. What I found interesting was not how I would answer these questions, but having the questions raised at all - being made to think about new things, or about old things in a new way, or having unacknowledged ways of thinking exposed. And some of them are just plain funny (eg q.15):
If you feel inclined to answer any or all of these questions on your own blogs or in the comments, then please do, though I don't think that's the point. What I found interesting was not how I would answer these questions, but having the questions raised at all - being made to think about new things, or about old things in a new way, or having unacknowledged ways of thinking exposed. And some of them are just plain funny (eg q.15):
- Are you really interested in the preservation of the human race once you and all the people you know are no longer alive?
- State briefly why.
- How many of your children do not owe their existence to deliberate intention?
- Whom would you rather never have met?
- Are you conscious of being in the wrong in relation to some other person (who need not necessarily be aware of it)? If so, does this make you hate yourself - or the other person?
- Would you like to have perfect memory?
- Give the name of a politician whose death through illness, accident, etc. would fill you with hope. Or do you consider none of them indispensible?
- Which person or persons, now dead, would you like to see again?
- Which not?
- Would you rather have belonged to a different nation (or civilization)? If so, which?
- To what age do you wish to live?
- If you had the power to put into effect things you consider right, would you do so against the wishes of the majority? (Yes or no)
- Why not, if you think they are right?
- Which do you find it easier to hate, a group or an individual? And do you prefer to hate individually or as part of a group?
- When did you stop believing you could become wiser - or do you still believe it? Give your age.
- Are you convinced by your own self-criticism?
- What in your opinion do others dislike about you, and what do you dislike about yourself? If not the same thing, which do you find it easier to excuse?
- Do you find the thought that you might never have been born (if it ever occurs to you) disturbing?
- When you think of someone dead, would you like him to speak to you, or would you rather say something more to him?
- Do you love anybody?
- How do you know?
- Let us assume that you have never killed another human being. How do you account for it?
- What do you need in order to be happy?
- What are you grateful for?
- Which would you rather do: die or live on as a healthy animal? Which animal?
...is that I've recently bought a new PC - an entry-level Dell desktop, bought in Dell's January sale for the faintly absurd price of £325 including VAT and delivery (less than a BBC Micro cost in 1984, for heaven's sake). So I've been wasting my time on getting that set up properly, rather than on blogging.
Rather than boring you with the details here, I've put up what is probably a final post on the Sad Penguin site.
Rather than boring you with the details here, I've put up what is probably a final post on the Sad Penguin site.
Thursday, January 13, 2005 AD
I've just put in my order for the new edition of Bo Giertz's book The Hammer of God, on which I blogged on a number of occasions last year (1 | 2 | 3).
This edition includes the final chapter, "In the Place of Sinners", never before published in English (it'll be interesting to try to work out why...), as well as introductory notes that provide "historical and theological background to deepen the reader's understanding of the stories", and an introductory essay on "Bo Giertz: The Atheist Who Became a Bishop" (actually, that happens all too often today: but I'm guessing the point here is that he had ceased to be an atheist by the time he was consecrated ;-) ).
For those who haven't come across The Hammer of God before, it is essential reading for anyone wanting to get to the heart of true Christianity: a gripping and frequently moving account of how three pastors in different eras (early-19th century, late-19th century, mid-20th century) are brought from whichever version of pietism and/or theological liberalism is then in fashion, to the pure gospel of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
Or, as the blurb puts it:
But the description of the new edition waters down the original still further:
But hey-ho, I guess that's what happens when you entrust a classic of confessional Lutheran literature to "the publishing ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America". And the novel itself is, I'm sure, as wonderful as ever. I mean, how can you argue with a book whose chapter headings are as follows (nothing bland or anaemic here):
Finally, my acquisition of the new edition means I have a copy of the old one going spare. If anyone would like this copy, please email me with your address (UK only, please!) and I'll pop it in the post for you. First come, first served...
This edition includes the final chapter, "In the Place of Sinners", never before published in English (it'll be interesting to try to work out why...), as well as introductory notes that provide "historical and theological background to deepen the reader's understanding of the stories", and an introductory essay on "Bo Giertz: The Atheist Who Became a Bishop" (actually, that happens all too often today: but I'm guessing the point here is that he had ceased to be an atheist by the time he was consecrated ;-) ).
For those who haven't come across The Hammer of God before, it is essential reading for anyone wanting to get to the heart of true Christianity: a gripping and frequently moving account of how three pastors in different eras (early-19th century, late-19th century, mid-20th century) are brought from whichever version of pietism and/or theological liberalism is then in fashion, to the pure gospel of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
Or, as the blurb puts it:
What are the outward manifestations of an inspired faith? Is it possible to be truly saved and still be constantly aware of the presence of sin? May a minister of God's Word experience the same human frailties that trouble his parishioners?Well actually, that's the blurb from the old edition. All good stuff, though the reference to "permitting the Holy Spirit to work" sits a little uncomfortably with the novel's theme of people's illusions of self-righteousness and personal autonomy being smashed to pieces against their will.
Here is a powerful novel on the theme of spiritual regeneration. Three Swedish pastors learn the necessity of relying on God's grace and promises the hard way—through failing in their pastoral duties, through public humiliation, through self-doubt, through an inability to accept God's promise of forgiveness and sonship in their own lives, and through divisions and quarreling among their parishioners.
Ultimately, each rejects the temptations of self-serving pride and over-reliance on works and permits the Holy Spirit to work through him for the glory of God and the continued ministry of the gospel.
But the description of the new edition waters down the original still further:
In this bestselling novel, three pastors learn the necessity of relying on God's grace. They fall short of their pastoral duties through public humiliation, self-doubt, inability to accept God's promises in their own lives, and divisions and quarreling among their parishioners. Ultimately each man rejects temptations and permits the Holy Spirit to work through him.Apart from being one of the least enticing book descriptions I've ever come across - I'm still trying decide whether "bland" or "anaemic" is le mot juste :-) - this makes it sound like the novel is about these men embracing, rather than turning away from, today's fashionable version of pietism: that vague, semi-charismatic ("charismatish"?) Christianity which - while stopping short of the more "extreme" Pentecostal manifestations - is very fond of talk about "letting the Holy Spirit move in our lives". Whereas the three pastors in this book find true life and freedom only when they turn away from that sort of individualistic pietism, back to the pure Gospel as encountered in the church's ministry of Word and Sacrament.
But hey-ho, I guess that's what happens when you entrust a classic of confessional Lutheran literature to "the publishing ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America". And the novel itself is, I'm sure, as wonderful as ever. I mean, how can you argue with a book whose chapter headings are as follows (nothing bland or anaemic here):
I. The Hammer of GodA study guide to the novel can be found on the CTS Fort Wayne website, here.II. Jesus Only
- The Call
- Awakened by the Law
- Poverty of Spirit and the Light of the Gospel
III. On This Rock
- Three Days before Christmas
- Springtime in March
- Transfiguration Day
- New Life
- A Heart of Stone and a Rock of Salvation
- In the Place of Sinners
Finally, my acquisition of the new edition means I have a copy of the old one going spare. If anyone would like this copy, please email me with your address (UK only, please!) and I'll pop it in the post for you. First come, first served...
Monday, January 10, 2005 AD
Last year, the UK government rewarded the Black Watch's courageous service in Iraq by abolishing the regiment.
But that doesn't mean this historic regiment is lost forever. Its long and proud history as a unit of fighting men may be drawing to a close, but it can now look forward to a bright new future... as a registered trade mark.
The Ministry of Defence filed the application in March 2003, but it has only just been "advertised" by the Trade Marks Registry, suggesting that the MoD encountered some opposition from the Registry. Happily these have obviously now been overcome, and provided that no-one else objects during the three-month advertisement period the mark should proceed to registration in April.
Had anyone noticed the trade mark application before now, it would have provided some early clues about the MoD's plans for the future of the regiment. Trade marks are registered in respect of specific goods and services falling within various standard classes, and the Black Watch trade mark covers goods such as uniforms, jeans and "waist coats having load carrying pouches" (?!?!?) in class 22; commemorative model vehicles, computer games and novelty items in class 28; and even mouse mats in class 16.
But no reference to "warfare services" or "provision of military services to the UK (and occasionally the US) government", which would presumably have come under class 45 ("Personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals [specifically, T Blair and G Bush]; security services for the protection of property and individuals"). Bit of a giveaway, that.
But that doesn't mean this historic regiment is lost forever. Its long and proud history as a unit of fighting men may be drawing to a close, but it can now look forward to a bright new future... as a registered trade mark.
The Ministry of Defence filed the application in March 2003, but it has only just been "advertised" by the Trade Marks Registry, suggesting that the MoD encountered some opposition from the Registry. Happily these have obviously now been overcome, and provided that no-one else objects during the three-month advertisement period the mark should proceed to registration in April.
Had anyone noticed the trade mark application before now, it would have provided some early clues about the MoD's plans for the future of the regiment. Trade marks are registered in respect of specific goods and services falling within various standard classes, and the Black Watch trade mark covers goods such as uniforms, jeans and "waist coats having load carrying pouches" (?!?!?) in class 22; commemorative model vehicles, computer games and novelty items in class 28; and even mouse mats in class 16.
But no reference to "warfare services" or "provision of military services to the UK (and occasionally the US) government", which would presumably have come under class 45 ("Personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals [specifically, T Blair and G Bush]; security services for the protection of property and individuals"). Bit of a giveaway, that.
Friday, January 07, 2005 AD
Been a bit quiet round here post-Christmas, I know...
Various reasons: post-Christmas mental slump - too much food, drink and indolence - followed by returning to a fairly busy week at work. Plus, the things I might want to post on seem a bit trivial in the light of Current World Events.
Normal service will be resumed in due course...
Various reasons: post-Christmas mental slump - too much food, drink and indolence - followed by returning to a fairly busy week at work. Plus, the things I might want to post on seem a bit trivial in the light of Current World Events.
Normal service will be resumed in due course...
