Audience of One is the weblog of Matthew Weston, a UK student, Christian, technophile and musician.
Dan Hames writes:
If your conscience constantly keeps you in bondage to petty rules and regulations, then you’ve not yet grasped the grace of the gospel.
He has a wonderful quote from Calvin on Christian freedom, and some common myths to challenge. Go read!
Matthew @ 18:39, August 10, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tom and I got absolutely soaked on the way to see the Dark Knight last night. About twenty seconds before we were due to leave, it started pouring with so much rain I felt I was back in the tropics – even in rainy Bristol this was impressive! The roads in the city centre became like shallow rivers in places, and the water came up above the toes of my shoes. We arrived, epitomising the word bedraggled, and fortunately found there were still tickets left.
Once the film had started, we didn’t notice any more, because it’s one of those films that doesn’t let up the pace throughout the (almost three hours long) film. In terms of reviewing the film, I’ve not much to say; I enjoyed it a lot, Heath Ledger is as good as the reviewers say he is, and there’s lots of action, good dialogue and fun set-pieces. As before, though, one of the best parts of the film was some of the moral questions it raises. (Spoilers follow.)
The most interesting one came towards the end, with the introduction of Two-Face, the corrupted district attorney (read “chief prosecuting lawyer”) Harvey Dent. Dent is driven mad by the death of his girlfriend at the hands of the Joker; the concept of what is “fair” emerges, and Dent’s conclusion is that the only thing that’s fair is to leave things up to chance:
You thought we could be decent men in an indecent world. But you were wrong; the world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair.
Morality is only determined by chance; in the end, we don’t make the moral decision, but chance decides. That is the only way to be fair.
Now, this isn’t the morality the film portrays, but as a result Tom and I got discussing where morality comes from.
In the world of the film, Batman is portrayed as morally good, despite being a violent, law-breaking vigilante. Why? He wants to save people from pain, fear and death, and in his view the end justifies his means. Here, the highest good is to improve life for humans, in some sense whatever the cost. Batman’s moral philosophy, then, is a form of humanism. When thinking about this I was struck with a similarity to the Operative from the Firefly universe:
The Operative: I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Mal Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die… so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I’m not going to live there. There’s no place for me there… any more than there is for you. Malcolm… I’m a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.
Both the Operative and Batman do what might be considered morally wrong (the Operative more so), in order that a better society might emerge – a society that, ironically, they can have no part in given what they do. It’s not quite the same with Batman, who can merely leave the cape behind and return to a normal life, but the parallel struck me nevertheless.
So Batman is a humanist, who sees a greater morality than individual actions – the long-term good justifies the short-term wrong. I guess in this situation we have to ask: who decides that this is right? Who decides whether this long-term good is the right one, if it’s at the expense of (even minor) short-term wrong?
I’m going on for far longer than I’ve planned, so I’ll not go into the humanist understanding of where morality comes from. I don’t find it convincing, however, to think that humans can logically deduce what is right and wrong; I can’t see how the concepts of good and evil make any sense in an atheistic worldview. This quotation by Richard Dawkins is probably the most commonly used by Christians, but it fits here:
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
If this is the case, then Two-Face might just be right that chance is the only morality. If that leaves an unpleasant taste, that’s because it’s not true. Not only does morality come from a loving, perfect God, this loving, perfect God is sovereign over everything – and so a pragmatism in morality like Batman’s is unnecessary. We’re called to live morally in whatever situation; God will sort out the outcome. We can trust him that in the end, all will be well.
Matthew @ 12:29, July 29, 2008 to Discussions | Permalink | Comments (0)
As mentioned before, I’ve been thinking a bit about the idea of “creation” and “new creation” work, and whether God is calling me to the latter. The whole idea of “calling” it seems isn’t really a Biblical category. When the Bible talks of calling, it’s talking about people responding to the gospel – the “call to faith”.
So how, then, to figure out whether to go into a “new creation” job – or, to use another term, “set apart ministry”? By “set apart”, I’m referring to those who are supported financially (and in prayer) by a group (usually a congregation) to spend their working week on new creation tasks. In other words, a full-time pastor, missionary, youth worker, or other person whom until recently have been referred to as “Christian workers”. Not wanting to use that term (all Christians who work are Christian workers!) as it implies working for a church is perhaps the more “Christian” thing to do, I’ve gone with set apart ministry. There’s probably something wrong with this term too, but it’ll do for now.
After all that introduction, now for what I actually want to say. Following on from a conversation with a friend, he talked of three things you should be sure of before going into this kind of ministry. (He credited Don Carson with the ideas, though I’m pretty sure Carson would credit Scripture if indeed it was him my friend heard this off.)
Firstly, desire. You’ve got to want to do it! If you don’t, it’s probably not for you. (1 Timothy 3:1 seems to suggest this, and it makes sense: God gives us our desires as we submit to him – and if we didn’t feel like we might want to do it, it probably wouldn’t have occurred to us in the first place…)
Secondly, gifting and maturity. Can we do it? It’s all very well wanting to be a youth worker, but if you can’t engage with teenagers then don’t do it! On the other hand, if you’re interested in apologetics, great at explaining things to non-Christians and can give a pretty good talk for an evangelistic barbecue, maybe you should consider becoming an itinerant evangelist. However you might still feel you need to grow up a bit, or get more experience. Maturity (or good character, to say it another way) is also necessary.
Thirdly, other people. Does your pastor think you could do it? Do your friends? Do your parents? Do others in the church?
All that’s left now is figuring out if you want to do it, and whether you have the gifts to do it, whether you feel you’re mature enough to do it, and find out if others think you should do it. How do you do that? Just get on and do it! If you want to be a youth worker, then get involved in youth work; if music’s your thing, then start playing music in church; if opportunities in universities excite you, then get involved with a CU or do Relay. If you’re becoming even more certain, then maybe do an apprenticeship. Doing something like that gives you an opportunity to test out your gifts, your desires, and have older Christians mentor you and tell you if they think you should do it long-term. In other words, they give you a perfect way of seeing if you fit the three points above.
I wrote back in April:
So what constitutes a calling? Does it mean a pastor or other leader taking you aside and saying “you should consider this work”? Does it mean you feel like you could do it and would quite like to do it? Does it mean trying it out in an apprenticeship scheme and seeing by doing whether it’s for you?
To answer my own question, I think the answer to the above questions is “yes”, though perhaps “calling” isn’t the right term.
Matthew @ 13:54, July 28, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (2)
User 1: Shouldn’t it be “Wood in poplar culture”?
User 2: It should, but we’ll just have to be content with the fact that there’s now a protection log for the article.
This not only says something about the popular culture of the internet, but also something about me, given that I read the comic and assumed that this exact sequence of events would happen, so headed over to Wikipedia hoping to make a blog entry out of what I found on the Talk page…
(In other news, I have a job, but still no laptop. Also, I’m cooking prawns for supper. It turns out raw prawns aren’t pink. It occurs to me this should have been my assumption.)
Matthew @ 18:33, July 8, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (1)
Following from last time, I can report that “grace” has increased its importance (in Google’s eyes at least) on this website. Unfortunately, while my top three important words remain at “God”, “Matthew” and “Christian”, it seems “joy” has been kicked off the fourth spot (no longer in the top 100 either!) by the word “work”. Luckily of course this shows the trend into more entries about work, careers, calling etc. and not any profound point (just in case I’m misunderstood!).
Radiohead were amazing in concert last night, playing Everything In Its Right Place, Idioteque, Planet Telex, Pyramid Song, How To Disappear Completely and Cymbal Rush (!) amongst other amazing tracks (The Gloaming had never sounded so good!), and we managed to make it home shortly after two despite having to walk from Oxford city centre.
Currently reading: The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, and The Shadow and Night by Chris Walley (in preparation for The Infinite Day).
Currently listening: Cymbal Rush by Thom Yorke (played on piano at the gig last night!) has finished; now Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring; earlier, our own covers of Disney songs, jazz standards, Muse and Coldplay.
Currently watching:
The Count of Monte Cristo is so far an amazing book; I’ve been reading it for three days now (it’s quite long) and it’s still gripping (despite knowing overall what happens, having seen the film) and generally fascinating. I may write more once I’ve finished it. It’s taken me a long time to start on these kind of books*, and now I’ve started I plan to continue.
* As to what I mean by “these kind of books”, I’m not really sure. Great novels of the past? Works that require use of a dictionary, or a passing knowledge of Latin? Books likely to contain a scholarly forward and possibly historical notes in an appendix? (Books likely to be known only as a modern film to the majority of the populace, who probably won’t even have heard of the author? Books that, once you’ve read, you end up feeling superior to those who haven’t? Hopefully not the latter, but already the temptation is there…)
UPDATE: I use the word amazing far too much.
Matthew @ 16:15, June 25, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (2)
Not only have I been busy trying to cram everything into the end of term, I’ve also not had a computer due to an accident some weeks ago at one in the morning involving my bicycle, velcro, and the side of a pavement. All my careful plans for interesting entries went out of the window.
In lieu of further entries now I’m at home for the week and still haven’t unpacked, here’s a scribble I found on a scrap of paper while packing up my room two days ago.
Do we have too low a view of God’s sovereignty that says “people need to hear the Gospel, therefore I must give up everything and go, otherwise I’m thwarting his purposes”?
I can’t remember writing it, and have thought through these things a lot more since, but it’s an interesting thought nonetheless.
Matthew @ 16:37, June 22, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)
Via Dan Hames:
Have a read of Genesis 2:9-10, Psalms 1, 2 and 46, and Revelation 22:1-5 (convenient link).
Dan quotes an old hymn which picks up on some of these biblical ideas, but merely reading the passages I was struck by the beautiful images, and the wonderful truth expressed. It’s worth dwelling on for yourself – I’m not going to try and say anything more!
Matthew @ 12:09, June 4, 2008 to | Permalink | Comments (0)
Humans are obviously unique. But it’s surprisingly hard to say why. (New Scientist, 24 May 2008.)
Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created human beings in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27, NIV.)
When God is no longer in the picture, we’re left with the blind, pitiless indifference of the Selfish Gene. Without God, we can never be clear on what it means to be truly human. Because of Jesus, we can see clearly what humanity is like! We’re more sinful than we ever imagined (the necessity of the cross shows us that, and we stand in stark contrast to the way Jesus lived), but we’re more loved than we ever dreamed (the fact that Jesus died that death for us shows us that!). In Jesus we see a picture of true humanity, worshipping God with our whole lives, as we were intended to be.
We find the eternal joy we were made for in the eternal God who made us. We find what it means to be human.
Matthew @ 09:53, May 28, 2008 to | Permalink | Comments (0)
“During the flight I saw for the first time with my own eyes the earth’s spherical shape” – Major Yuri Gagarin: 13th April 1961
See her then swing through space, another moon
Wrapped in a shining singleness, an Earth
That no division knows nor count of time,
Nor name for war and peace, dying and birth:See her with mountains, but no barriers,
Countries, but countries by no owner claimed,
Continents linked in passionless embrace
Neither by greeds nor loyalties inflamed.If such the bright impersonal wanderer –
No guarded frontiers, no jealous dates –
Such too the unknown Earth on which we walk,
Hid by our map of human loves and hates.George Rostrevor Hamilton
Terra incognita, a setting of the above poem, was my final project for studio composition this year. The brief merely stated that some form of live electronics be used; I used a vocoder to process the (spoken) voice with a synthesiser. It’s not perfect: the copy of the poem I used to record the text had an extra “d” after “an” in the second line (so yes, I do say “and Earth” by mistake), and the drum parts start off pretty bland and really should have had more work done on them. Apart from those minor points, I was reasonably pleased with this – particularly as the majority of it was done within 24 hours! It’s quite stereotypical of a particular genre – nothing groundbreaking, but at least it’s listenable to (I think).
Matthew @ 19:41, May 26, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)
So, I’ve been quite busy recently with coursework and my exam, but that’s now all out of the way. To celebrate, I went to visit my brother for the weekend, and got to go to the church my family attended until I was almost four. Walking down the corridors outside the main hall, I realised the last time I’d probably been there I’d have been very small, probably running and causing chaos. I then met the son of a couple who’d used to look after me when I was causing said chaos. It was a great weekend, and really interesting from the point of view of seeing how a different Christian Union ran their meetings as well.
Now I’m back with supposedly nothing to do (other than find a job, organise music for the CU, read the books I’ve been trying to do for weeks etc.) I’ve got a few entries planned that will hopefully be forthcoming…
Oh, and you can have a listen to my final coursework project for the year, but I’ll post that separately.
Matthew @ 19:35, May 26, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)
