Bernard Cribbins at his very best, and that includes this…

and this…

Only in light of reflection on God’s Word did I finally come to understand. Despite what I or others may believe is their worthiness, the fruit of the works of many gay and lesbian people has brought God’s blessing to me and to many other people, both in and beyond the church. That is the measure of their worthiness to minister in the name of Jesus Christ in the life of the church, and in the community in the name of the church. That indicates their place in the life of God’s people.

Put simply, I think God has been saying to me for many years now “If it is good enough for me, John, why is it not good enough for you?”

It’s not like we haven’t heard this sort of argument before. Nor this one…

We all acknowledge that the church can never read the Bible in the same way once it acknowledged that Galileo was right. The world is round, not flat, despite what those who first penned the words of the Bible thought and assumed. It took the church a long time to acknowledge this, and in the name of orthodoxy, it treated Galileo rather shabbily along the way.

Here lies an exegetical parallel for our present purpose. Because of recent new understanding, we now all know that same-sex attracted people are not heterosexual people who have made a perverse choice about how they express their sexuality. They simply are what they are. We might like to argue about whether this is how life should or should not be, but that will not change the way it is. And we have to respond to what is.

The responses to this kind of shallow argumentation are legion but let me try and sum them up simply:

We now all know that adulterous people are not married people who have made a perverse choice about how they express their sexuality. They simply are what they are. We might like to argue about whether this is how life should or should not be, but that will not change the way it is. And we have to respond to what is.

let me try again lest anyone attempt the ridiculous assertion that I am equating homosexuality with adultery:

We now all know that thieves are not property owners who have made a perverse choice about how they express their understanding of property rights. They simply are what they are. We might like to argue about whether this is how life should or should not be, but that will not change the way it is. And we have to respond to what is.

There’s more of the usual Boswellian argumentation but the money paragraph is right at the end. Take heed:

I make this commitment to all of you, whether or not you agree with me on this one issue. All I do, and all I will seek to continue to do, in everything I do, is to seek the will of God.
Accordingly, I will appoint to office in our diocese those whom I believe God is calling to minister among us, and I will continue to do so with a grateful heart to God for the gifts and skills they bring to us. Furthermore, I will do this within the context of the greater call of God on the whole church, which is to live by grace; to seek justice and to show compassion, in all we do and say. That is my commitment to God and to you, and I am willing to live with any consequences that may arise from remaining true to that commitment.

So let’s just be absolutely clear on what happened here.

In March, Bishop McIntyre went to a meeting of the House of Bishops and agreed to a protocol which stated:

As bishops in the Australian Church we accept the weight of 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and the 2004 General Synod resolutions 33, 59 and 61-64 as expressing the mind of this church on issues of human sexuality.

We undertake to uphold the position of our Church in regard to human sexuality as we ordain, license, authorise or appoint to ministries within our dioceses.

We understand that issues of sexuality are subject to ongoing conversation within our Church and we undertake to support these conversations, while seeking to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

and now less than 2 months later he says,

I will appoint to office in our diocese those whom I believe God is calling to minister among us … That is my commitment to God and to you, and I am willing to live with any consequences that may arise from remaining true to that commitment.

McIntyre agreed to uphold the position of the church – he has gone back on that agreement. He agreed to uphold that position in regard to all appointments – he has clearly signaled his intention to go back on that agreement. He also agreed to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace  - he’s blown a cannon right through that one.

Of course, he also states that he’s “willing to live with any consequences that may arise”. Somehow I doubt it – because the honourable thing to do now would be to admit that you didn’t mean a word of it when you met up with your fellow bishops (unless anyone thinks this change of heart is a sudden thing). When you lie to those you’re meant to work together with then someone’s position becomes untenable. At least it should do. Let’s see what the House of Bishops do in response.

Does this remind anyone of former Presiding Bishop of TEC, Griswold? He went to a 2003 Primates meeting where they agree on a statement that the consecration of Robinson would “tear a hold in the fabric of the Communion” then gets on a plane and goes and consecrates Robinson. The word for that is “disingenuous”. What an awful moment when bishops cannot trust the word of another bishop.

Update. The Age newspaper have an article on the division this type of thing is causing in many denominations and wider afield. Bishop Robert Forsyth of Sydney has this to say:

In the long run, someone behaving in a way that is consistently immoral working for an organisation is going to de-power and chill the fervour and the life of the organisation.

Spot on.

It is the way of advocacy scholarship to seize upon snips and pieces of “evidence” divorced from their historical context, and then offer an improbable or fanciful interpretation that serves the argument being advanced. That is the way egregiously exemplified by Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. David Wright, the author of the pertinent encyclopedia article on homosexuality, wrote in 1989: “The conclusion must be that for all its interest and stimulus Boswell’s book provides in the end of the day not one firm piece of evidence that the teaching mind of the early Church countenanced homosexual activity.” Yet the ideologically determined are not easily deterred by the facts. As the churches continue to deliberate important questions of sexual morality, be prepared to encounter the invocation, as though with the voice of authority, “But Boswell says…”

Richard John Neuhaus. In the Case of John Boswell. First Things

• Falco – Vienna Calling
• Sinatra – New York
• Dionne Warwick – Do You Know the Way to San Jose?

Your job, add suggestions in the comments and we’ll keep building up the playlist. Let’s see how far we can get before close of play!

So says Eternity Newspaper,

After a decade as the principal of Moore Theological College in Sydney, Dr John Woodhouse has announced he will retire at the beginning of next year.

Dr Woodhouse said in an official statement “there is nothing dramatic in this decision. It is simply my judgment about what is best for the College at this time”.

 

Dr Woodhouse remains positive about Moore College – which trains men and women for ordination in Sydney Anglican parishes as well as for ministry positions elsewhere – calling his years of service “nothing but a privilege”.

“The faculty in my opinion is second to none,” he told Eternity, “and that’s the key.”

…

Anglican commentator and blogger Rev David Ould told Eternity there will probably be some “overlap” between the candidates for Archbishop and the next principal of Moore Theological College.

“After Peter Jensen, I’m sure the diocese will be quite keen to have a theologian again as archbishop – that’s quite possible – in which case some of the likely candidates for principal of Moore College are, just by implication, also candidates for archbishop.”

Rev Ould suggests the retirement of the Moore College principal marks the start of an era of change for the Sydney diocese. “It’s part of a generational change that’s happening in the diocese over the next two or three years. And it will reflect the beginning of that generational change.”

Prof John Boswell, the late chairman of Yale University’s history department, found there were ceremonies called the Office of Same-Sex Union and the Order for Uniting Two Men in the 10th to 12th centuries.

The medievalist published Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century in 1980.

According to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies section of Yale University’s website, the controversial book argued that the modern Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality ‘departed from the tolerance and even celebration of homosexual love that had characterized the first millennium of the Church’s teachings’.

The research brings into perspective the debate raging in America over same-sex marriage after President Barack Obama announced that he now supports it.

The chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded same-gender Christian unions taking place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries.

And, of course, there are wild cries of delight at this “proof” that Christians in the middle-ages were happily wedding men to each other.

Friends, it’s nothing but plain dishonesty on the part of “academics” like Boswell. Gerald of Wales’ record of Ireland “The Topography of Ireland” is freely available online [pdf] and I’m surprised nobody has yet simply read through it and fisked Boswell’s appalling argument.

Here’s the actual citation Boswell makes to prove his point from a section entitled “the making of leagues” or “the making of brothers:

…then they go in procession around the church, and afterwards entering within its walls, they confederate themselves in an indissoluble alliance before the altar, with oaths prodigally multiplied upon the relics of the saints, and confirmed by the celebration of the mass and prayers of the holy priests

Now, any honest reader would have to admit that it’s certainly not conclusive evidence of a rite of same-sex marriage. But even that’s not the argument. Here’s the argument: the context (p.77, my emphasis):

Chapter XXII: Of a new mode of making a league/brotherhood: a proof of their wickedness

Among many other inventions of their abominable guile, there is one which especially proves it. When they wish to take off any one, they assemble in a company  with him at some holy place, under the guise of religious and peaceful meeting; then they go in procession around the church, and afterwards entering within its walls, they confederate themselves in an indissoluble alliance before the altar, with oaths prodigally multiplied upon the relics of the saints, and confirmed by the celebration of the mass and prayers of the holy priests, as if it were a solemn affiance. At length, as a still stronger ratification of their league, and, as it were, the completion of their affair, they drink each others’ blood, which is shed for the purpose. This custom has been handed down from the rites of the heathens, who were wont to seal their treaties in blood. How often, in the very act of such an alliance being made by bloody and deceitful men, has so much blood been fraudulently and iniquitously spilt, that one or other of them has fainted on the spot! How often has the same hour which witnessed the contract, or that which followed it, seen it broken in an unheard-of manner by a bloody divorce!

So a number of quite obvious things:

1. There really is very little indication at all that this is a homosexual union; it reads like a social pact between men – an alliance. Perhaps between warlords or elders.
2. It’s quite obvious that Gerald thinks the whole thing is abominable and pagan. At every point he argues that it’s a corruption of true Christian religion and the worst kind of corruption. In chapter XIX he argues that they are ignorant of the basics of the Christian faith.
3. The chapter is part of a long section of Gerald providing copious proofs that the Irish are wicked in almost every way.
4. Thus it follows that even if this was a homosexual union (which is really a massive stretch in itself) it is presented as being utterly contrary to good Christian order. Gerald makes a point of observing that to carry it out in church with the complicity of priests and a mass is only to compound the wickedness.

And yet Boswell put this forward as an example of medieval “Christian” same-sex marriage and it’s leaped upon by contemporary proponents.

Which, friends, betrays an utter lack of intellectual and academic integrity. But then that’s liberal “Christian” hermeneutic for you. Seriously.

I’ve been working through the latest government adoption report [pdf] in Australia, prompted by my previous post and I came across this chilling sentence (chapter 4, p.34):

Broader social trends, such as declining fertility rates, the wider availability of effective birth control and the emergence of family planning centres have also likely contributed to a reduction in Australian children requiring adoption (ABS 2009a).

So 3 reasons have led to reductions in adoption:

1. Declining fertility
2. birth control
3. family planning centres

Note how the report distinguishes between 2&3. That’s because “family planning centres” are not the same as “wider availability of effective birth control”. They’re the places where abortions happen. A far more honest report would just state that up-front. There are far less adoptions because abortion is simply much more readily available. I mean, just look at the charts,

ADOPTIONS IN AUSTRALIA, 1968-69 TO 1995-96

(source Australian Bureau of Statistics).

As the adoption report states, this is partly due to “reduction in fertility”, as evidenced here (again, source: ABS):

Total fertility rate, Australia - 1930 to 2010

We ought to bear in mind that the reduced fertility rate has much to do with the prevalence of abortions. There were 297,900 registered births in Australia in 2010 (source: ABS) but there are also (conservatively estimated [wiki]) over 70,000 abortions in Australia each year . The ABS expresses it this way:

The reinterpretation of abortion law in New South Wales in 1971 was associated with a substantial fall in births to young women and an increase in the median age of mothers.

1971. That’s not hard to spot on the fertility rate graph, is it? Similar changes occurred all over Australia. QED.

Now, here’s the crunch. It has often been observed that many of those campaigning most vociferously for “gay rights” (not least in the area of adoption) are also those who are campaing for “reproductive rights”, i.e. the right to abort. There’s a basic disconnect there. On the one hand the push for adoption is couched in the language of “providing loving parents for unwanted children”. On the other hand the push for abortion is all about the disposal of unwanted children.

Which, I suggest, begins to indicate an alternative base motivation that also influences the whole push – that of children as commodity. The push to grant “adoption rights” is really often about our own desire to have the child. When the children are “wanted” then who dare stand in the way of a prospective parent, homosexual or otherwise? When the children are “unwanted” then who dare stand in the way of the soon-to-be-non-parent? Either way, it is the desire of the adult that is the driving motivation to which we are told we must conform, not the needs of the child. This is, of course, particularly acute in the matter of abortion but also, I would suggest, in the matter of adoption too where there are, granted, mixed motives involved.

So is there a better way forward? Surely there must be and it must hang first and foremost on the value of each life and a proper understanding of how life is intended to be nurtured. One of the reasons that “gay marriage” should be so vigorously opposed is not because it is somehow the thin end of the wedge but, more accurately, that it is the capstone that marks the crystallisation of a remarkable shift in our Western culture. We have utterly divorced marriage from procreation and the raising of children. I’m indebted to John Richardson for pointing this out most clearly although I can’t immediately find the comment on another blog. His basic premise was that we are seeing the outworking of this divorce between marriage and children across the board in single parents struggling to raise children, increased abortion, cohabitation and so on. Ask your local school principal what the main source of disruption in their classrooms is and they’ll tell you it’s broken families. As we move further and further away from the way it was intended to be, downplaying heterosexual marriage and child-rearing as normative, we get more and more messed up. People live together and then split up causing immense emotional pain. Children are raised without the optimum parental situation, if they’re lucky enough to be born at all, and so on. All “gay marriage” does is put the cherry on the icing on the cake.

Which is why the debate over “gay marriage” is so important because it’s almost as though we have one final attempt, out of love, to speak to our culture and implore them to stop and think what they’re doing as they continue in the relentless push to endorse self-fulfilment as the great moral good. Every time someone says “why shouldn’t I be allowed to do what I want?” that’s what’s really happening (and there is, perhaps, a word there for our socially-conservative libertarian friends too). Marriage used to be understood not least to be the regulation of those desires for the sake of the weakest parties in the relationships – the women and children. It is, of course, more than that but it is not least that. Now it is to be finally redefined as “me doing what I want to do and insisting that you recognise and affirm it”. Sacrifice and self-giving love has been replaced with gratification and self-fulfilling love. No wonder we’re such a mess.

And into all this Jesus still walks, the One who came to serve, not to be serve. The One who laid down His life for others, not least for His own bride. The One who bid little children come unto Him when others pushed them away as being less important. The One who affirmed that “in the beginning God made the male and female”, indeed the One who made them made and female in the first place.

And, of course, the One who went to those of His own day who had messed this all up so much with their own sin and who suffered from others’ sin – prostitutes, a socially outcast woman at a well and so on – and offered them mercy.

His way is the better way. And Christian let’s never forget; it’s not simply the way of heterosexual marriage and the affirmation of the precious value of life (although it certainly is those things), it’s also the way of the offer of forgiveness and a fresh start. It occurs to me that we are in danger of losing sight of that as the debate intensifies. If you’re a Christian will you resolve with me to not give up on this issue. To not give up out of love for the nation we live in – because we want the very best for the people all around us who cannot tell their right hand from their left. But also not to give up on speaking the gospel rather than mere moralism. We’re pushing towards diagnosing the problem, but the solution isn’t simply trying harder or being better at doing things the way that we were created to do them – it’s forgiveness and a fresh start.

picture: Alas Babylon

The aims of Unashamed Workman are:

1. To promote and defend the vital and central practice of expository preaching for the sake of the church and the unevangelised.
2. To encourage pastors and missionaries who are involved in a regular preaching ministry and to better equip them for their task.
3. To hold up for younger men the aspirational role of being a preacher of God’s Word and to encourage fledgling preachers in their initial development as preachers.

If you’re a preacher then this is a must-visit site. Hie thee hence.

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

The statistics make a mockery of the argument. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), a government body, there were 384 finalised adoptions in Australia in 2010-2011. Of these 56% were intercountry, 12% were local and 32% were ‘known’ child adoptions; ie only 45 Australian children were adopted last year where the child was not formerly known to the adoptive parent(s).

45 children in need of adoption. The figure has been dropping year on year, the AIHW report [pdf] tells us, due to

…the decline in the number of children considered to be in need of adoption and legally able to be adopted.

So categorically not because there are not enough adoptive parents available.

Or, put another way, there is no desperate need in Australia for homosexuals to adopt based on a shortfall of potential loving adoptive parents. Quite the contrary. Last year only 45 such parents were required. Of those 45 children, 42 were adopted by registered married couples (ie heterosexual couples) and 3 by singles (Table 3.9 – n.b. the table has a row for “de-facto” couples (which would include homosexual couples) but none are recorded). Are the gay lobby seriously arguing that there were only 42 loving heterosexual couples in the whole of Australia who wanted to adopt and were suitable for it and so there is a massive need for homosexual couples?

Really?

Don’t let this lie (for that’s what it is) be perpetuated any further.

Let’s say we want to reform a religion in a new direction. We look for a founder who we can claim fits the kind of profile everyone is expecting. This leader, this messiah, is most likely to be a successful warrior, a general who wins battles of God’s own side. We can’t find one, so we invent a purely imaginary figure instead. Then we explain how he was a total disaster, unable to raise an army, deserted by his followers, and executed by the enemy.

Now, having invented this Jesus guy out of whole cloth, let’s make him related to someone who’s quite well known and respected in our day. Let’s identify this man known to be a faithful and observant Jew as the brother of our messiah. Of course he won’t complain that we’re using his invented messiah brother to justify not observing the law. Even better, let’s tell stories about how this Jesus was at odds with his family while he was alive, but they’ve all come round to be his supporters now. They’ll never dare contradict that.

OK, next let’s root all our stories about him in the recent past, when there are plenty of other people around now who were still around then. People have such poor memories, they’ll all believe they met him anyway.

And of course, we all want to be trusted as the keepers of the flame, this new and super-truthful religion. Let’s portray ourselves as useless, imbecilic cowards who never ever got the point. 15 years ago he was a great teacher who couldn’t even teach his longest standing pupils to understand him. 15 years ago he trained us in his leadership skills so well that we ran away and he got killed. What, you were there and you don’t remember him? What a poor memory you’ve got. Oh you admit it! Good, I thought for a minute you were going to call me a liar.

If we portray ourselves as unlettered fishermen, and pretend to speak with thick Galilean accents, then no-one will guess that we’ve done loads of research on ancient myths of dying and rising gods, and decided to borrow the best bits for our invented superhero. That way we can get ourselves out of the hole we’ve dug by creating a failed messiah as our leader, a defeated warrior as our hero and an executed criminal as our moral exemplar.

Then let’s all die horribly without letting the cat out of the bag. I know that’s a pretty drastic way to persuade people we haven’t made it all up, but a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.

That’s what I call a cunning plan. And I bet you no-one will spot that’s what we actually did for nearly 2,000 years. And then people will point and laugh and sneer at them and call them mythicists, ‘cos we are just so historically plausible.

Oh yes.

h/t: Phil

Apparently there have been a number of complaints about one of the advertisements His Grace carried on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage. He has been sent all manner of official papers, formal documentation and threatening notices which demand answers to sundry questions by a certain deadline. He is instructed by the ‘Investigations Executive’ of this inquisition to keep all this confidential.

Since His Grace does not dwell in Iran, North Korea, Soviet Russia, Communist China or Nazi Germany, but occupies a place in the cyber-ether suspended somewhere between purgatory and paradise, he is minded to ignore that request. Who do these people think they are?

…

…it is now an offence to express the moderate view of the majority and promote the orthodox teaching of the Church of England Established.

The Assistant Bishop in the Anglican Church in Singapore, the Right Reverend Rennis Ponniah has been appointed the Ninth Bishop of the Diocese of Singapore, the Archbishop of South East Asia, the Most Revd. Bolly Lapok announced today.

A Special Synod had met March this year to nominate candidates. The final selection was made by the House of Bishops at the Provincial level. The installation service will take place sometime in October this year.

Bishop-Designate Ponniah, 56, will succeed the incumbent, the Rt. Revd. Dr. John Chew, who will be retiring October this year when he turns 65 in accordance with a constitutional constitutional age limit on holders of the office of the Bishop of Singapore. Bishop Dr. Chew will remain in office until October 4, 2012.

The outgoing Bishop has held the office for twelve years since his consecration and enthronement in April 25, 2000. The Rt. Revd. Ponniah will become the fourth Asian holder of the office.

As incoming Bishop, Ponniah is set to become the head of the 20,000-strong, influential mainline denomination.

On his election, the Bishop-Designate said: “With faith in God, I receive this immense responsibility. I am humbled by the trust invested in me by the clergy, the laity and the provincial bishops.

“I intend to build on the good work of Bishop John Chew and his predecessors, while seeking fresh ways to bring the love and hope of the ‘good news’ of our faith to a multi-religious and constantly-changing society in a responsible and winsome way.”

…

The Rt. Revd. Ponniah, who is married to Amir with four children, is regarded as one of the most well-known Bible teachers in the Anglican world.

He led the daily Bible study sessions at the fourth Global South Encounter held April 2010 in Singapore. Come June, he will be leading morning Bible study sessions at the 2012 Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America.

That means friends in the States will get to meet him shortly – the ACNA Assembly is in June.

Put simply this effect occurs when someone knows very little about something and fails to realise they know very little. Their lack of knowledge leads them to a lack of insight into their lack of knowledge and gives rise to an erroneous confidence. Conversely, those that have much knowledge realise how little they know and this leads to a lack of confidence.

Tim mentioned this effect in relation to an article on New Atheists and specifically Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion.

Obviously there are atheists with a profound knowledge of Christianity, but I suspect I am not alone in encountering atheists suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

No, you’re certainly not. It seems to be rampant amongst the more vociferous New Atheists we meet here in Sydney. In general, the louder they shout, the less they actually really know about what Christians believe or what the main apologetic arguments are. Frankly, if anyone ever acts like they know what they’re talking about when it comes to the historicity of the New Testament and then uses that throwaway “if Jesus ever existed” line, you have a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in, well, full effect.

The other day on Twitter I was challenged by an atheist who pontificated that I worship a “reanimated corpse” and indulge in cannibalism and such like. I tried briefly to engage him seriously, but quickly realised that he was in no way interested to learn my views and was happier constructing a straw-man of my beliefs and then gleefully knocking it over. As I bowed out of our “conversation” he pronounced his victory, declared he had trounced me and said that as a result of this interaction he wouldn’t be surprised if my faith crumbled.

There is no doubt that this chap was subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect in relation to Christianity.

Otherwise known as the Dawkins-Theological-Prowess-Syndrome.

Having said this, I believe that the Dunning-Kruger effect afflicts some believers also.

Indeed. Go see what he has to say (although it doesn’t quite go where I would take it).

Bonus:

This whole thing reminds me of this (slightly NSFW)….

If you don’t rate, just over-compensate

It’s a key appointment, not only as leader of a wonderfully missionary diocese (Singapore diocese is active in Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Nepal) but also in terms of current global Anglicanism. John Chew is the current secretary of the Global South movement which has been a great body for resisting revisionism in the Communion. I had the privilege of attending clergy conference in Singapore a few years back and it was apparent that John Chew is determined to do all that he can to strengthen the orthodox cause worldwide. Also significant is the diocese’s partnership with the diocese of Egypt under Archbishop Mouneer Anis. That relationship should be regarded as one of the backbones of the whole Global South movement.

There are a number of possible candidates although at least 2 are prominent.

1. Assistant Bishop Rennis Poniah, who recently addressed the ACNA 2012 Assembly, also serves as vicar of St Johns & St Margaret’s church in Singapore. Well respected as a leader and teacher he would be a popular choice and well-received by overseas friends. I’ve met him on a number of occassions both here in Sydney and in Singapore and can report that he’s a delightful, godly man. You can get more of a sense of him from this recent talk given to ordinands in the diocese.
2. Dean Kuan Kim Seng of St Andrew’s Cathedral. Again, well respected in the diocese but perhaps not so well known outside. Nevertheless also regarded as an excellent choice by those that I’ve asked.

No doubt there will be other names in the hat too.

Do please pray for this upcoming election. In terms of its significance for the Anglican Communion, it would be hard to understate it. The new bishop will have to step into very large shoes (and not just because Bishop Chew stands well over 6ft!) and take up a quite awesome responsibility in working with the Global South and others to hold fast to the gospel and encourage others to do likewise.

Update

I’ve checked a few things with some sources in Singapore and it turns out there isn’t likely to be an election. The common understand amongst the Singapore clergy is that the decision on the new bishop for this Diocese has already been taken. A special meeting of the synod was called at the beginning of March, when each member of synod was asked to nominate three candidates. The names of the three who received the majority of nominations were then forwarded to the bishops of the province, who were entrusted with the task of interviewing them, with a view to identifying the candidate to be appointed.

The agenda for each of the two sitting days for the coming synod has no further role for the synod in the election process – ie., there’s no reference to the matter at all, so the appointment is likely to be announced at some stage of the proceedings.

For someone with a Western mindset that might be perceived as being the wrong way to go about things, but that would be to assert our own cultural values. This is an Asian diocese with a high priority placed upon respect for elders and collegiality amongst those same elders. Even worth considering where in the Scriptures democracy is ever held out as the means by which such leaders are chosen!

Nevertheless, do continue to pray for the diocese of Singapore and the Bishop-elect, whoever he is!

Yesterday evening saw a Super Moon, a rare moment when the moon was about as close to the earth as it can get. It appeared 14% bigger and 30% brighter than a normal full moon. The proximity of the moon also brings about higher tides. I took Ouldlet #2 out into the chilly night air to have a good look and we stood momentarily still in wonder, until the cold got the better of us.

Same moon, same image, just momentarily brought into stark relief.

Now the kite-flying. It occurs to me that a good sermon is a little like the Super Moon. Quite often the congregation will not hear anything starkly new but those timeless familiar truths are presented boldly and clearly and closely so that one stops and considers them. Take for example our sermon this Sunday at church on Article XXXVIII of the 39 Articles, “On Christian Men’s Goods“. In one sense we heard nothing new but were reminded that

1. In an incredible act of generosity, Christ became poor for our sakes so that we might have the riches of God
2. That the Resurrection of Jesus forever changes our investment horizon so that we have an eternal perspective. This is turn leads us to not cling to the things of “this life”.
3. That the gospel of grace calls us and changes us so that we might ourselves be gracious.
4. That here in Sydney, particularly where we are in Neutral Bay, we are comparatively very wealthy.

image: SuperMoon over Ayia Napa, smh

I only ask because, would you know, some people can actually answer the question.

Yes, for most of us the closest we get to Mongolia is this but then there’s Seamus. Seamus and his wife Rachel are from Sydney, but they currently live in Ulan Bator, Mongolia. “What are they doing there?” I hear you ask? Well it’s a good question with a fascinating answer.

Seamus was part of my class at Moore Theological College. It became clear very early on that he was a bit of a genius, particularly in the field of linguistics. When most of us were finishing off the vocab part of our NT greek exam he was walking out having completed every section, and written his corrections to the questions. When we were mucking about in our spare time, Seamus was nailing Latin and Gaelic. For fun.

Now like me, you’ve probably met some very clever people but that’s not the same as meeting someone impressive. Seamus is impressive not because he’s clever but because he’s chosen to use the brains that God gave him to serve the God who gave him those brains. And in Seamus’ case he and Rachel have decided to get into theological education with Pioneers – specifically Mongolian. And to get the best results in learning the language you have to go native. So they did. Which means a few months ago they got on a plane and flew to Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia.

Impressed? I am. And because of teh intarwebs we’re able to keep up with what they’re doing. Seamus maintains 2 blogs. The first is about his language study/work. His latest post on learning Mongolian prompted me to write this post.

Just for your curiosities’ sake.

Mongolian has a reputation for being hard, but I don’t think it’s too hard. The first obstacle is the sound system. There are four o/y vowels that can sound quite similar to English speakers, and that takes a while to get used to. Also, learning the Cyrillic alphabet might hold you up. I’d learnt the Greek alphabet and so I was halfway there.

One of the main principles in pronouncing words seems to be that after the first syllable, reduce all short vowel syllables to nothing, just cut them out and string together the consonants. In practice this means a combination of consonant clusters and schewa vowels.

Mongolian has 8 cases, which if you, as I, studied an Indo-european language might sound troublesome. Actually, it’s not so bad, because there are not really different declensions, and they are all suffixes that do not normally change the root, so really it’s just tacking endings on to words. The only variation within a case ending is in the vowel, and it always simply matches the vowels of the word itself, so that is not too hard either.

The cases are:
Nominative (unmarked), Accusative (only marked for definite direct objects), Genitive, Dative/Locative (to/for/at), Instrumental (by), Comitative (with), Ablative (from), Directional (to[wards]). See, compare to Latin, and all they’ve done is clarify the 500 usages of the Ablative for you, so that is actually helpful!

On to verbs. There are a bunch of tenses, including 4 main past tenses. Oh no you say. Good news, say I, as there are no conjugations to worry about, and verbs are uninflected for person and number. So that’s just one set of endings, depending on the vowels (so 4 very similar sets of endings. Suddenly Mongolian is looking like an easy language. Plus, the tense you use often depends on whether the action was personally witnessed or not, so the choice of tense encodes some extra meaning. What a nifty language!

Basic Syntax is not overly complicated, just remember STOP: Subject, Time, Object, Predicate. Actually, anything adverbial can just get chucked in the T-slot. This is practically Latinate, good for all those classical scholars looking to take up Mongolian.

Okay, those are some things. If I think of more interesting factoids about Mongolian I will post them.

He and Rachel also maintain a more general blog about life in Mongolia.

Another week here and life trundles along. Language classes seem to be going well. On Wednesday night we had some drama, as the people above us had left taps on while the water was off, resulting in water running into our apartment once the water came back on. With some help we had building staff turn the water off for our stairwell of units, so that was a blessing.

Also on the water front, we haven’t had hot water for several days (related??), which means no hot showers, only lukewarm to cold ones. This hasn’t been fun.

Lastly, today we bought a Mongolian language Bible, which hopefully we will start using to learn even more Mongolia!

So how’s your Mongolian? Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Why not pop by their blog and encourage them? And if it’s your thing, pray for them that they would never lose sight of the Lord Jesus Christ who has called them to this incredible work and that they would continue to find joy in it. It’s an awesome thing that they’re doing, but I’m sure if you told Seamus that he’d just tell you that it was what he was made for. And he’d be right. Which is another reason to pray and give thanks to God.