Christian Carnival CCCXXXVIII is up at Parableman and, as usual, is well worth checking out. I really will get around to submitting to one soon!
Archive for July, 2010
My first rejection letter
Jul 30
It has been a bit of a crazy week. I had some minor surgery, so I am a bit sore and woozy, but recovering fine. About an hour before I checked in I received a rejection letter for one of the stories that I submitted at the start of the month. It seemed to be a form letter (well it read very much like a form letter), but I didn’t have time to think much about it, other than a natural flash of disappointment.
Later that night, I sent off a polite email thanking them for their reply, and asking if they could give me some further feedback, whether it was a quality issue, or whether it didn’t suit the theme of the anthology.
I woke up this morning to a very kind reply from who I think is someone further up the editing tree (judging from their forum) with some encouraging words, telling me that the quality of my work was definitely up there and that if I keep submitting to markets (he suggested using www.duotrope.com, which I use, and www.ralan.com, which I haven’t been) I will get published.
He went on to say that out of 200+ submissions mine was on the shortlist, and it came down to space, and then went on to tell me what he thought was the story’s only weak point. He finished up by saying that when I do get my first acceptance to drop him a line, and to continue to submit to them as they do further anthologies.
It is amazing how much someone taking the time to do that makes such a huge difference to one’s mindeset. It’s not that I would have given up on trying to become an author, but it was definitely a lovely email to receive and will to continue to inspire me as I work towards my goal. It’s great to know that I am not that far off the mark, because it is very hard to judge where you are at when you first start out.
The Big Issues
Jul 26
Sometimes I wonder whether we deserve democracy. After the “Great Debate” where we get to hear our prospective leaders articulate their stance on vital issues, what is the public’s focus? Julia Gillard’s earlobes.
I am not a fan of Julia Gillard at all, but for a start I think it is cruel and cowardly for random people to hide behind the distance and anonymity the internet provides and dissect her appearance. Secondly, this shouldn’t be about people’s looks but about whether they should be running the country.
People complain about politicians but I can’t help but think that we get exactly the government we deserve,
That’s just creepy…
Jul 21
I’m not an arachnophobe but this is a little much…
HAGATNA, Guam — Authorities in the U.S. territory of Guam have turned away a ship after thousands of spiders overflowed from its cargo.
The Guam Department of Agriculture says hundreds of large spiders and thousands of smaller ones were seen when stevedores began offloading insulation and beams for housing units from the ship, the M.V. Altavia.
Christian Carnival is up at Thinking in Christ.
While reading the summaries I did a massive double take. Jennifer Knapp came out?! Did not expect that. It is hard to know what to think right now. Funnily enough, my first thought was shame at how out of touch I am with the Christian music industry, considering how much time I spent in radio and at concerts begging for interviews.
Jennifer Knapp was one of my favourite female artists, and I won’t qualify that with “Christian” because she was comparable to any secular artist. Great sound, great lyrics and a great sense of spiritual hunger. We even tried covering one of her songs in the mighty “Only Human”, one of two Christian cover bands I was in back when I had hair!
I know for some of her fans that this news would have ruined their enjoyment of her music, and there would be a sense of betrayal, but it doesn’t really change that much for me. This news doesn’t dilute the power of her music, in fact it gives it more resonance. Reading this article, you get a real sense of conflict, of someone desperately seeking to reconcile their faith with where their heart is, and searching for grace. Isn’t that what Christianity is about? It certainly was what I always got from her music, and listening now I will have a bit more understanding of what her music is saying.
I listen to plenty of music by musicians whose lifestyles I don’t agree with (I love Queen for example), I am not going judge Jennifer Knapp anymore harshly than I do Freddie Mercury.
As for whether she can still be called a “Christian Artist”, I think she is right in saying that she probably isn’t going to get much shelf space in Christian music stores, or airtime on Christian radio (thought Life FM here doesn’t seem too picky about who they play). I have always been uncomfortable with that label, because it has always seemed so limiting and excuse for mediocrity that wouldn’t be accepted in the wider market. What is Christian music anyway? Songs with explict Christian themes? Songs by a Christian about anything? There are plenty of Christians singing “mainstream music”. How perfect do you have to be before you can present yourself as a Christian artist? Maybe all that’s are questions for another day.
But, she is honest enough to admit that where she wouldn’t call herself a Christian artist, and I think that is a good thing. I do think that if people present themselves in a certain way they become role models and have a responsbility to try and be an example, and I don’t think she is in a place where she can do that.
Ten years ago, this would have devastated me, and I probably would have stopped listening to her music. Back then, I put people up on pedestals and demanded perfection, even though I was far from perfect myself. When they proved to be less than perfect, I felt betrayed. Now, while some might say I have become a compromiser, I like to think I have matured in my faith and I understand that we are all sinners who fall short of God. I can recognise Jennifer Knapp for who she is, a flawed human just like me who is in need of God’s grace.
I feel sorry for her, that interview paints a picture of someone who is unhappy and confused and conflicted, and I will be praying that God works in her life and restores her to wholeness so that she can make peace with herself and with Him.
Grande Chile!
Jul 14
From Slashdot:
Chile has become the first country in the world to approve, by 100 votes in favor and one abstention, a law guaranteeing net neutrality (Google translation; Spanish original). The law states [submitter's translation]: ‘No [ISP] can block, interfere with, discriminate, hinder, nor restrict the right of any Internet user of using, send, receive or offer any content, application, or legitimate service through the Internet, as well as any activity or legitimate use conducted through the Internet.’ The law also has articles that force ISP to provide parental control tools, clarify contracts, guarantee users’ privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever. This is a major advance in the legislation of the country regarding the Web, when until last year almost anything that was performed online was considered illegal.
This is the sort of law I would love to see in Australia. One that takes step to protect people from seeing things they don’t want to (or want their children to), but does not try and limit what information users can access. It’s getting close to the correct balance.
There are two massive threats to our online rights in coming years. One is that providers may seek to limit user access to competing products and information, the other that governments may try and decide what information they want their citizens to have access to. Chile is moving in one direction, and Australia in another. Sadly, I think we are moving in the wrong way.
Euthyphro’s Dilemma
Jul 13
Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?
Euthyphro: Certainly.
Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?
Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.
Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?
Euthyphro – Plato
If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.
Bertrand Russell –Why I am not a Christian
As Christians one of the dilemmas we face when talking about right and wrong and God’s commandments is this. Is something good (and I will use this word to symbolise the same as right for the purposes of this post) because God says it is, or does God uphold it because it is good? This may not seem like a dilemma until you follow the argument through to its conclusion. If it is the first case, morality simply becomes a matter of God’s whim. God could have just as easily said that hate was more desirable than love than the other way round. In the second, it creates a source of morality outside of God, something which is antithetical to Christian belief. This is often raised as an argument against the idea of an objective morality emanating from God, but I don’t think it creates such a problem as first thought. There are two main points that I think rob this argument of some of its sting.
1) The Character of God
The first objection raised is that if things are only good because God has said they are, God can say anything is good which removes any real difference between right and wrong. It would seem to make these definitions merely semantics. I don’t think this is necessarily the case. In my opinion, the goodness of things derives not from any word of God, but from the essential character of God that Christians believe is revealed in the Bible. Truth is a virtue because truth is one of the attributes of God. Love is good because God is love incarnate. The list goes on. This means that the commandments that God has given us are not some sort of whim that can change tomorrow, and again the next day. God would not do that, because to do that would be to deny His very nature. God tells us that things are good not because of some external influence telling him that they are so, or because by naming them so He creates them as such meaning that if He wanted good could be bad or bad good, but because of the relation they have to His person, either good in that they reflect His nature, or bad because they oppose it.
2) Trust in God
The next problem we run into is that if morality were dependent on God’s whim (but as I have shown above I believe no such thing) what is to stop God turning around and telling us what was once good is now bad or vice versa? A very intelligent atheist once asked me what would I do if God told me to kill my neighbour? Would I obey because if God commanded it, it must be moral? The question was quite a good one, I must admit. Think about it for a second. If God is the source of goodness, anything He wants can be good. Instead of the truth, lies might become desirable to Him. How can we, as Christians, have faith that God will remain consistent in what He desires of us? There are, I think, two answers to this. The first is a repeat of the first point I raised. God will not deny Himself. If something is good, it is good because it is reflection of His character. We no more need to worry about God changing His definition of good than we do water suddenly being dry. Secondly, we have God’s promises to rely on. God could have simply told us to obey Him without any ability to think about how He interacts wth us, not offering any justification or assurances in return, or even any certainities. This would have been well within His rights. If this was so, at anytime God could tell us to (insert appalling action here) our neighbour and we would have to do it, no matter how much the very morality God had instilled in us rebelled against us. But instead, our gracious God has made His faithfulness to His promises the basis of His interaction with us. God has entered into a covenant and has told us that His faithfulness is a condition of that. We know that we can trust Him and His revelation of His character to us because He has made His truthfulness the way which we were to know Him. We don’t have to worry about God telling us that suddenly everything has changed, that we cannot rely on the immutability of His word, because God has made (not from any obligation to us but because of His love and desire to give us a rock to build our faith upon) His integrity the foundation upon which His law rests.
It is a complex issue, and I don’t know whether I have made it very clear so I would appreciate any comments on it that you feel like making. But I am confident that Eutyphro’s dilemma cannot be used as a way of discrediting the idea of God being a reliable source of morality.
boo.com
Jul 12
It’s hard to sympathise with their complaints.
BEIJING — A Chinese government-backed think tank has accused the U.S. and other Western governments of using social networking sites like Facebook to spur political unrest and called for stepped-up scrutiny of the wildly popular sites.
Newsflash to the Chinese government: The reason why Facebook and sites like it foment unrest is because it allows people to express their views, and freedom of expression is to totalitarian governments like Kryptonite is to Superman. It’s why I oppose censorship even of viewpoints I find repugnant.
Hopefully the Australian government continues to backpedal on a similar issue. Governments should not control what information people can access, it’s as simple as that.
Monkey business
Jul 9
Mojo would be proud!
A plucky group of 15 monkeys have used bendy tree branches to slingshot themselves over a 5m-tall electric fence in Japan.
The primates launched themselves one by one off the 2m trees and over the fence to escape their enclosure at Kyoto University’s Primate Research Institute (PRI).
The full story is here. Let’s hope they don’t figure out what else they can fling at people using catapults!
The newest Christian Carnival is up at Other Food….check it out!