The Broadcasting for Barack Corporation.

In the USA, so the BBC tells me, there is a big electoral battle going on. There are two participants - a woman called Clinton, and a man called Obama. They are apparently doing battle over who of them is going to be crowned King of America.

I am assured that Mrs Clinton is a woman, and, as a woman, I am assured that I am very excited about her. Because she is a woman and so am I. Because that's how women think, you know.

Mr Obama shared a platform with John F Kennedy the other day, too. Well, it looked like his dodgy brother, actually, but there was lots of black and white footage of JFK looking presidential. I was heartened to learn, from the BBC reporter, that Teddy Kennedy is 'a fighter, for decades, for bread and butter improvements in the lives of poor Americans'. Gave me a warm glow, that did.

So, I wonder which of these two people my American readers want to be King? I do think it's a shame you don't have anyone else to vote for, really. People who unreservedly support infanticide tend to make fairly unpleasant Kings (cf Pharoah, Herod).

It gives the philosophers something to do, I suppose.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, right? But say someone asked you to describe the smell of something that was very like that red-petalled flower with sharp thorns on the stems. It would be considerably more straight-foward to use the term 'rose' at that stage, yes?

I'm a little not-getting-it about those who want to change labels when it comes to faith. In some situations, I understand it in terms of initial impression. If someone, when they hear the word 'Christian', is immediately going to shut down their mind and not listen, it is just as good to call yourself a follower of Jesus. But sooner or later, the fact that folk who follow Jesus are in most places called 'Christians' is going to be a hurdle to address.

You don't address it by flat out denial that you are a Christian - you explain what a Christian truly is, and you appropriately use the label.

It's the same with doctrines that are a touch problematic because they may have been distorted in some circles. Just because there are hyper-Calvinists, doesn't mean that I shouldn't mention T.U.L.I.P. Just because someone has distorted the subtleties of the inerrancy of scripture, I don't have to formulate a new word for it.

Say I do decide to call myself a Flurble-schlink who believes in Schnozzwangle about the bible. I'm going to have to do some explaining anyway. If it catches on, and lots of Christians decide they're going to call themselves Flurble-schlinks, because of how unhelpful the term Christian has become, and how distorted the doctrine of inerrancy can be, sooner or later, there are going to be some Flurble-schlinks who let the side down (we call this doctrine total depravity, but you might want to term it 'peeklerber')

So will you change your name again, or rename a doctrine so you don't have to be associated with the difficulties it presents? Even if you do take the time and bother to now be called Pfefferbleeps who hold to Turniptob about the bible, you still have to explain what you mean by those things.

Chances are, once you've done that, and if you're orthodox in belief, the person you've explained it to will say "Oh, right, you're a Christian who believes the bible is inerrant, then?" So, wouldn't it be more productive to spend that re-naming energy on something useful? Like ministry, maybe? ;-)

Can I not bother with Hugh Grant, though?

I'm rather pleased, she's one of my favourite characters...

Take the Quiz here!

Fun!

The idolatry of Friendship.

Despite appearances, I have actually blogged quite a lot in the past week or so - you just haven't seen any of it. Life, online and off, has been somewhat fraught in places, and I've had to be careful that I don't use this blog to simply vent overwhelming frustrations - that's really what my private diary is for.

One of the difficulties of living in the world, fallen as it is, is that we don't get to spend all our time with redeemed folk, and even if we do, they're redeemed, not perfect. I rub up against all sorts. My family is a ramshackle collection of saved and unsaved, rational and completely stark raving bonkers.

My online friendship circle includes atheists, believers, pagans, mad people and sensible folk. And sometimes, I find myself in a place where I get a bit tired of the back-and-forth. There are some people who are friends who I utterly disagree with, and sometimes, it doesn't encroach on the day-to-day. But other times, it's the centre of things, and you have to have a bit of an iron stomach to face it.

And there's always the temptation to fudge a bit for the sake of the relationship, be it online or off. I recall a very dear unbelieving friend who once said to me, in an attempt to be consoling "Well, we're all Christians, really, aren't we." It was meant to be a statement, not a question, and it was in the context of a recent bereavement, but I couldn't just let that go, and unfortunately the friendship cooled.

I think the fear of that occurring (and it's happened since, too, and no doubt will again) is an idolatry that should be squashed, really. I don't subscribe to the doctrine of different beliefs not really mattering. I believe in truth, not 'truths'. That's one of the hard parts of walking as a believing Christian. There are going to be times when you have to tell someone that they're wrong, and that's rarely taken well initially, even if it does bear fruit eventually.

But ultimately, there's no good side to the idolatry of friendship. It won't help break your sinful pride to nod and smile all the time, either - what good is it to be universally liked by those who hate the Gospel, or refuse to accept its direction? If you want to keep the friendship eternally, you need to tell the truth. If you only want that friendship for this life, then it's not much of a friendship anyway.