Couldn't Help Noticing

Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary

“In her description of the sandwich, Duyser said she made the sandwich 10 years ago, and when taking a bite, saw the face of the Virgin Mary looking back at her.” Link.

What really perturbs me is not quite as much that someone should think that the Virgin Mary appeared on a grilled cheese sandwich (after she took a bite). Instead, it is the response that Diana Duyser took on seeing this ‘holy incarnation’:

a) Preserve the sandwich in cotton wool (although the fact that it hasn't wasted away is apparently a sign of blessing from Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary).

b) Go gambling (and that Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary allows you to win $70,000 is another sign of blessing)

c) Wait for ten years, and then sell Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary on eBay.

Yessir, in our modern world, we've done away with heathenistic idols and false religions: we long since done sold 'em on eBay.

Muslim heal thyself

Amin Saikal wrote an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald arguing, as a Muslim, that President Bush ought not to mix faith and politics. “Ha!” said I, and promptly sent off this letter for the editor's bin.

Dear editor,

Amin Saikal's argument (‘Moderate Muslims hide when they see the cross Bush has to bear’) is weak and inconsistent. As outraged as Muslims and secularists alike may feel about the idea, it can hardly be denied that George Bush won the election not only believing that Jesus Christ is Lord, but with a plainly apparent public position of applying that belief to his policies. Of course, people are free to disagree with the way Mr Bush applies his belief. But it makes no discernible sense to suggest that he now simply ignore them. And why should Mr Bush retreat from his faith position without a call on similar grounds that Osama bin Laden and believers everywhere retreat from theirs? Muslim, heal thyself.

Yours etc.

Contemporary Religion

The Institute of Contemporary Arts in London is currently hosting a travelling exhibition called 100 Artists See God.

The web page for the exhibition claims that “with a mixture of irreverence and sincerity, artists John Baldessari and Meg Cranston tackle nothing less than the question of God in this exhibition.”

However, a few sentences later, we are told that Baldessari and Cranston “decided to create an exhibition about how artists depict God, which would be more about representation than beliefs.”

An advertisement for the exhibition claims that it “is a unique and powerful exhibition that brings together works by 100 artists exploring different notions of God, spiritual power and religion.”

It seems to me that this is a classic example of how the West views religion these days: what is important, interesting and relevant is not how God has revealed himself to us, but how we think of God. This, on its own, is cause enough for concern. But then we say that our own subjective views/representations of God are "powerful". My question is, powerful in what way?

Is it just me?

Am I on my own here? Or are there other frustrated Christians out there?

Here's the thing: NEW does not necessarily mean BETTER.

I can't help noticing that there is a trend to take some of the great old hymns and put them to new tunes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of this in principle, especially when it's a great old hymn that has fallen out of circulation because it never had a tune that carried it along into popular usage.

However, there seems to be a tendancy to also write new tunes to replace some of the old favourites that really still work well. In a number of cases, in my anything-but-humble opinion, the new tune is but a shadow of the original.

At my church recently, we sang a perfect example of this phenomenon. The old tune—which is about as famous as they come and which everyone knows well (for good reason)—is stirring, inspiring and you can belt it out. It fits the words perfectly. It's also easy to sing. The new tune, by comparison, was a dead fish: a limp pop ballad, with a meandering tune; a tune completely irrelevant to the lyrical context.

My issue is not with the song writers (who need our encouragement to keep going and to keep trying to come up with great new hymns and tunes). But I want to encourage the song leaders to choose the best over the good, rather than the new over the old.

Is it just me? Am I way out of line? Email me and let me know.

Socks and sandals in the genes

A ‘leading’ geneticist, Dean Hamer, has recently released a book (The God Gene) suggesting that there is a gene which predisposes people to be “spiritual” and to believe in a “higher power” (“self-transcendence”).

Scientific American makes the following interesting comments on the book:

Is the God gene real? The only evidence we have to go on at the moment is what Hamer presents in his book. He and his colleagues are still preparing to submit their results to a scientific journal. It would be nice to know whether these results can withstand the rigors of peer review. It would be nicer still to know whether any other scientists can replicate them. The field of behavioral genetics is littered with failed links between particular genes and personality traits. These alleged associations at first seemed very strong. But as other researchers tried to replicate them, they faded away into statistical noise. In 1993, for example, a scientist reported a genetic link to male homosexuality in a region of the X chromosome. The report brought a huge media fanfare, but other scientists who tried to replicate the study failed. The scientist's name was Dean Hamer. To be fair, it should be pointed out that Hamer offers a lot of details about his study in The God Gene, along with many caveats about how hard it is to establish an association between genes and behavior. But given the fate of Hamer's so-called gay gene, it is strange to see him so impatient to trumpet the discovery of his God gene.

Strange to see him publish a popular level book before his thesis is tested and reviewed by peers? Not that strange; I can think of at least two good reasons why he would do so.