Couldn't Help Noticing

London

Our prayers are going out to London.

Fighting Bible poverty

I couldn't help noticing the irony in a recent mailing from Koorong. The mailing contained:

(1) A Bible and software guide listing the dozens and dozens of Bibles available to Western, English-speaking Christians. Everything from the standard NIV's and ESV's to the curious sounding True Identity: the Bible for Women and The Maxwell Leadership Bible or, for the more fashion-conscious, the NIV compact thinline duo-tone Bible. Not to mention the Bible on CD or for your computer. In all, 32 pages of options that pander to our every Bible wish.

(2) A brochure from the Bible League, reporting the situation of a man named “Caleb” in China who got up at 3am every morning in order to read someone else's Bible. Then he was delighted to be able to borrow a Bible for a whole week, working non-stop for all 7 days to copy it by hand into five thick notebooks so that he could at last have some of God's word for himself.

If you, like me, feel just a little ashamed at this state of affairs, why not get online and financially support the work of the Bible League.

Afterlife

In the business of producing unpublished letters, I've been succeeding with regularity lately. Here's one they didn't put in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, after a recent discussion of world renowned evangelist Billy Graham...

Dear editor,

Lawrence Maher asks how Billy Graham's views of the afterlife differ all that greatly from those of an Islamic suicide bomber “apart from the unacceptable deeds and consequences”. Well, yes. Christians would suggest on this basis that there is, actually, a bit of a difference.

At the heart of Christianity lies the death of Jesus for the eternal benefit of all who trust him. The result is that those who trust Jesus will gladly give their lives for the eternal benefit of others. Islam denies the sacrifice of Christ. Hence they will gladly sacrifice their lives, but the only eternal benefit on view is their own.

Yours etc.

The certainty of ignorance

Over the past several weeks, as the Schapelle Corby case has dragged on, dominating the mainstream media and watercooler conversations around Australia, I have had a nagging sense of déjà vu. I have had these conversations before.

“Of course, she's innocent. Just look at her. She doesn't carry herself like someone who's guilty. And there's no way she could be so stupid as to have tried to smuggle drugs into Bali. She's the victim of corrupt baggage-handlers and a brutal Indonesian justice system.”

“Oh I'm pretty sure she's guilty. I just don't buy the sob-story. Her dad's a convicted drug-dealer, and she's got no credible explanation as to how the drugs got there. We all just feel sorry for her because she's pretty and young and 20 years seems too harsh. But I think she did it.”

And on the conversations go. Completely polarised, although with one side dominant (the Free Schapelle camp).

Where had I heard it before?

Then I remembered. It was in 1982, and everyone in Australia had an opinion on the guilt or innocence of another young woman charged with a serious crime. The woman was Lindy Chamberlain, and the watercooler conversations were remarkably similar. “Of course she did it. Just look at her. She's ice-cold. There's no remorse there at all. A dingo?! You've got to be joking.”

In Lindy's case, the bulk of public opinion at the time was against her. The dingo story seemed fanciful, and to many people her cold, unemotional demeanour suggested guilt. The jury (first time round) agreed. As things turned out, of course, the Chamberlain case proved to be a notorious miscarriage of justice, and the facts finally proved Lindy's innocence.

What is interesting to me is how utterly certain the populace can be about the innocence or guilt of the accused without any detailed knowledge of the evidence. We leap to conclusions on the flimsiest of pretexts—an image on a television screen, a snippet of gossip from the internet, a few paragraphs of charged rhetoric in a tabloid newspaper—and then we vehemently declare that we know that she's innocent (or guilty).

What can we conclude? That most people are convinced by appearances and first impressions? That most people aren?t terribly bothered by such minor questions as facts and evidence? That most people don't engage their brains before forming a strong opinion?

Judging by the attitude of most people to their own innocence or guilt before God, and their response to the gospel of Christ, these would seem to be reasonable conclusions.

Fix your eyes

We heard from Hebrews 3:1-6 in church recently. The sermon continued the theme of paying close attention to Jesus' message (2:1,3) with the command to “fix your thoughts on Jesus” (3:1).

As I mentioned before, there are plenty of other voices competing for our attention, and the personal Bible reading statistics show that many of us are not obeying the command. But the "rubber-hits-the-road" challenge is to switch off some of the distractions.

For many of us, one of the biggest—and most unhelpful—distractions, is the television. Instead of using the channel changer to keep surfing for something to watch, the trick is to make greater use of the ‘off’ button and so free up some time to actually fix our eyes on Jesus by reading the Bible.

Besides, new research apparently shows that watching television doesn't make us happier.