If you’re like me then you’re good at procrastinating. Subconsciously you’ve you alt-tab’d into Chrome and your off into Facebook…

That’s where this little app comes in. You tell it which websites you don’y want to use (you know, SMH, FB, YouTube, Wikipedia…) and then set the timer for however long you need and it won’t let you use them until the countdown reaches zero. Simple. And it’s amazing how much more work you can get done.

Just noticed that Fervr was an Official Honoree at the 15th Annual Webby Awards.

Nice work guys.

Think there’s lots of important answer: teaching good theology on evangelism/sin/etc, discipling, reading the bible with people, modeling evangelism, training, and many more. And we’ve got to be doing all that.

But let me also suggest something we came up with at St Andrew’s last year: Activity Based Evangelism (ABE).

Think of it like another tool in the arsenal for aiding and promoting evangelism. It’s not a silver bullet and it can’t replace all those other things I mentioned above. I also don’t think it’s the most important tool. But what it is is a tool to help those people who want their friends to hear about Christ but who struggle at doing it. Maybe they are shy, or not confident talking on their feet, or they are not one of those people who can just bring every conversation to the gospel. ABE might be for them. And everyone else.

So what is Activity Based Evangelism? Well you’ll have to wait for another blog post for that. Sorry. In fact before I get to that I think I’ll use my next post to talk a little about “big event evangelism”.

1. author of Trellis and the Vine

http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2010/10/25/3047577.htm

Here’s the first post and the series.

Simply it was too violent. Sure it was ‘stylised’ but I was still watching graphic depictions of people being hacked up. The ‘stylising’ of the violence only made it worse. It was unreal enough that I could watch it without being totally horrified and this allowed me to be positioned to like the killers. They were cool ‘badass’ ninjas. Had the violence been more realistic I’d of thought of them as sadistic butchers.

However, this line of argument has a further implication. If it is how we are positioned to respond that matters, not the violence itself, then equally a film with a lower rating that positions me to be in favour of violence would be equally wrong.

I think the key is the intent of the violence. For instance, I don’t watch James Bond for violence. I watch it to see cool cars, gadgets, stunts and explosions. Also James Bond is for the most part more clearly acting on the part of good.

However, the film I initially described has violence as it’s sole drawcard. Here we come across one of the most bizarre hypocrisies of contemporary Christian life.

Pornography is bad. But violence is ok.

It seems the only reason for this is piety. We are more Christian if we shun pornography but when it comes to violence anything goes.

Pornography has a rather slippery definition. One man famously said “I can’t tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it”. This definition highlights a key aspect of porn. Nudity alone doesn’t define it. For example images of naked women can be used for medical purposes. Similarly, a fully clothed woman photographed in a certain way can be pornographic.

This is something we often forget. It is the purpose of an image that determines whether or not it is pornographic.

When a man watches a pornographic film it is to lust after the women depicted (and vice versa).

This is also true of films that depict what I’ll refer to as “pornographic violence”. For Bond violence is not the drawcard. For, say, Hostel it is.

A film such as Hostel is based around shocking me with gruesome violence. When I watch it I am lusting after blood as much as I am lusting after women when I watch pornography.

Violence is condemned in the Bible, and violence that is stylised so that I can enjoy it without being too disgusted is no better than pornography.

This week I also watched a crime show that was about illegal organ harvesting. The image of the victim was utterly disturbing. However, unlike the previous examples there was nothing ‘cool’ about it. It was sickening and its purpose was to be to highlight how debased the crime was.

This was not a pornographic violence. As with sexual pornography, it is all about intention. When I am positioned to respond positively, in a way where I think it is cool, then this is not good. And this becomes truer the more graphic it is. I’m still wrestling with this issue, but I know for certain we, myself including are far too desensitised.

If, as Christians, we value human life, in the same way we value sexual purity, then we should seriously consider how what we watch measures up. Is what we are watching devaluing human life? Is it turning suffering into sport and voyeurism (real or unreal)? When we watch gruesome violence for entertainment, are we not insulting those who live with real violence daily?

What horrified me most about the film I saw this week was the company I saw it in. It was with fellow Christians. This despite the fact other Christians expressed objection to it on moral grounds. Further, it was suggested that objecting made one uncool.

If we are to love our fellow brother and not cause him to sin, then perhaps a different attitude is needed.

Watching a man being hacked to pieces viscerally (however stylised) followed by laughter from Christians is somehow not something I think Jesus would condone.

Sexual pornography is an issue that is finally out in the open. It’s time we talked about violence in the media as well.