An AI generated song about the Australian 2023 referendum

When an Australian musical artist licensed use of his song for the "Yes" campaign, I thought I'd write my own song. So, I turned to AI.

Google's Bard offering in response to a request for a song about the Australian 2023 referendum. Note: if you ask Bard for a song it is likely to offer you a different response

Verse 1

Oh, the 2023 referendum, It's a time of choice for our nation. We're voting on a Voice to Parliament, But I'm not sure it's the right solution.

Chorus

No to the Voice to Parliament, I don't think it's the best way. To give our First Nations a say, Let's find a better way.

Verse 2

I know our First Nations have suffered, For too long they've been ignored. But I don't think a Voice to Parliament, Is the answer that we're looking for.

Chorus

No to the Voice to Parliament, I don't think it's the best way. To give our First Nations a say, Let's find a better way.

Bridge

I believe in equality, For all Australians, black and white. But I don't think a Voice to Parliament, Is the way to achieve it.

Chorus

No to the Voice to Parliament, I don't think it's the best way. To give our First Nations a say, Let's find a better way.

Outro

Oh, the 2023 referendum, It's a time of choice for our nation. I'm voting no to the Voice to Parliament, But let's find a better way.

Repeat Chorus

#yes23, #referendum

Tin-foil hat

 Google's Bard put an end to my favourite item of clothing...

Sydney Anglicans continue their decline

This blog has long tracked Sydney Anglican attendance decline. The prior post is linked.

Data from the 2023 Synod provides an opportunity to study the current attendance numbers and to present a forecast. The resultant graph is depicted below - the part of the line that is in red is the forecast. The forecast turns on the line-of-best-fit - the dotted line. The graph suggests attendance numbers of 27,000 within 10 years time.

Where all Sydney Anglican congregants currently fit in Sydney Cricket Ground, they will soon fit in Henson Park.

The Sydney Anglican's do not seem to disturbed by the decline. For, the numbers were only available in a dank corner of the Synod quarters as reported at this link. 

I have copied the text from that article - observe how the numbers are reported only in response to a question rather than as a matter of foremost attention:

"In a quiet corner away from the hall where the Sydney Anglican Synod is taking place, a sheet of paper attached to the noticeboard contained disturbing news. A gentle decline in attendance figures is shown in a table compiled in answer to Zac Veron, Senior Minister at Bayside Anglican in Sydney’s Inner South."

Shalom,

Ozhamada

Failure to lament

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.  But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked. Genesis 9:22-23 NIV

Rachel Gilson’s wayward theology and the nod that Sydney Anglicans offer such perversion was the subject of an earlier post. In addition to presenting to many Anglicans at an Undeceptions Conference, Gilson was interviewed at an inner city Anglican church (as linked).

The Sydney Anglican Diocese Doctrine Commission report would result in Gilson lamenting her state (paragraph 7.3 of this linked document). Lament is unnecessary of those who obey God. Private lament is best done in one's private chamber with those who are closest. Private lament is not best done on a public platform.

I long that two Sydney Anglicans had acted as Shem and Japheth. To have provided for Gilson (Isaiah 51:17-18). To have acted in charity (Proverbs 17:9) to bring privacy to Gilson's state. To have taken a cloak to cover Gilson as they guided her away from the stage. To offer Gilson rest. To weep with Gilson as she weeps. To comfort her and to direct her that she may be liberated.

 "[Shem and Japheth] not only would not see [Noah's nakedness] themselves, but provided that no one else might see it; herein setting an example of charity with reference to other men’s sin and shame." Benson Commentary

Noah’s Drunkeness by James Tissot, c. 1896-1902 

from https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/the-curse-of-hamcanaan-a-mythological-mystery/

I long for action of the Sydney Anglicans as Shem and Japheth beget a Godly nation, but of Ham there sprung hostile nations; Babylonians, Egyptians and Canaanites.

Shalom,

Ozhamada

Word perverted via back door

"Any attempt by one or some of God’s people to speak today a word that challenges scripture and tradition—a word claiming authority in the church on the basis of the gospel—is, in effect, making a prophetic claim to speak to and for the universal church. Speakers should recognize both the possibility and audacity of their claim. The church must hear and evaluate such voices, testing the spirits, asking whether or not it finds itself addressed in such a word by the challenge and comfort of law and gospel. In other words, the church applies the test of canonicity. Will this new word be heard as word of God, or will it not?"

From this link, 'A New Word on Homosexuality? Isaiah 56:1-8 as Case Study', F J Gaiser, p290 (possibly with 1Th 5:21 in mind)

 

I read with interest that a senior Sydney Anglican cleric attended an event in Sydney. At the event a USA speaker, Rachel Gilson, was listed. Where the herald of the news was surprised of the cleric's attendance on a paid ticket,  I was surprised the cleric graced the event.

Rachel Gilson is a Side B Christian. Side B Christians are defined here. (I use the term ”Side B” reluctantly in that I hesitate to put any descriptor before the word Christian. If I need identify my Christianity with a descriptor, then both Christendom and myself suffer).

Many will be thankful that Gilson recognises God’s good order for marriage as reserved for one man and one woman. Many will be thankful that Gilson advocates that Christians either maintain celibacy or marry a member of the opposite sex. Indeed, many will take joy that Gilson is in a one-man, one-woman marriage. Some robustly support Gilson for her “Biblical sexual ethic”.

And yet, there is still a dilemma.

For Gilson, grasps Christ’s cloak with one hand and her same sex attraction with another when all the time Christ’s message is that both Gilson’s hands must grasp Christ’s cloak (Note 1). While Gilson knows that the same sex attraction will not be part of the New Jerusalem, she does not care to prepare for that time by shaping herself free of same sex attraction. Gilson instead marches forth with the attraction proudly pinned to her chest. For Gilson, the same sex attraction is not something to be repented of. It is not something to be treated in the silence of prayer. It is not open to the benefit that sanctification may bring. That which is unnatural to God's order, that which cannot be let go; is pinned to the chest, it is commercialised.

And there is more dilemma.

Gilson holds that same sex attraction is compatible with heterosexual marriage (Note 2). In this it cannot be said that Gilson has submitted to her husband, for an undesirable sexual attraction plays a part in their marriage. Her attraction, both privately and publicly, need be fully for her husband alone. While Gilson grasps to her unnatural sexual attraction a dog lurks in her marriage. Some commentators note for instance that Gilson married reluctantly. Reluctantly approaching marriage is not a sound starting block.

Gilson is perhaps simply misguided – she is perhaps yet to benefit from sound instruction. Many have sought to pervert the Gospel. Many play games with God’s Word. Gilson stands on a false dichotomy: that God states "no" to same sex attraction, yet God's grace can encompass that which God finds unnatural for mankind (both of these quotes from 'Sex: Telling a Better Story', Rachel Gilson, in "Before You Lose Your Faith" Deconstructing Doubt in the Church by The Gospel Coalition):

On "no": "When I was first feeling drawn to Jesus, I wondered if there’d be a place for someone like me in his church. Initially I was given false hope by friends who told me the Bible doesn’t actually say no to same sex sexuality. But when I read the Bible, I found it does."

On "grace": "There is a better way, a way of grace and truth. Jesus isn’t about stereotypes, prejudice, mockery, or hiding. He’s about life, forgiveness, strength, and joy. Instead of throwing everything out and walking away, take this as a call to grow in biblical discernment and sift the gold of God’s vision for our bodies from the muddy stream of how humanity has soiled sexuality."

Alternatively, it is possible to think Gilson misguided of identity politics. Identity politics tends to reduce everything to a individual-centric viewpoint. Gilson should have no priority of self but instead a priority in marriage (Genesis 2:24).

“All of us have witnessed some pretty amazingly ridiculous interpretations of Scripture, undertaken by well-meaning folk who are not much used to disciplined reading of any texts. When biblical scholars engage in the same game, of course, our tools are much more sophisticated. But make no mistake: many of us really do continue to play the game.” 

The Trials of Biblical Interpretation – Don Carson

Attendance of a senior Sydney Anglican cleric to a Gilson talk is a nod to a perversion of Biblical teaching; a perversion personified of Gilson’s twin duopoly of unnatural desires & a heterosexual marriage [that heterosexual marriage need not be comprehensively honoured] and of God saying "no" yet accepting something that is unnatural through grace. It is a further Sydney Anglican nod to homosexual perversion; the first when Ed Shaw, author of the The Living Out Church Audit, a document that welcomes homosexuals to the full life of a church, spoke at the St Andrew’s Cathedral and other Sydney Anglican venues.

While the senior cleric is of a station that would have him aware of the church’s tradition of testing New Word, perversion of the Word occurs through the back door.

 

Shalom,

Ozhamada

 

Note 1: Mark 5:21-34, the story of the afflicted woman who touched Jesus cloak indicates a distinction between Judaism – where obedience to sacrifices or rituals were necessary – to the Christianity – where faith is required. The mechanism Jesus used to draw this distinction is his insistence that the disciples identify the woman from amongst the great throng of people (verse 30). The disciples could see the woman – and recognised her as one in need – yet they were culturally blind to the woman’s plight. The disciples had not yet fully understood Christ's kingdom so they held to their past. 

Gilson, like the disciples, clutches to that which she is bound. And, to Gilson there is then also God's grace in the provision of a heterosexual marriage. Gilson thus grasps ill-fatedly to both ritual and faith.

Note 2: Lest I am criticised for idolising marriage please consider Gilson's own words on the subject: "Christians rightly celebrate marriage. God created marriage as a symbol of how he loves the church. Human marriage is supposed to be faithful for life, because God is always faithful to his people, as we should be to him. Human marriage is supposed to be the start of a new household, because God’s relationship with his people begins a new family. Human marriage is the only place for sexual intimacy and pleasure, because God’s relationship with his people is incredibly intimate and deeply pleasurable. And, if we have ears to hear, human marriage is only to be a male-female union, because the gospel is the picture of two non-interchangeable and different parties, made one by the work of Jesus Christ. Husbands represent Christ, and wives represent his church (Eph. 5:22–33). Heady stuff, no? Beautiful, too." 'Sex: Telling a Better Story', Rachel Gilson, in "Before You Lose Your Faith" Deconstructing Doubt in the Church

by The Gospel Coalition.

#inclusion #humansexuality #sin #SSM #homosexual #Sydney #livingout #samesexattraction #chastity #bible

Cars consuming granola

Could Carma kindly explain the presence of granola consuming vehicles - while Carma eats their granola?

Blasphemy when character is called for

I lodged a complaint against a member of Australian Anglican clergy.

The complaint forms as a breach of the church’s code. The code document is named Faithfulness in Service. The complaint is to the clergy’s use of offensive language. Faithfulness in Service includes a definition of offensive language. Offensive language includes blasphemy. The complaint therefore is to blasphemy.

The blasphemous words were uttered in the sermon of a June 2023 service that was readily available upon the church’s Facebook page and/or its YouTube page. I accessed the service via Facebook.

The words were:

"I shudder at his [Paul] diagnosis that suffering produces endurance. Suffering doesn't produce endurance. Suffering produces destruction....to be quite frank, it is absolute nonsense".

As I did not wish to labour the church’s complaints unit (Professional Standards Unit) of my finding in blasphemy I simply offered that I found that the words:

 

“Irreverently treat God's Holy Word (Romans 5).”

 

While I was silent in my complaint as to other utterances in the sermon, it is of note that the preacher followed the utterance with the words: “I hope that Saint Paul in heaven has gotten over it”. In the sermon of the following week another reference to Saint Paul was: “I always thought that Saint Paul needed a psychiatrist”.

The blasphemous words form a denial of God’s Holy Word. It is insufficient to see the words simply as a critique of the writings of Saint Paul as one must counter how the Holy Spirit inspire the entire canon of the Bible. Therefore, to deny any part of the Bible – to call any part of it “absolute nonsense” - is very grave indeed.

There is a wealth in Romans that lend readily to a very generous preaching of the Romans 5 text. The text is a mere clipped ticket if one tackles only the Suffering > Endurance relationship. The text calls for the whole measure to be preached: Suffering > Endurance > Character > Hope.

The complaint yielded little real benefit. It was of little benefit in the sense that I was throwing stones from afar when the congregation should have thrown stones. Congregants armoured of discernment are best addressing an errant Rector locally. 

For, it was a Sydney Anglican Rector who once told me this joke:

“In some churches the Rector can only be rid of if he:

i)                    speaks heresy,

ii)                   goes insane, or

iii)                 dies.

In some churches all three happen and still no-one notices”.

 

Shalom,

Ozhamada

#church, #anglicans, #bible, #sermon, #homiletics, #blasphemy, #character, #hope,#endurance, #complaint