Religion Makes People Silly...

This is pretty funny, and should make you laugh a lot out loud. But then, if you really start to think about it, it is pretty sad, and it might make you cry a little bit...

Religion makes people silly... (my thought on one of the main points of Jesus' "Good Samaritan" story found in Luke 10:25-37)

Shalom

Thus Sayeth "The Science"

When did science become “the science”?

With the climate change debate going on at the moment, it seems that I read or hear the term “the science” not just every day, but many times per day. Sure, discussing climate change importantly involves discussing various scientific explorations and discoveries, but when did it become “the science”?

I think the idea behind “the science” is to give scientific exploration and discovery a new kind of status – dubious though it may be... In the pre-modern era, the people used to say, “thus sayeth the Lord”, but in the modern era (some would say “post-modern” era), apparently we are now supposed to say “thus sayeth the science”. There are a few problems with this...

The first thing, in relation to climate change science specifically, is that climate change science is not a “the” in the sense that it is not one science, but a combination of many different kinds of sciences (EG - biology, botany, meteorology, marine, environmental, pollution production science etc...). Climate change science is a “young” science, in that it is an amalgamation of a number of scientific traditions and practices, still finding its way. Another problem with “the” in relation to science is that there is no common consensus on what the various studies on climate change is telling us. There is not a strong sense of “the” in how scientists interpret data on climate change, and in fact, scientists are being accused of being parts of factions or sides in the debate, rather than allowing their results to guide their thinking on the matter. This seems to be an area of great concern, given that the objectivity of science is supposed to be its prime strength. The recent “Climategate” scandal has provided some evidence that these camps exist and there is pressure on the scientific community to demonstrate results that prove one way or the other way, rather than to allow the data to speak for itself. It seems that scientists are human after all, like the rest of us, and that science is not the totally rational, values-free domain many had put their hope in.

I wonder if “the science” is really about science’s last gasp at credibility as we continue to move out of the modern era and into the post-modern era. The modern era was supposed to be about science, technology and rationalism saving the world from all of its sins and problems. Instead, what we have seen is new technology and science bringing with it, new problems and sins to deal with. It is the same old story, told in new ways...

Science is great and has contributed a lot of good to many in the world. But the real issues in the world – like climate change, global poverty, war, first world health and mental health, global financial crises etc – will not ultimately be solved by “the science”. These issues need an approach that considers the human condition, not just "the science" involved. The kind of good will that will solve these kinds of problems are found in the teachings of all the Bible and of Jesus – care for neighbours, care for strangers, care for "the least", generosity, hospitality, the common purse, the common good etc etc...

Maybe it is time to go back to “thus sayeth the Lord” and rediscover what it might mean in this post-modern time...?

Shalom...

I can relate to this...




Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.

Christianity and Politics

I just listened to a very interesting podcast by Tony Campolo entitled "Christianity and Politics". It was recorded before Barack Obama became the President of the USA and includes a great quote from him.

I'd recommend a listen to it if you are into such things. It can be found by clicking here ...

Shalom...

Steve

The Rise of "The Mad Monk"

Is anyone else concerned that the nick name of the new opposition leader is "The Mad Monk"? Tony Abbott ended a pretty tumultuous week for the Coalition by getting voted in as the new leader of the party by 1 vote. He certainly seems to have a big job ahead of him to unite the party and start moving ahead towards the next election.

Not everyone is thrilled with the choice of "The Mad Monk" as new leader. Some have concerns with the "mad" part, saying that he is a bit erratic and outspoken, while others are more concerned with the "monk" part. In The Australian today, there were a number of articles about him, describing him as "Conservative" and as a "Devout Catholic". These terms appeared almost always together, painting them as related traits, if not as the same thing. In Tony Abbott's case, this is probably true. In Australia, there has been a long relationship between Conservative politics and the mainstream Christian churches. And for each of us, there is certainly some connection between our worldview or spirituality and our political ideology.

Eva Cox, the Chairwoman of WEL (Women's Electoral Lobby) said that Tony Abbott, "lets his personal religious views interfere with his political role and I think that that's a problem." In 2004, talking about the relationship between his faith and politics, Abbott said, "Christian politicians can not check their faith into the parliamentary cloakroom and be otherwise indistinguishable from everyone else. Still, modern society is not a community of believers and the parliament is not the place to make rules for one." I think that Tony Abbott "gets it". He is no dummy and has clearly thought through his own position on this.

I don't know anyone who checks their world view or spirituality into the 'cloakroom' before before doing their job or living their life. We all certainly have to apply our world view appropriately in the context we find ourselves in at any given time. Our world view is the means by which we engage with and interpret the world, and this most importantly applies to those areas of life where difficult decisions need to be made or strong points need to be debated (EG - in politics!). On one hand, I find it odd that some people expect politicians to 'check their faith' into the cloakroom and then perform their political role.

It reminds me of those old Warner Brothers cartoons with the sheep dog and the coyote, where they used to clock in, fight like blazes, then clock off and go home arm in arm. This was funny because it was a bit ridiculous. I don't know any politicians who don't profess some kind of faith who are expected to leave their world view and values in 'the cloakroom' before doing their job. So, I think that there is a double-standard going on here to an extent.

On the other hand, I don't think that politicians should push their personal beliefs, spiritual or otherwise, in the political arena. The role of politicians is to represent the needs, wishes and desires of their electorate, and to do this in such a way so as to reflect their personal faith stance or world view.

Being a politician in a truly democratic society, seems to me to mean that you would need to ensure that you were representing all the views of your electorate with integrity, and work out the way you would do that "Christianly" (whatever that looks like)... As well as this, in a truly democratic , and even secular, society, those of the Christian faith have a right to engage in the political processes and have their voices heard. Politicians certainly have a right to be Christians and participate in the process without slicing themselves up into spiritual and non-spiritual beings.

Whatever that looks like... So, to all you Christian politicians out there - good luck with that...

Shalom...

The Christmas Elephant

Question: “How do you eat an elephant?”

Answer: “One bite at a time”

(insert chuckles here)

This well-known question / answer combo makes the point that you can tackle big questions, issues, topics or tasks if you just appreciate their bigness and then work things through slowly and steadily, bit by bit. Christmas is such an elephant. The story of Christmas, its significance and impact, is huge. The concept of God coming to live a lifetime on earth, starting out as a poor, vulnerable baby is mind-boggling in its implications for what life means and each of our places in it. Trying to get our heads around such a story and its implications is like eating an elephant, and not something that can sink in for us if we stop and consider it for just one day of the year.

This is what “Advent” is all about. Advent means “coming” or “arrival” and is a season of reflection in some church calendars that takes place in the month before Christmas Day. The idea of Advent is to eat the Christmas elephant one bite at a time. There is an appreciation of the bigness of the significance and impact of Christmas, and a valuing of taking time to reflect on it in the lead up to Christmas. With Advent, there are daily readings, prayers, reflections, hymns, special foods and colours, and ceremonies like the Advent Wreath. All of these “tools” are designed to help people to focus on the Christian message behind Christmas, so that they can step back from the other more commercial or vaguely warm and fuzzy messages of Christmas that flood our TV screens and mailboxes during this silly season.

I struggle with the Christmas season – and I’m a Christian! Something that has enabled me to survive the season without going completely nuts, is to carve out some time each day to remind myself that the most important thing .

If you are interested in doing some daily Advent reflections over the next month, there are plenty of options on the internet. “Just google it” as they say... I was looking around the other day and found 5 really good options – some of which were just PDFs of readings, others readings, prayers and reflections, and then some other online options that involved clicking here and there or subscribing to receive daily email reflections on your computer. I’ve included the two online options for you to have a look at:

1. http://www.caritas.org.au/advent/

2. http://i.ucc.org/FeedYourSpirit/Subscribe/tabid/101/Default.aspx

Okay, that’s it. Enjoy your Christmas elephant...

Shalom

Good News Week - Religion Awards

The folks from Good News Week are pretty well known for their low tolerance of religion in most of its forms. This week on their website, they've dedicated their 2009 awards section to religion and there are four candidates (from the Pope to an Islamic magazine) copping their ire here this week. Click here to take a look (then just scroll down a little bit)...

These guys think religion is silly and have picked a few good examples here to back up their case - as most people who don't like religion tend to do. For those of us who are spiritual and religious, we need to do our best not to give people so much ammunition to back up their case. We need to stop being silly because of our religion! Anyway...

I'm reminded that Jesus also thought that a lot of religion was silly or that any kind of religion could make you silly if you let it. When he told the story about the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), he cast the first two characters as religious people who, upon seeing a wounded man lying beaten, robbed and dying at the side of the road, walked on passed because they had important religious things to do. They missed what a lot of normal (meaning "not religious") people would not have missed - that this person was hurt and in danger, and in need of help. Religion can make people silly. It can make them not see what is obviously going on around them and miss out on doing something important that could really make a difference.

Richard Dawkins - the world's most famous atheist - has often quoted Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, who said, "With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." This is a pretty stinging criticism of religion, but one that is not too difficult to find many cases that back it up.

We need to come back to what the Bible says about worthwhile religion; that, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27). I think that this kind of religion is not only the kind that God would find "pure and faultless", but that others would find hard to fault and poke fun at as well. Let's make sure we keep "the main thing, the main thing" here.

Let's see people make fun of that...

Shalom...

A Message from God ???

The Weekend Australian ran an article on Saturday called "A Message from God". This title referred to the reflections of a Muslim man in the city of Padang on the island of Sumatra, where many have just died from an earthquake.

The man, Hajji, said, "We are being punished for not being devout enough." In his mind, the earthquake that killed so many people was God's will; that God made it happen to punish people for not being committed enough to him. It might sound a bit crazy to our modern, Western minds, but many cultures see deeper meanings in natural disasters and other natural phenomena, and these are often connected to the will of God or the gods.

We also shouldn't forget, that in our own Christian history and stories, there are precedents for God being behind natural disasters like the big flood (Genesis 6 - 9) and behind political disasters like the expansion of the Assyrian empire (Isaiah 7:18-25). We also read of God "hardening the heart of Pharaoh" (Exodus 6:6) so that this people could be freed from Egyptian slavery. The Christian scriptures put God in the place of rightful judge and the bringer of ultimate judgement. As as result of these actions, many people suffered and died.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't actually think that God sent the earthquake to Sumatra to get the attention of the people there. It is probably my own modern mindset, but I still lean towards the idea that the earthquake was caused by the shifting of tectonic plates in what is well known to be a global earthquake "hotspot", and unfortunately, a whole lot of people live there and got in the way of this natural process. Tragic, but not perhaps, cosmic in scope...

What this article reminded me of though, was the idea of God as judge. It is not a popular idea and not one that I feel totally comfortable about even as I write this post. But the idea is clearly there in the Christian scriptures and if you're into the Christian scene, then it is an idea that is hard to ignore, if not impossible to ignore. Interestingly enough, in all the Biblical cases of judgement that I mentioned before, God gives a long lead-in time of warning, and many opportunites to avoid what might be to come. Noah preaches for decades, the prophets come to the Jewish people to call them to repentance, and even Pharaoh and the Egyptians get Moses and Aaaron warning them on number of occasions of what they could do differently to avoid the coming judgement.

These poor people in Sumatra didn't get these kinds of warnings from God prior to the earthquake. I think we can safely say that, as God's M.O.(police jargon for "mode of operation") was not used, that these people were not being judged by God.

The Bible talks about God as judge, but also as the one who is slow to anger and judge; the one who loves to forgive; the one who warns and shows the way back to right living; and the one who ultimately sacrifices himself and takes the judgement on himself for anyone who wants to commit themselves to him and to the good life he wants for all people. In some ways, I'm glad that there is a judge, and that judgement of the world is in God's hands. As I look around and see some of terrible things that go on, I really want to know that at some stage, justice will really be done, by someone who really knows what they're doing.

Shalom...

U2: Faith in the Ear of the Hearer

Here is an article that appeared on the www.@U2.com website. I love this band - not only are they the best and most innovative rock band in the world, but they are chock full of substance. An incredible and rare mix in the rock 'n roll world and in the world in general, if you ask me...

Thanks to Francis for passing this article on to me.

Shalom...

"Want of Spirit"

The Weekend Australian, ran an article (a few weeks ago) entitled, "Want of Spirit" by Christopher Allen. In it, he criticised the direction and standard of The Blake Prize, which is an art competition designed to encourage contemporary artists, of different styles and religious allegieance, to explore the spiritual in art; to create significant works of art with religious content; and to stimulate the interaction of ideas and spiritual thought in contemporary Australian art.

Allen described the current Blake Prize interpretation of religion and spirituality as "incoherent" , "spineless", and "flacidly inclusive". He criticisesd the leadership of the prize, accusing them of having "no sense of direction, no intellectual or spiritual character". His main beef seems to be that the Blake Prize has become so inclusive and committed to diversity, that the essential meaning of religion and spirituality has been lost in the competition. He argued that religion and spirituality of any substance is that which can be seen in the shared meanings and practices of communities, rather than those of private and personal beliefs held by individuals. He said that what is called "spirituality" today, is often a vague feeling of transcendence that doesn't require anyone to give up their fundamental narcissism. He believes that every view of religion, except the deep, essential one, is expressed in the Prize.

Now, I don't know anything about The Blake Prize and can't really comment on Allen's criticisms of it or its leadership. But I can connect with his feelings of frustration around how too much of a commitment to diversity and inclusion can lead us to a "flacid" and essentially meaningless picture of spirituality and life in general. We have become afraid to engage honestly with each other around our different ideas and conceptions on religion and spirituality, often pretending that we all believe the same things, simply packaged differently. But I don't think that this is the case. I think that people believe different things about their spirituality and religion and that these things should be talked about respectfully and robustly in all sorts of public and private arenas. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Athiests etc, should all be able to say, "Sure, there are some things that we might agree on, but there are also these other things that we don't agree on. Lets talk about it all and try to still be friends at the end of the discussion."

I read a book from Vinoth Ramachandra called "Faiths in Conflict", and in it he said that people should be able to have the kind of honest and robust conversations with each other that might genuinely lead to the "conversion" of the other to the alternate point of view. I think that this kind of spiritual engagement and discussion has the potential to lead our societies and communities into a richer, more colourful cultural life, than the potentially bland alternative we might currently be heading toward.

Shalom...

Marketing or Mission ???

The Weekend Australian ran an article on Saturday called, "Churches Unite to Promote Jesus". The article is about the $1.5 million "Jesus - all about life" marketing campaign that is being run in NSW by The Bible Society of NSW. The aim of the campaign is to highlight that Jesus has the answers to even the most complex questions of modern life.

Can Jesus be marketed? Should he be? Hasn't he always been? - some would ask...

I've always thought that Jesus needed to be "mission-ed" (I don't actually think that this is a word)... By that, I mean that I always thought that Jesus needed to be shared with others and understood through caring relationships; through sharing life with others; and through acts of kindness and compassion. When God wanted to do his most important work for the world, he became one of us and moved into the neighbouthood to make a lasting difference. For me, Jesus is not information to be shared, but a relationship with God and an agenda for life to be engaged in. Can a marketing campaing be consistent with this?

It could easily be argued that an important part of the process of understanding and getting to know Jesus is about information. How do I go about understanding who Jesus is and what he is on about? I guess I need some information to know whether I should even bother trying... The aim of this campaign seems to be to get people talking about Jesus at work, at school, with friends etc...

There was an interesting interview on ABC Life Matters with David Willis (Bible Society - NSW) and Sharon Williams (Taurus Marketing) about the campaign they have put together and their thoughts on these kinds of questions. This is followed by another interesting interview on "Christot-ainment" which is worth listening on to.

Maybe there is a place for this kind of marketing alongside mission. Part of the history of the Christian faith has been "proclaiming the word" to others. This might just be one of the ways that this is done in the 21st century. Maybe its okay, as long as it doesn't replace real Jesus-like engagement with the world around us.

What do you think?

Shalom...

Jesus Asked...

When I go home from work on the train, I get a free "newspaper" (and I use the term loosely) called MX. In it, the other day, was an article called, "It's Surreal, But That Makes Sense". It "borrowed" this story from an article in "The Daily Telegraph" from the UK.

The story is about an American researcher, Travis Proulx, who has made an interesting observation through his research, that people actually learn better if they are presented with less straight forward, more surreal learning experiences, rather than clear, well organised information and facts. While this seems to fly in the face of common sense, it is not really a new discovery. In fact, Jesus, who is widely regarded as one the greatest teachers of all time, used this learning technique more than any other.

I have already highlighted this to a certain extent in a previous post, "Jesus is the Question". More than preaching sermons or arguing apologetics, Jesus actually told riddles and parables; asked people probing and personal questions; and rarely gave a straight answer to questions that were asked of him. On the surface, not much a teacher, but this latest research might suggest otherwise...

People often think that the reason Jesus told parables was to make the things of God clearer to his listeners. But when asked about why he told parables, he replied that the parables would only give insight to those who are seeking out the truth of God in their lives. For Jesus, this was the key to getting anything at all out of his difficult and surreal teaching methods. These people would listen to his parables and then ponder on them and reflect on what they might mean for them. It was through this kind of prayerful searching, that they would unlock the mysteries behind these strange, often obtuse stories (Matthew 13:1-17).

What do the stories of Jesus do for you?

Before I go, I want to re-recommend, the "Jesus Asked" podcast series that I previously recommended in my "Jesus is the Question" post. You can either download the podcasts directly or subscribe to them via i-tunes.

Do it now !!!

Shalom...

Where Does Evolution Leave God?

Both Karen Armstrong (author of "The Case for God") and Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion") were asked to respond to this question by The Wall Street Journal. Neither new what the other would write and then both responses were published. I read them both in The Weekend Australian and thought you might be interested as well.

Click here to read the article from The Wall Street Journal. I think it is interesting to read what both authors have to say, but I think it is even more interesting that a newspaper like The Wall Street Journal asked them the question so that they could write an article on this topic for everyone to read. The whole God / not God debate is really going on out there...

I hope you read this article and gain some fodder to engaging in this discussion for yourself. And you should take a look at this as well. It is called "Duelity" and is a very creative representation of an interplay between creationism and evolutionary theory. It is pretty clever and it also makes you think. I'm not going to say anything more about it. You're just going to have to trust me that it is worth going to and having a look at it.

Shalom...

Losing My Religion: Unbelief in Australia

The Weekend Australian's "Review" magazine had a book review on a new book called, "Losing My Religion: Unbelief in Australia" by Tom Frame. I thought I'd bring the book to your attention and share with you some of the bits and pieces that the reviewer included in their article.

The book deals with the relationship between the secularism and religion in Australia. It is an area of study that has in the past produced confusing and conflicting data that has been difficult to interpret with any satisfaction. We know that church attendance and those who identify themselves as "Christian" in ABS surveys are declining; and that those who claim to follow no religion, are unsure or don't care about religion are growing in numbers, and will maybe one day outnumber the believers! There is nothing new about these figures. They have been around for awhile and people have discussed them, but what does it all mean?

At the last census, about 62,000 people declared themselves to be card carrying atheists. In recent times, we have seen the rise of the "neo-atheists" like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great), and it does seem that there is an element of "militantly intolerant secularism" creeping into our public and social life.The big question of this book seems to be: "What does it mean to lose belief in God?" or put another way, "What do unbelievers, believe?"

It seems like it will be worth a look... I've included a few interesting bits and pieces of media that looks at atheism and different points of view of belief / unbelief. If this is an area of interest for you, you might like to take a look at some of them.

• "The Athiests" - (Compass, ABC Television)
• "Shaking the Kaleidoscope" from Richard Hollway (Encounter, ABC Radio National)
• "Why I'm Not a Christian" with Michael Ruse & John Dickson (The Centre of Public Christianity)
  
• "The Cost of Unbelief" from Simon Smart (The Centre for Public Christianity)

I hope you find these interesting and enlightening...

Shalom...

An Aussie Bill of Rights & Freedom of Religion

You may or may not know that there has been a national consultation going on about how to best protect Human Rights in Australia. Some of this discussion has been around whether Australia needs a Bill or Charter of Rights like many other Western countries have, although a number of other processes have been suggested and are up for discussion.

If you're interested in finding out a little more about the process, click here to go to the consultation website, and / or click here to listen to a podcast about the current progress on the consultation.

But all that is just the entree. The main course for this blog post is yet another podcast I listened to the other day. It was from the ABC's "Life Matters" program, and it was very interesting. It had a number of people from different religious groups in Australia, talking together on a panel about how a Bill of Rights might effect freedom of religion in Australia.

To listen to this one, click here ...


Shalom...

Sex, Lies and Politics

Much has been written over the last week or so about John Della Bosca’s extra-marital affair. For those not up on such things, JDB was the NSW health minister and it was revealed the other week that he had been having an affair with a younger woman. I think he has since resigned as a result of the situation, although he was not asked to do so, and some say he should not have had to. He is certainly not the first politician to have been caught out in this area. It seems to me that two of the big inter-related questions of the week have been, “Is it any of our business?” and “What does it matter?”

The first question deals with whether a politician’s private life is any of our business; and the second question deals with whether it matters that politicians express dubious personal values and virtues, given that we voted them in not to not have private affairs, but to manage our public affairs (sorry, I couldn’t help it...).

Over the weekend, there have been a few good articles in The Weekend Australian that have highlighted these questions. Two of these are:

• "Off Limits or Public Interest?" by Lenore Taylor
  
• "Experts Split Over Sex Revelations" by Caroline Overington

One of the underlying questions for me in relation to thinking through the questions above is, “What is politics?” If politics is simply the management of the economy or the development of infrastructure for productivity etc, then it might be fair to argue that as long as politicians are delivering the goods in these areas, then they can do what they like, and with whom, between the sheets, on the kitchen table or in the back seat of the car. But what if politics is more than that? What if it has to do with shaping the culture of the society, promoting positive values and encouraging citizens to be the best humans they can possibly be? If this was the case, wouldn’t politicians then be expected to be the “exemplars” (the embodied examples) of those values and cultural hopes; and the drivers of a more positive picture of what “the common good” could mean?

I know this sounds naive, but I am not alone in wishing that this was the case. In the recent BBC “Reith Lectures” series, Professor Michael Sandel delivered four lectures on "A New Citizenship". It was a fascinating series and I listened to these lectures over and over again. Professor Sandel proposed that religion and morality needed to be invited back into the centre of civic life, so that a new conception of “the common good” could be developed and realised. He said that he fully expected there to be robust discussions, debates and disagreements as a result of such a course of action, but that it was necessary to avoid a colourless, and perhaps dangerous society ensuing. He said that governments tended to reduce discussion and debates on important civic issues to economic terms because it was easier to avoid the complexity of these kinds of discussions by hiding behind the safety of economic arguments.

What would the role of politicians then be in this process? All Professor Sandel would say on this is that he would expect more from our politicians in such a system. And I agree. I think we can and should expect more from both our politicians and our political system. We should not allow the quality of our civic life to be reduced in any way, particularly by those who we have been voted in to drive, promote and protect it. To a degree, we get what we expect.

I say, “Expect more!”

Shalom...