CPX on "God and the New U2"

God and the new U2 from CPX on Vimeo.

Father Kennedy - Beliefs vs Practice

I (and many others) have been following the drama surrounding Father Peter Kennedy and St Mary's Catholic Church over the past few months (and quite frankly, I've been wondering when I was going to get around to writing something about it on this blog)...

The Weekend Australian ran an article on Saturday, the 23rd May, called "The father, the shun and the holey spirit". It touched on some of the content of an interview that had taken place between the ABC's Steve Austin and Father Kennedy on the 11th of May. It is a great interview - very interesting. Steve Austin does a wonderful job here, trying to get to the heart of Peter Kennedy, the man repeatedly dubbed in the media as "the rebel priest". And Father Kennedy himself comes across as a very likeable character - the kind of person you'd love to have over for dinner for a big chat about life, the universe and everything.

Tess Livingstone's article touched upon issues that friends of mine and I have been talking about in relation to these dramas, but have not been given that much attention to this point. Bit by bit, the "theology" of Father Kennedy has come out, but now that he has been removed from his church role, he seems a lot freer to talk about such things. It seems that he doesn't really believe in a number of things that many Christians would argue are core beliefs of the Christian faith - EG that Jesus actually existed, or if he did, that he died and rose again... These would have to be two of the central beliefs of the Christian faith which at its core, requires a person to follow Jesus (who must exist to be followed) and to put their hope in the resurrection (the act on which all the hope of Christians rests). The Apostle Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 15, that if Jesus hasn't been resurrected, then the Christian faith is a joke. Even Steve Austin, who doesn't identify himself as Catholic, finds it hard to understand, that a Catholic priest might not believe in these core tenets of faith and still want to call himself Christian.

So, it is interesting that Father Kennedy on one hand, cites the example of Jesus as a rebel and a rule breaker, persecuted by the church for his unorthodox beliefs and practices (this image, of course, justifies his own situation and treatment); but then on the other hand, doubts the very existence of the person of his example. Instead, he seems to put more faith in less concrete cosmic themes like the rhythms of nature and the mysteries of life. Now, don't get me wrong, I have an appreciation of these themes and their important role in revelations of spiritual truths, but I don't see them shaping up as a replacement for what Jesus' existence and resurrection can tell us about who God is, what God is about and how we should then live. There is no doubt that Father Kennedy does not share the rthodox beliefs tof the mainstream Christian church.

But then there are the practices of Father Kennedy and the St Mary's congregation... The community of St Mary's is one where the poor and marginalised are welcome and the commitment to social justice is high. People who wouldn't go to other churches, go and are welcome, there. Issues that are not on the agenda of most churches, and should be, are given attention and resources there. And these are practices I woul argue are essential to the DNA of fair dinkum churches. So, in all this, my big question has been - what is more important? Right belief (orthodoxy) or right practice (orthopraxy)? Because many, many churches who have the so called "right" beliefs, do not commit to these right practices, yet there have been many criticisms about Father Kennedy and St Mary's for having "wrong" beliefs, while engaging in what are essentially right Christian practices.

I wonder which is the worse problem to have...

In the Bible, Jesus said that there are those who are going to call to him saying, "Lord, Lord", and he isn't going to know who they are. He told a story about the end time judgement, officated by Jesus, that tells us that the criteria for salvation is what people DID or DID NOT DO for "the least". And in another parable of Jesus, one son was considered to be "good" by the father, for DOING what his father wanted him to do, even after he said he wasn't going to; and the bad son was the one who said he would do it, but then DIDN'T do it. I don't know, but as go through the Bible, there is a pretty good case that can be mounted for the importance of doing the right thing in God's eyes, and that this is of more importance than we give it credit for in God's scheme of things. There are things we could say about Father Kennedy's "orthodoxy", but could criticisms of equal weight be leveled at many, many Christian churches, for their lack of "orthopraxy"? And why hasn't this counter-criticism been a more prominent part of the media comment and debate?

So finally, my big question for today really is, "What is the point of having all the right beliefs, if they don't lead to the right practices?"

Shalom!

Seeking Asylum

SBS' Insight program had a great show on this week about asylum seekers and Australia's policies and practices on border protection. Given that I wrote a post about this issue and how it was coming across in the media, I thought it would be good to pass on this show to you.

To check it out, click here .

Let’s Talk About Sex

It is entirely possible that Australia doesn’t need even one more word written or printed on the “Matthew Johns sex scandal that has rocked Australia and the NRL”… but here goes anyway…

For the past week, Australia has been talking about sex. We have been talking about it on TV and in the newspapers, we have been talking about it at home and at work, and we’ve been talking about it at the footy and at the shops. And what interesting conversations they have been. The two issues that stick in my mind are firstly, the importance of consent when it comes to sex (and what consent actually means); and secondly, the appropriateness of group sex.

So, what does consent in sex mean? Does consent mean only that someone hasn’t said no, or more that they have given their clear yes? It seems to me that sex and our sexuality is too precious a part of our own personhood and existence to not be sure in any way that all parties have agreed to be involved as a bare minimum standard! Maybe the deeper question is actually what is sex and what does it mean to the people involved? I wonder if people who go out on a Saturday night looking for sex in a place where they know there will be drinks, maybe drugs and footballers, have a high opinion of the preciousness of sex beyond how it felt, how long it lasted and who it was with. Can a low view of sex lead anywhere but eventually to pain, tears and dissatisfaction?

Regardless of what sex means for people, it is clear that the community is rallying around the idea that people need to be sure consent has been given, and not even footballers will be off the hook when it comes to the community’s mediocre standard on this. But will it be enough to stop dodgy sexual practices in football circles? As Phil Gould said on the Footy Show last week, the NRL has had multiple “wake up calls” in relation to its warped sexual culture but the incidents of sexual conquest and degradation continues. A judge recently accused a footballer of another code of thinking that he was some kind of Titan, beyond the law and the standards of behaviour that others in the community were expected to live by. My goodness, could it be true that there are hundreds of footballers of various codes out there moving through the world with that kind of attitude, particularly towards women? It is literally a time to "lock up your daughters"!

Group sex has not in my memory had such negative press, even though it has probably never been a mainstream or approved practice by many people in the community - more something that might be tittered about in a conversation or put up in a movie as some kind of rare , mountain top sexual experience for the sexual kings and queens among us. But as Phil Gould said (Yes, I know... I can’t believe I’ve quoted him once, yet twice. But I must admit I was quietly impressed by some of the things he did say on the Footy Show), as soon as a few footy blokes walked into the room that night, it was going to end in tears. Even Vossy backed up the idea that group sex would be considered by many to be a practice not looked highly upon by the majority of people in society. (Thank God for football commentators - is there nothing they don't know?)...

Another media commentator encouraged readers to imagine the scene of up to a dozen men in a dark room gathered around their team mates while they watched others having sex, masturbating, lining up to have their turn with one lone 19 year old girl. I must admit, to me it was a powerful picture of degradation of both women and sex itself. Did she say no? Did she feel like she could in that situation? Who had the power in that room? And whose responsibility was it to make sure that things were okay for her?

“Just say NO!” – good luck in that situation…

The Bible talks about sex as being something precious for people to share in a marriage relationship, and deviations from this don’t mix well with the magic and power of sex, and are against God’s intentions for it. Many Christians would see sex as something special to be shared with their life partner, something that is designed to give pleasure to the other person, in the context of their love for each other. At its core is the love and respect of the other person; their wellbeing and their pleasure. So, while the community is discussing the values of consent and questioning the appropriateness of group sex, there are some deeper questions, considerations and opinions that could be thrown into the mix to lead the conversation down deeper paths.

These have been good discussions to have, but we have a long way to go…

Shalom

To view the Four Corners report, click here . To view the A Current Affair report, click here . To view The Footy Show report, click here .

The Federal Budget Analysis and Action

The federal budget was unveiled on Tuesday (11th of May, 2009) and TEAR Australia's Changemaker's group has released an analysis of the budget and the attention it gives to international aid, climate change and other issues of social concern beyond our own shores. TEAR Australia is an aid, development and education organisation that works from a Christian framework of thinking and practice. The great part of this update is that there are things that you can do to have a say in what is going on with the budget. The site offers a template for an email that you could write to Wayne Swann (the federal treasurer) plus his email address; encouragement on writing a letter to the editor and the online directions to make this happen; and access to a more detailed budget analysis document from the Australian Council of International Development.

When the last budget came out, I received a similar update from TEAR Australia's Changemakers group. I took the information, constructed a short "letter to the editor" and sent it to both "The Courier Mail" and "The Australian" newspapers. The Courier Mail published my letter in the Letters to the Editor section of the paper, put it right in the centre of the page and attached a picture to it. It was the most prominent feature of the page on that day. A number of people I knew commented on it and I felt that I had played a small part in putting the issue of the budget and aid committments in front of people for their more serious consideration. It took me less than half an hour to do it all and I think that this small amount of effort was worth it.

To have a look at the budget analysis update, click here.

To join Changemakes and receive these kind of updates regularly by email, click here.

I don't know about you, but these issues of social concern are the issues that mostly determine who I vote for at elections. It seems to me that with the Bible's priority of concern for the poor that we must make these issues the highest on our voting agendas. What prompts you to vote for a particular party at an election? Is it that you and your family have always voted a certain way? Do you as a Christian, have an opinion of the rightness of one party over another? Do you simply look for how you will be best off if you vote one way or another?

The Bible talks a lot about the central importance of generosity and hospitality and of a concern for those who are marginalised, poor and/or oppressed. Politics is all about the distribution of resources and power. So, our Biblical concerns for justice and compassion should have primary place in our political decisions and more broadly, in the political realm. We can't be lazy or complacent when it comes to our government's decisions on how our nation's money is spent. One party or another party in power at any given time could mean hundreds of millions of dollars going in the right or wrong directions. We are so fortunate to have the opportunity to participate in the decisions of our governments. Let's not take it for granted. Write a letter! Write an email!

Don't let anyone tell you that you should keep you faith out of politics! If our faith and spirituality mean anything in this life, then it is the political arena where it can be best expressed!

Shalom...

Australians Not So Sceptical About Jesus

CPX (Centre for Public Christianity), commissioned research into what Australians understood of Jesus, to coincide with the release of the "Life of Jesus" documentary that aired on the ABC on Easter Friday.

The findings may surprise you...

To look at the story The Age newspaper ran, click here. To read the media release from CPX on the research study, click here.

U2's Lyrics and the Bible

If you're interested in U2 and their expression of the Christian faith, then have a look at this site which references some of the U2 songs with their Biblical roots.

The Surge

Here come the “boat people”! We thought that we were rid of them, but here they come again… and this time, they are “surging” to our shores, posing a “threat”, challenging our “national security” and bringing with them, the four horses of the apocalypse (I added that last one for unnecessary extra effect).

The Australian reported yesterday (Wednesday, the 6th of May, 2009) that “Australia is facing the biggest spike in unauthorised boat arrivals since John Howard implemented the Pacific Solution”; that 11 boats have been detected this year; 18 boats have arrived since Kevin Rudd announced a “softening” of detention policies in September 2008; that 676 people were on those boats and 497 have been detained this calendar year. The big question that everyone is asking is why? (NOTE: it is politically advantageous to ask this question so as to get score political points off the suffering to some of the world’s most vulnerable people) Some say that it is because the Rudd government has “gone soft” on border protection and others say violence in Africa and in the Middle East has increased the already massive numbers of refugees in the world who are on the move and trying to get themselves and their families to somewhere safe.

The thing that I and others have noticed over the last few weeks in relation to the reporting on the arrival of asylum seekers via boats to Australia is the way the language and focus has shifted in the media since our last national panic attack on this a couple of years ago. The newspapers seem to have moved from terms like “illegal asylum seekers” (it is actually not illegal to seek asylum by the way, it is a human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Australia supports) and “queue-jumpers” (there are no queues to jump in many of the places that asylum seekers come from), to terms like “unauthorised boat arrivals”, which sound a whole lot nicer to me. The negativity of focus has also seemingly shifted from the asylum seekers themselves to the people smugglers (who Kevin Rudd described as the “vilest form of human life… [who] should rot in hell”).

I find this shift very interesting and have been wondering from whence it has come? My wife suggested that it could be a reflection in the media of the same change in the national thinking that resulted in the ousting of the Howard government and the bringing in of Kevin Rudd (a soft touch on asylum seekers, but tough talker on people smugglers). She is pretty smart, my wife. I had just hoped that maybe we were getting a bit nicer…

As a person who claims a primary allegiance to Jesus Christ, I thought I’d include a few Bible verses that exhort us to be a lot nicer to refugees and asylum seekers in Australia than we currently are – even though we are improving. There are many practical reasons for us to not get defensive and paranoid about this latest “surge”, but here are some theological reasons as well (NOTE: “alien” in the Bible means refugee and asylum seeker, not little green people with big, buggy eyes):

• Exodus 22:21
• Leviticus 19:33-34
• Deuteronomy 10:18-19
• Deuteronomy 14:28-29
• Deuteronomy 24:17
• Deuteronomy 27:19
• Ezekiel 22:29-31
• Malachi 3:5
• Hebrews 13:2

For some more information on the current refugee situation and Australia, go to:

• Amnesty International Australia
• Oxfam
• Refugee Council of Australia
• ABC - Life Matters

Shalom...

Genetics Reveals the ‘Real Eden’

On Monday, The Australian published a short article entitled “Genetics reveals the ‘real Eden’”. It outlined the findings of an extensive genetic study that places the origins of humanity in a “sandy, inhospitable region hear the coastal border of Namibia and Angola.” – hardly the traditional picture of the Garden of Eden! It even gives the co-ordinates!!! The area is populated by the Bushmen or San people, who are likened to the “closest thing to a Biblical Adam and Eve.” There is more of course – all pretty fascinating stuff.

The study makes the assumption that the oldest populations would have the greatest genetic diversity and that this genetic diversity decreases as people move away from the origin. It sounds pretty cool… I’m constantly amazed at how clever people are in their ways to try to find things out. The other day, I watched a show about some scientists that were teaching bees to recognise faces at various angles and then using the findings of the research to inform better design in computerised face-recognition technology. How do they come up with these ideas? There are some clever people out there.

But, I digress…

The article, while not applying its findings to anything about Biblical origin claims, got me thinking about the relationship between the Creation account in Genesis and scientific study into human and cosmic origins. I know that there are Christians who strongly link Genesis 1 to scientific theories on origins, but I’m not really sure that this is the most useful understanding of the Creation account or of the variety of ways that God might use to reveal Himself to people. I just don’t think that there is enough information on our origins in Genesis 1 for us to have really strong and clear opinions on what we find there. I think we need to keep an open mind on what kind of writing the passage is and what is in it that we can actually take away from it with any confidence.

Awhile ago, I did some study on Genesis 1 and found a body of information that suggested the Hebrews created their own Creation account after being in exile in Babylon and coming across other cultures that had a story about how the universe came about. They didn’t have one and thought they better get onto it, so they borrowed some of the ideas from the stories they had access to and put their own together. Their defining story hadn’t been a Creation account, but the story of how God had saved them from slavery in Egypt. Now, this view of the Creation account would be considered high level heresy for many, many Christian people, but there is a lot of linguistic and anthropological information to support it. But what if it is true? Should a discovery like this be a stumbling block to Christian faith for any person? I don’t think it should be, but of course it would be because of assumptions that people make about what God is like, how God does things, what the Bible is and how the Bible was put together.

The really interesting thing for me about the passage is the theology – what it says about God and the cosmos. No matter what interpretation people have on Genesis 1, there are some things that just about everyone who is into it, agrees upon - it says that God created everything; in an orderly fashion (an “intelligent design” ?); that people are special to Him; and that meaning in life can be found through having a vibrant relationship with Him, others and the world around them; and through a purposeful engagement in the various activities of life. I think that these are the important things Genesis 1 has to say to us – not whether the world was created in 6 x 24 hour days, no more than 10,000 years ago. God reveals Himself to us through His Word, the Bible, and through the world, if we are clever and open enough to see and take on the message. We need to let the Bible tell us its story, and the world to tell us its story – and try not to get the two mixed up. Having said that, I’m pretty interested to get onto Google Maps to look up 12.5E and 17.5S, just in case a glimpse of Eden is actually possible…

Shalom…