21st Century Christmas

Happy Christmas to all... Thanks to those who have engaged with this blog this year, even when my posting has been so erratic. I hope you have found it interesting or useful from time to time. I know it helps me to think through things, so at least it certainly has been useful for me...

For my final post of the year, here are some 21st century Christmas stories that others have sent me that I thought were worth passing on. You may have already received these... I thought they were great...

A Social Network Christmas

The Digital Story of the Nativity

"Shalom on earth and good will to all"

Steve

Turn the Other Chook

This is one of the best tag lines I've ever seen / heard / read... and for a great product / cause.

Given that Christmas is coming, Tear Australia has once again launched it's "Arguably the World's Most Useful Gifts - Christmas 2010" catalogue to give folks a non-consumerist option for their Christmas present buying this year.

Here's how it works...

Check out the link and have a look around the site. "Useful Gifts" is not limited to buying useful gifts at Christmas time, there are ways contribute throughout the year and even the opportunity to run your own "Useful Gifts" shop.

Check it out...

Shalom

Steve

Doubts and Loves

I recently finished reading a book by Richard Holloway called "Doubts and Loves: What is Left of Christianity". I have blogged on Richard Holloway before. I like his stuff. I think he has a lot to offer...

Richard Holloway used to be the Bishop of Edinburgh with the Scottish Episcopal Church, but resigned in 2000 after attending a Bishop's conference where he was appalled by the overall attitude of the conference to people who identify as gay and lesbian. Now, he calls himself an atheist or agnostic, but still attends and even preaches in a church. He's not sure about God, but he still loves Christianity and the church, and believes that it all still has something to offer. So, he is an 'outsider' of sorts. An outsider who has been on the inside and now likes to have a foot in each camp. I don't know if he would be pleased with that assessment of his current position, but it gives you some idea of where he is at... I hope...

Throughout "Doubts and Loves", Holloway outlines his current theological positions. He's not completely sure, but he doesn't believe there is a God;  he thinks religions are extremely insightful conversations humans have been having with themselves; there are and were no miracles (EG - no virgin birth, no water into wine, no healings and no resurrection etc ); there is no heaven and hell etc etc... you get the idea. His belief is that the gospels were heavily edited later on to include all the God claims and miracles of Jesus. But even without these, he still wants to be a part of "what is left of Christianity". He thinks that if people followed the way of Jesus, in terms of how he lived and what he taught , that even without all the spiritual and miraculous stuff, the world could be transformed, the Kingdom would come, and heaven would come to earth.

I was really challenged by that. Christianity is a faith that has spent a lot of time and effort getting it's beliefs right ("orthodoxy"). But what Holloway is suggesting, is that Christianity should be defined by it's "orthopraxy", that is, it's right practice and ethical living. So, here is a man whose theology is completey "not right" by orthodox standards. He doesn't subscribe to any of the orthodox creedal positions on God, Jesus, the Bible etc, and yet he believes that if we literally follow and imitate Jesus, we'll change the world and make Jesus' vision of the world a reality.

That's all I really wanted to say about that (how very Forrest Gump of me)... I just thought it was a great 'outsider" observation that we could get something from. Francis Schaeffer once asked the question (in the title of his well known book), "How should we then live?". Maybe rather than "What should we believe?", this is most important question of all?

Shalom

Steve

Beware the "Theological Flummery"

I am not at all sure about prayer, and I know I'm not alone in this... 

What is prayer? What and who is it for? Does it get results? I'm not going to really try and answer these questions in this blog post, because I don't know the answers. I know what some of the answers a supposed to be, but they do not always ring true for me. Many answers to the above questions, can in my opinion, be put under the heading of "theological flummery" - a term I have borrowed from Phillip Adams (this week's "outsider")  and his Weekend Australian column from a few weeks ago, entitled "Island of the gods".

We have had a good week as far as prayers go. My mum has just had an operation to remove a cancer from her brain and hundreds of people across the country and world prayed that this operation would go well, and it did. What role did our prayers play in that? Would the operation not have gone well if people didn't pray? I'm not sure how it all works, but these are the kind of questions that jump into my mind, especially during tough times that draw me into prayer. Don't get me wrong, I was happy to pray in this last week and very happy with the outcome of the process. But... I also know that many prayers prayed by people this week did not get answered favourably, and this is what prompts my questions...

Lately, in a humorous attempt to deal with my own questions about prayer, I've been joking about praying to the "milk bottle" for things. This is a reference to a Youtube video I watched called "the best optical illusion in the world", where the narrator challenges the "thinking Christian" to pray to a milk jug for $1000 and see how it answers. The punchline is that it answers in the same way that God apparently does, with either a "yes", "no" or "wait". It's meant to be serious, but it is kind of funny, peppered with some potentially flawed assumptions about the purpose and nature of prayer and some spurious logic. But the value of videos like this, articles like "Island of the  gods" and the convictions of their authors, is that they give serious pray-ers an "outsider's" view into the world of prayer.

They help us to see that most people do not appreciate simple, inadequate answers to the complexities and disappointments of life, and that we should be suspicious of any such simple answers that come our way, as well as those peddling them.  They also challenge us to ask questions about the nature and purpose of prayer, and to reject any assumptions about prayer that reduce it to a "Christmas wish list" for our lives (no matter how important the wishes), and consequently, God as "Santa Claus". It is possible that something a little beyond that, and us ,is going on when it comes to prayer.

Life, disappointments, prayer - this is sacred ground. Beware the "theological flummery"...

Shalom

Steve

Challenging the Chaplains

I remember going to the cricket one day with a group of friends, and one of them asked me how work was going (I work in the training department of SU Qld, the largest employing authority for state school chaplains in Queensland). I got about one or two sentences into my reply when he said, "You know, I really wish you guys didn't do what you do. I mean I like you and all, but I don't like the idea that there are chaplains in schools." Quite an interesting conversation took place after that. It is not the last one I have had, nor am I the only person who has been having these conversations. There has been a bit going on about it in the media over the last few years. 

The first 'outsider' view I wanted to share as part of my blogging 'come back' is about chaplaincy - a subject that is close to my heart. Not only do I work for SU Qld, but I have also worked as a chaplain in a high school. Compass, the ABC program that looks at issues of spirituality and religion in Australia, recently did a program called "Challenging the Chaplains." It looks at both sides of the "Chaplaincy debate" and challenges the place and value of  School-based Chaplaincy. 

I haven't got any comments I want to make about the program particularly. Maybe just to encourage you to watch the video, read some of the comments that people have made afterwards and reflect on it yourself.

To go to the Compass website and watch the program, "Challenging the Chaplains", click here ...

Shalom

Steve

The View from the Outside...

Well, only one post in four months, and that one was really just an apology for not doing any posts... Not a great record in recent times, but one I hope to rectify over the next few months at least. My study is over for the year, and my plan is to allocate some of my freed-up mental real estate to greenspacey type things, at least between now and mid-Feb 2011 when it will all start up again...

There are a few things on my mind today, and they all relate to "outsider" views on faith and spirituality and so that is what I want to start up on today. I have spent quite a bit of energy in the last few years reading about and listening to views on faith and spirituality from those outside of it, and I have had a number of chats with people who currently sit in this place. For those who hold faith of some sort, this is an extremely worthwhile yet threatening experience. Worthwhile in the sense that there is nothing like an outsider to help you to see your blindspots, and threatening in the sense that their is nothing like an outsider to help you see your blindspots.

In the recent subject I taught at Christian Heritage College (WE301 - Reflections on Human Services) we looked a lot at Michel Foucault's ideas around "discourse", which is essentially about worldviews and ideologies, the associated power arrangements, and the concepts, language and structures infused in those ideas and associated power arrangements. You often hear the terms "dominant" discourse or "competing" discourses in the literature on this stuff. It is very post-modern... One of the quotes I loved was that any kind of ideology or worldview we adopt is a "kind of violence" done on reality, because as soon as we begin arranging 'what is' into some set of ideas about 'what is' we have to  do a fair bit of cutting, pasting, blocking out, focusing on, ignoring this and emphasising that etc etc to make it fit in well enough... So in this way, none of us can have it totally right and none of us can have it totally wrong...

Another related set of ideas we talked about was Paulo Friere's material on "dialogue", which is basically about a  way of approaching and engaging with the different ideas, worldviews and discourses of others. This is done in such a way so as to genuinely consider the views of others, what value they might have in themselves, and even what value they might have for ourselves. In some ways it is an acknowledgement that each of us only have a particular worldview or discourse on life  that we are working with, and that others might have picked up on something that we've missed - like a blindspot for example...

One of the things we talked about in this class was whether Christianity was simply another discourse; that is, another way in which the cosmos can be arranged in our minds, communicated to others, argued about and used as a power tool (so to speak)... Some thought this could be right, others thought that something like Christianity sits above all discourses. We considered the "Big T" truth claims of faiths like Christianity and put them up against the "little t" truth claims of postmodernism and tried to locate ourselves in this apparent dichotomy. I wonder if people of faith, at best, can claim that they believe in "Big T" Truth (EG - God, the Bible etc) but have to admit that they can only ever know this in a "little t" truth kind of way (IE - through their own set of 'life goggles'). There is nothing wrong with this position. But if it is "true", then it is a good thing to acknowledge. It might help to keep us humble, with our adopted truth claims in check, open to what God has been revealing to others about 'what is'.

Over the next few weeks, I want to blog on about some examples of outsider views that are out there at the moment and challenge us all to consider what it is that we might need to consider and take on from these views. After that, towards  the end of November, we're going to engage in a few reflections for Advent in the lead up to Christmas. You are most welcome to come along...

Shalom

Steve

My Apologies For My Blogging Slackness

I just wanted to apologise for my blogging slackness. I've been very busy with work and I've started some post-grad study at uni in politics and government. I can say that my blogging on spirituality in the public sphere, with an emphasis on the political realm, has lead me down this path. Maybe one day, I'll actually know what I'm talking about. Oh, and I also lost my ipod, which was a major source of podcast information and inspiration...

Oh, and I have a wife and kids... They are quite time consuming as well... but also quite nice really...

The really sad thing is that there has been quite a lot going on that I would have liked to babble on about. I would like to have shared a few more thoughts on different people's reactions to Julia Gillard being an atheist. I got some great emails sent to me by different people claiming that she was the anti-Christ etc etc, and then she went and trumped God's own party (the coalition in case you were wondering) by pledging $65 million more than them for the contunuation of chaplaincy over the next three years. I don't know why, but I just thought that was really funny...

Then there was the "ban the burka" debate... now this is fascinating. Bans are already in place in European countries like France and Belgium, and the discussions have already started here. Amazing stuff - what does it mean to be a free society? Should Muslim women be free to wear the burka or should they be freed from wearing it? Anyway, I just haven't had the time to go into it... but I'm sure it's not the last we've heard of it.

Also, I finally finished the "His Dark Materials" trilogy after about a year of reading. Those three books together were about a metre thick. You might have heard of the movie, "The Golden Compass". Well it was that set of books - the "anti-Narnia", a supposed atheistic fantasy novel. That stuff was there, and it was also a ripping good read! I'm back into "Doubts and Loves " by Richard Holloway, but can't seem to get motivated to keep going with "God Delusion".

And then on the weekend, in The Australian Magazine I think, there was an article about guilt and how in some ways modern society has done away with it, along with religion, but in another sense it has just transferred it to a different set of "deadly sins" (one of which was to have religious belief)... There was some interesting discussion about whether the loss of guilt in our modern world had been a good thing or a bad thing. Interesting stuff going on out there...

Anyway, I saw the light on and thought I'd drop in... just touching base, checking in etc etc... I'm not sure when I'll get onto this beast again but I hope it's soon. There are heaps of interesting things going on out there that are greenspace blog-worthy. If I don't get to them and start talking about them, make sure you do...

Shalom

Steve

Campaigning to Christians

Here is one of them articles I was talking about in my previous post... It is called "Campaigning to Christians", written by Professor John Warhurst, an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and Flinders University.

I hope you find it interesting reading... Shalom...

Steve

Gillard Won't Play the Religion Card

It has been a fascinating last few weeks in politics. The events around Kevin Rudd’s demise and Julia Gillard’s ascendancy to the role of Prime Minister have dominated the news cycle. Some of the articles in the news have focused on some of Julia Gillard’s unique characteristics as a Prime Minister: that she is a woman, that she is unmarried, living in a de-facto relationship; that she doesn’t have children; and that she is an atheist. 

Last week, there was an interesting ABC Online article called “I Won’t Play the Religion Card”. In the article, Gillard shared that she is an atheist and that she won’t be pressured into pretending that she is a person of faith for political benefit. 

I find it so interesting, but not surprising, that she has to make a statement like that. There is this often talked about perception in Australian politics that it is advantageous to be affiliated with some kind of  branch of the Christian faith, even when Australians are less and less affiliating themselves personally with it. Kevin Rudd knew it and was was more than happy to have a weekly press conference out in front of the local church he attended (with the church shown prominently in the background). And John Howard new it too and closely linked a number of his policy decisions and directions with his Methodist roots.

(Another article from the previous week worth looking at is one from the Courier Mail, entitled, "Julia Gillard Offers Rule Without Religion")... The theme of religion and politics in Australia is always bubbling along just below the surface, regardless of who is in charge. I wrote in an earlier post that I thought it would be interesting with Rudd and Abbott going head-to-head at the next election, but what will it mean now?

It certainly won't be last time we hear of this, in fact, what I think will happen, is that something that has been puttering along in the background of Australian politics is going to come more to the forefront. Australian Christian lobby and interest groups are going to have to re-adjust to new religious/political landscape after 14 or 15 years with a religious person in charge of the country.

I'm guessing that Julia Gillard won't have the same connection and empathy with certain religious agendas and religious groups might find themselves looking for new ways to get the government's ear...

'Twil be very interesting... Watch this space - I'll try to keep up...

Shalom...

Steve

Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

A friend of mine sent this to me today and I thought it was pretty funny...

Morality in the 21st Century

One of the podcasts I listen to and admire a lot is “Philosophy Bites”. David Edmunds and Nigel Warburton interview philosophers on various topics and put together very interesting 15 minute segments. In this episode entitled “Morality in the 21st Century”, Susan Neiman, the head of the Einstein Forum in Berlin, talks about the progress humanity has made in relation to morality and the Enlightenment as a good source for a moral code for our time.

Neiman suggests that the Enlightenment is often misunderstood and caricatured in ways that aren’t helpful. Contrary to these views, she proposes that the Enlightenment was essentially about 4 things:

(1) Happiness: Neiman is not talking about that warm, fuzzy feeling we get inside here, but happiness in terms of personal and societal wellbeing. She thinks that the Enlightenment thinkers believed that people should be free from worry about their basic survival, and free to pursue a life with meaning and purpose.

(2) Reason: Neiman says that this has been an absurdly caricatured aspect of the Enlightenment and criticises the “new atheists” for getting on board with this. Reason is not the polar opposite of faith. The Enlightenment thinkers were not coldly rational and saw the very clear limits of reason. They still strongly emphasised passion, intuition, and the transcendent.

(3) Reverence: This is the big surprise for many people. The Enlightenment thinkers were not against spirituality, but they were opposed to organised religion and the way it had been used to oppress and control people. There was recognition that the Judeo-Christian religious traditions and positions were strongly reasoned ones. The scientific methods grew out of a desire to know the Creator better through understanding creation better. Neiman suggested that the core of this element was essentially a sense of gratitude about the world and an appreciation that we didn’t make it. A notion that could unite secular and religious people.

(4) Hope: This is very different from optimism. Neiman says that the Enlightenment didn’t necessarily see humanity is good, marching forward to this positive future based on their goodness. There was a lot of attention given to the problem of evil in the lives of people and in the world. However, they did believe that these ideals they were thinking through could actually improve the world and make it a better place should people commit them and act upon them.

It’s very interesting stuff and there is a lot more than what I have previewed here. It’s less than 15 minutes long, so it won’t take long to have a listen and to see what you think...

Shalom...

Out of the Mouths of Babes

My son Lewis is 4 years old and conversations with him can begin and end anywhere. This morning, our conversation began with, “Dad, do you still have that sore in your bottom?” I couldn’t work out what he was talking about and then he reminded me that I had had a sore in my bottom a few weeks ago. This is where the conversation went from there...

With a smile, I said, “The sore is gone now buddy. It got better.”

“Why?”

Why did it get better?”

“Yes.”

“Well, your body is designed in such a way that when you get a sore, it gets better over time and it goes away.”

Long pause.... “Dad..... Why did God make things so hard?”

Slightly taken aback, I asked, “What do you mean, why did God make it so we get sores and things like that?”

A little nod...

At this point, I’m moved, amazed and impressed by my little man and his big question – probably the biggest question that a person can ask at almost any point in their life (although it seemed a little out of place coming from a 4 year old) - “Why did God make things so hard?” So, we talked about this for a short while. I told him that God had made things good and that when people decided not to do things God’s way, it wrecked a whole lot of stuff for everyone and made things hard. I went on to say that God wanted to try to get back all the good stuff for people. He wanted people to live God’s good way.

Lewis then said, “God doesn’t want people to go to jail does he?” (I love the leaps)

I smiled and said, “No, God doesn’t want people to go to jail. He wants good things for them”

“What if they keep doing bad things? Will he put them in jail?”

“Well God wants good things for people. He is very patient and kind and he wants to give them lots of chances to be good and enjoy his good things.”

Another pause... “I think I’m going to talk to God now.”

“Okay...” (trying to keep up with whatever is happening)

Lewis, walking around the lounge room prays, “God, can you fix everything and make it good? Can make things right?”

“Amen.” I said.

Lewis then looked at me and said, “I’m not going to pray to God anymore.” To which I replied, “Well, I think God is going to miss you talking to him. I’m you daddy and I love talking to you, and God is like your daddy in heaven and he loves talking with you too.”

Another pause, then, “Well, I’ll talk to him and I’ll just tell him that I love him.”

Tears in my eyes... “I think he’ll like that buddy.”

A morning to treasure...

Shalom...

Heaven Can't Wait

There is a lot being written about spirituality and religion at the moment – even if most of it is negative or dismissive. This weekend, the Weekend Australian Magazine published an article called “Heaven Can Wait” by Johann Hari. With the tag line, “It’s time to get over the myth of the hereafter” (or something like that) it’s not too difficult to work out the direction the article takes.

It’s a mixed article. It suffers from the foibles of a lot of atheistic writing – it has a lot of “straw man” set ups; weak arguments with large holes; a convenient and creative historical account of the development of ideas; language designed to make anyone who is even considering there might be an afterlife feel like a mindless zombie; and most of all, it suffers from that classic rationalistic, atheistic assumption that anything you can’t see, tag and classify, isn’t worth considering and reflecting on... The good thing about the article however, is that it provides us with a challenge to reflect upon our beliefs about heaven and how these beliefs impact upon our lived out lives.

When most people think about heaven, they think about a future, disembodied, other worldly existence in the presence of God and all the other “saints” that goes on forever (and many also see clouds, wings and harps somewhere in the picture). But the interesting thing is, when we look at what the Bible says when it talks about the “age to come”, it talks about God coming and making his dwelling place on earth among his people (Revelation 21: 1-7). It seems that heaven might not be the end of the world after all, and that God is committed to renewing this world and this life, and making sure that all that has been lost to God and the cosmos through sin is won back once and for all. This view of heaven is amazingly affirming of this world and this life, and we see the first evidence of this in the very physical resurrection of Jesus, celebrated at Easter.

The other thing that is worth noting is the way Jesus talked about heaven. He spoke a lot about the “Kingdom of Heaven” and said things like “it is near” and that “it is among us”. He taught about this, told heaps of stories about this and lived out the vision of this in the community of people he set up around him. This is where Hari’s main argument really falls down. “Heaven can’t wait”!!! When heaven is seen as a future, disembodied, other worldly experience, then there is a real danger that the concept can at best, be of no use to us, and at worst cause harm to us and others. But when we conceptualise heaven as Jesus did, as a future hope that can be lived out in the present, then it becomes a potentially transformative vision worth living out – especially one that can be “good news to the poor” (because the last will be first “in heaven”)...

When Jesus taught us to pray, he put it to God, “Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth like it is in heaven.” Jesus was committed to and working toward God’s vision of Shalom – God’s cosmic groovy-ness where everything is at is should be - and that is a vision just might be worth living for in this life, and carrying forward into the next.

Shalom...

Federal Budget 2010 - How will the world's poor fare?

TEAR Australia's "ChangeMakers" advocacy group, have released an article entitled "Federal Budget 2010 - How will the world's poor fare?". It talks a bit about the budget in general, about Australia's overseas aid commitments, and makes some suggestions about some political action we could take to help the world's poor through political action.


As a Christian person, I think my decision on who I vote for in the next election should be heavily influenced by how the party approaches its commitments to the world's poorest people.

Anyway, take a look and see what you think... if you dare...

Shalom...

Resurrection

I know Easter was a few weeks ago now, and that I'm a little behind the times, but I have just caught up with some podcasts as I have been driving around in my car and riding on the train. The resurrection is the cornerstone event for the Christian faith and its important to consider it and to think through what it means for our lives. If we don't understand the resurrection and what it means, then we can't really understand the Christian faith.

This post is simply a "heads up" for an excellent podcast on the resurrection. It is a sermon by Rob Bell of the Mars Hill church - the one he did for his church on Resurrection Sunday. It really inspired me to value the importance of the resurrection and it reminded me that at the heart of the meaning of the resurrection, is that God values this world and this life, and that it is an event for hope in the here-and-now as well as for hope in the future. Rob provides a number of very useful analogies that helped me to understand some of the implications of the resurrection for our lives.

Have a listen and see what you think...

Shalom... 

"One Shot Mega-Luck"...?

A few years ago, I asked for the book "The God Delusion" for Christmas. This is a book about atheism by the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins. For the last few years, I've been looking into atheism. I've been reading books and articles, and listening to podcasts etc, trying to get a handle on it. I'm quite a critical thinker, and I don't like the idea that I've fallen into Christianity just because it's the religion of my childhood. At the same time, I wouldn't want to reject it for that reason either... I have been genuinely interested in what atheists have to say and I like to make sure that I haven't just been kidding myself that Christianity is a viable worldview option to own for my life.

I have to say that I've been a little disappointed with what I've found on offer by the "new atheists", and I'm quite fascinated by my level of disappointment. Megan, my life (typo - I meant my wife), laughs at me when I tell her how disappointed I am that the atheist's arguments haven't been able to sway me. I think she thinks there's something strange about that - not that the arguments haven't swayed me, but that I was so disappointed that they hadn't. My disappointment comes from three main things...

The first disappointment is that the level of argument against God hasn't been very sophisticated. I was genuinely hoping for more and hoping to be deeply challenged by the latest, cutting edge thinking in atheism - and it just wasn't there. Some of the arguments could have been refuted by Sunday School kids and others just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the nature of religion and spirituality in any form or expression across most of the world. I thought it might be just me, but then I heard two different people on two separate occasions on podcasts say that the arguments of the "new atheists" weren't as good as some of the great atheists of the past (and one of the people who said this was an atheist himself!)...

The second disappointment is the continual use of "straw man" arguments. "Straw man" arguments are when someone who disagrees with a point of view, weakly and erroneously builds up a picture of that point of view (the straw man), and then sets out to tear down the point of view bit by bit with apparent ease. Some of these guys are talking about strokes, hallucinations and being swept away by mega-church experiences as religion and then coming across like they've said and done something significant when they've talked down these things. It would be like bringing up the recent "Climategate" email scandal or CSIRO research scandal and then claiming that you've brought the field of science to its knees. It's kind of sad and funny at the same time...

But the third and biggest disappointment is the lack of an answer as to our origins or anything's origins for that matter. I was thinking that surely there would be some new insight into this or some new scientific discovery about this to back up this new zeal and fervor of the new atheists. I can appreciate a lot of the talk from atheists about how amazing evolutionary processes might be, but I've never heard any good response to the question of how the process began - which to my mind, undermines the whole credibility of the process as a useful theory. This seems like a pretty important piece of information to have a grasp of if you are going to be confident in your a-theism. But I was listening to Richard Dawkins talk at the Global Atheists Convention last month about evolution, and in this particular podcast his description of the origins of the universe and then of life was that there had been a does of "one shot mega luck"...

What? What did you say? One shot mega luck? - that's what you've replaced the notion of God with... You, what?... One shot mega luck? You must be kidding... This is what the world's most prominent atheist travels the world armed with as he confidently dismisses the existence of God. Sorry Richard, I was looking for more from you and the crew. I'm feeling a little more confident about where I'm at... but ever watchful. Truth can turn up in the most surprising of places.

Shalom...

"God and Caesar"

(For those of you on Facebook, this “note” is a blog post on my blog called “Steve’s Greenspace” – about the relationship between personal and public spirituality. The posts come across to Facebook as notes and all my “friends” get them inflicted upon them. If you don’t want to receive them, please feel free to not read them, but please still be my friend... Steve)

Angela Shanahan wrote an interesting article in The Weekend Australian a number of weeks ago called “Godless politics has gone too far for democracy”. It is worth reading... In the article, she recounts a question asked by an audience member on the ABC’s “Q & A” panel show. A young man asked the panel whether people with strong religious beliefs should be allowed to participate in politics.

The philosophy or attitude behind this question is one that is on the rise in Australia at present. I wonder if it coincides with the rise of a more overt and activist atheist movement in the country – not sure, but maybe... Anyway, the philosophy is one about the meaning of secularism and how it relates to democracy. The philosophy promotes an understanding of secularism which means “no religion” in the public sphere, rather than “all religions” in the public sphere (and not just all religions, but all worldviews and voices). It comes out of a misunderstanding of the meaning of “the separation of church and state” and of a New Testament phrase - “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:15-22).

Angela Shanahan takes a look at these ideas as part of her article as well. The misunderstanding of the “God and Caesar” idea promotes the idea that religion is one thing, politics is another thing, and the two shouldn’t mix. When church leaders enter into political debates, politicians are likely to politely respect their opinions but kindly invite them to go back to what it is that they are good at (IE – not politics). When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s”, he had no intention of encouraging people to leave their spiritual lives at the door of the public arena. He was simply giving a clever answer to a question that had been designed to trap him into an answer that would cause him trouble.

The Jews were a conquered people, struggling under Roman rule, and Religious leaders came up with a question that was sure to get Jesus into trouble with his hearers – “Should we pay tax to Caesar?” If Jesus answered “yes” then he was supporting the people’s oppressors; if he answered “no” then he would be encouraging dissent or even rebellion. So, Jesus (who doesn’t feel the need to fall into people’s traps for him) says, “Give me a coin. Whose face is on it?” The answer was “Caesar’s”. Well then, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” Jesus is not much of a game player and he doesn’t give a lot of airplay to the game players. The question wasn’t a serious one, so rather than engage with it, he turns (as he often does) the potential trap into an opportunity to promote his own hobby horse – “give your life over to God”.

This is a technique I’ve seen many politicians use. ("Well Kerry, that is a good question, but what the people of Australia really want to know is...” ). Maybe Jesus should have gone into politics... But I digress. Jesus’ message to people, over and over, was “take God seriously in your life, or don’t, but whatever you do don’t flounce around in-between.” And this was his message for all of life – not just what some regard as the “spiritual” parts. It even applies to the world of politics...

Shalom...

Monty Python and The Life of Brian

"The Life of Brian"... I love this movie. I used to use segments of it when I taught RE is schools. I had it worked out perfectly so as to miss all the bits with swearing in it. Except for that one day, when I was standing at the back of the classroom, day dreaming a little, without the video remote control in my hand, and Brian tells everyone who is trying to follow him to "Fuck Off!!!" I hastily made a deal with the students that involved them going out from class a little early in return for not telling anyone that there had been swearing on the TV in the chaplain's RE lesson.

But I digress...

A few weeks ago, we were watching "Monty Python's - Almost the Truth: the lawyer's cut" on the TV and there was a great segment on the time John Cleese and Michael Palin had a TV debate with The Bishop of Surrey (I think) and Malcolm Muggeridge about the whether the film degraded Jesus or not. I couldn't find that particular segment online but I did find another Youtube video on it, and it is worth a look:


I love it... I'm totally on the side of the Python crew... I love the conclusion that they come to that they can't find enough in the teachings and life of Jesus to ridicule him. What they did come up with in the end was pure gold. It's hard to imagine the movie being anything else other than what it is...

Shalom...

Blowing the Cobwebs off this Blog...

It has been ages since I've made a post on this blog and there have been many blog-able things going on. I've been a little busy with work and life, and the blog is the thing that suffers when that is the case. I just don't have, what my wife calls, "the mental real estate" to think and write about stuff when too much is happening on everywhere else in my life... Today, I just wanted to let people know that there is a great article in today's Australian called "Looking for the Real Abbott". It is about Tony Abbott's "Conservatism" and "Catholicism" (again) and how the media has been dealing with it. This article kind of builds on from my previous post (back in the dark annuls of history that it is)...

Paul Kelly (editor-at-large - what a great job title) says that the media are doing Tony Abbott a dis-service by presenting his faith in a particular way that matches a religious "narrative" about him that makes good viewing or reading, but does not present the factual story or a well-rounded picture. He puts up as an example, the ABC's Four Corner interview with Tony Abbott called "The Authentic Mr Abbott" from last Monday night, saying that Liz Jackson goes out of her way to encourage the "Mad Monk" narrative, focusing on anything negative that can be connected to his faith.

Also in the article, Kelly goes on to talk about the different approach that Kevin Rudd takes to dealing with his faith in public and asks whether the faith of our two leading politicians will become an election issue. While he says it "currently lurks in the background", I think it might be more prominent than that. The targets are seemingly too huge to resist... So, we shall see what develops... (anyway, the article is a good read)...

Shalom...

God is Back (revisited)

In the middle of last year, I did a blog post called "God is Back" based on an article in The Australian about a book by the same name. The theme of the book is the surprising rise of faith, spirituality and religion across the world our journey into an apparently more rational and secular age.In 1999, The Economist published God's obituary, but 7 years later had to change their tune. "God is Back: How the Global Rise of Faith is Changing the World". is written by John Micklewait (editor-in-chief on The Economist) and Adrian Wooldridge (Washington bureau chief of the London-based weekly magazine) and looks at the reasons why spirituality and religion have persisted in the modern world when many predicted that it would die off in a puff of well-reasoned secularism.

I haven't got anything much more to say about that. This post is really to point you toward a very charming and amusing ABC Radio National podcast of an interview between John Micklewait and Phillip Adams, Australia's best-known atheist. The interview, originally broadcast in July last year) is about the book (the podcast is also called "God is Back"). Adams, with good grace, bemoans the book's findings and, with his tongue firmly in this cheek, confesses his growing dislike for the author. The exchanges between the two are quite delightful.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it...

Shalom...

Tony Abbott Talks About Sex...

Tony Abbott wants his 3 daughters to preserve their virginity until they are married. Well, this is what he said in an interview with the "Women's Weekly" magazine, and the storm is brewing nicely in the tea cup. Some are in uproar, saying that Abbott should keep his opinions on women's sexuality to himself, and that his comments are just another example of his Catholic conservatism being inappropriately expressed in the public and political realm. Others are wondering what the fuss is all about. "What else would Tony Abbott want for his daughters?" they ask, challenging politicians from all parties and religious backgrounds to come clean on their own views, (which they assume are the same as or similar to his). This might free him up from the specific criticisms that are being leveled at him - but probably not...

I wonder had a non-religious politician had expressed the same views, would they have received the same criticisms or attention? (of course, it helps that he is the Opposition Leader)... But everyone knows that Tony Abbot is "religious" and "conservative" - he has these labels reapplied in the newspapers every time he opens his mouth. His view on virginity would be a common view expressed by religious people of many persuasions. The hope he expressed for his daughters would be a hope shared with many parent - both religious and non-religious. As an editorial in The Australian pointed out, "You don't have to be a Christian to believe that sex before marriage is wrong..." (but if you are a Christian, or religious, and you believe this, and God forbid, express it, then you'd better watch out)...

One of the comments in The Australian today was interesting. In Lauren Wilson's article, "Making a Gift of Yourself", she refers to Julia Gillard's response to Abbott's comments. She writes, "Gillard declared Mr Abbott had 'confirmed the worst fears' about his conservative social views, virginity became shorthand for questioning his fitness to rule a liberal secular Australia."

So, does having Christian views on personal behaviour exclude you from being able to carry out a political role in Australia? Can you have Christian views, but not express them? Is that okay? Can you have personal views on an issue, express them, but not push them in your political role? Is any of this possible and/or permissable?

We have two political leaders who have clearly and plainly identified themselves as Christian people. We'd better hope that it's okay for our leaders to be Christians and to be politicians or even Prime Ministers, because that is the choice we face in the election coming up later this year.

I wonder what Kevin Rudd thinks about the virginity of his daughter, or do I...? Rudd might be a bit smarter than Abbott, and he might keep this opinion to himself so as to avoid the criticism. It is a shame that he might feel he has to. Lucky for him that he had a Julia Gillard on his team. She was probably more than happy to respond on his behalf... :)

Shalom...

Art for God's Sake

A little while ago, I did a blog post on the Blake Art Prize (Australian Religious Art). I was talking about how some critics of the competition were saying that its definition of religion and spirituality were too vague, and were in danger of moving the art prize into meaninglessness, in terms of definitions of its core subject matter.

My lovely wife alerted me to this interesting podcast entitled, "Art for God's Sake" and it is all about this particular topic. You don't have to be interested in art to appreciate the insights from this podcast. A number of players are interviewed and a lot about Australian perceptions on religion and spirituality are revealed. Much of the discussion revolves around how we define spirituality and religion; what the differences might be; and how these definitions may have changed over time.

This is a worthwhile podcast - taste and see...

Shalom...

This made me laugh...

Whatever Happened to Secular Democracy ?

On the 28th of December, Ross Fitzgerald wrote an article in The Australian called "Whatever Happened to Secular Democracy?" In it, he complains about how religion is making its presence felt more and more in Australian politics. Although it is not really clear what solution he is proposing, he seems to be putting forward that either Christians shouldn't be in politics; that Christians shouldn't try to influence politics; or that Christians should slice off the Christian part of themselves when in politics.

It is all very interesting... And it seems that many people thought so as well. There were about 180 comments attached to the online version of the article and space given to 6 related letters to editors in The Weekend Australian.

Just a few thoughts...

Firstly, it seems to me that Ross (and others) doesn't really understand what a "secular democracy" is or what is meant by "the separation of church and state". Neither concepts are designed to keep religion out of politics, but to ensure that no one religion is owned by the state or that the state is owned by one religion for that matter... If people elect Christians into various political offices, then that is democracy in action. If Christians lobby for what they want to see happen in politics, then that is democracy in action. If Christians in politics act Christianly (or otherwise) in the performance of their duties, then that is democracy in action. If people don't like any of that, then they can also engage in the democratic process and get their agendas on the table and try to make whatever it is they want to have happen, happen. They can also elect representatives who aren't religious if they want to. This happens all the time. So, "secular democracy" means that religion has a place in public life, whether people like ior believe in a religion or not. To actually exclude religion from public life would be undemocratic and not in the spirit of secularism.

Secondly, everyone has some kind of worldview, schema, philosophy of life etc etc that they live by - some are "religious" and some are "secular". These are the values that guide people's actions - even politicians! To ask a person to engage in politics and slice off their source of values as they do so, is crazy talk... No-one would ask this of a non-religious person. I think the challenge for Christian politics is to engage in democratic processes in a Christian way, that doesn't just promote the wellbeing of Christians, but of all the people they were elected to represent.

Thirdly, religion is political. People who go on about keeping religion personal and out of public life do not understand the scope of the spiritual agendas of most religions. "Personal salvation" and "personal faith" are only parts of the story. Both Old and New Testaments talk about economics, politics, citizenship, war, peace, refugees, the poor, the environment etc... The Jewish concept of "Shalom" is about cosmic renewal, and God's interest in all areas of life.

I think that the concept of "Shalom" is a useful one for Christians in politics. Understanding these things, we can see a place for religion and spirituality in public life.

Shalom...