10 Years On...

Yes, its ten years on (not since my last blog post, but close...)... Ten years on since the world changed in profound ways as the result of the terror attacks on the Word Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the US. It's hard to remember life before the very bizarre "the war on terror" that followed and remains with us to this day.

One of the things that has changed, of course, is the perception of Muslim people in our world. 

Research has shown that there has been a dramatic rise in the levels of demonisation that Muslim people have experienced across the globe since the 2001 attacks. There seems to be a new xenophobia in town, or at least new expressions of old xenophobia that has been lurking not too far from the surface of our communal life. This developing mindset has coloured our own our nation's views on worthwhile pursuits like multiculturalism and the processing on asylum-seekers.

Personally, I don't know that many people who identify as "Muslim". I could count them on one hand. But when you know someone, it certainly cuts through all the xenophobia that swirls around you... When I was a school chaplain, one of the teachers at my school was a devout Muslim - a lovely, lovely man. One day, I was preparing to do some religious teaching in a class that this teacher was presiding over and he asked me if he could say something before I began. I wasn't too sure if I should let him (him being "Muslim" and all) but it was his class, what was I going to do? Besides, he was such a great guy... So, he spoke to the class for two or three minutes about the importance of God, and that even if God wasn't high on their agenda at the moment, if they listened, maybe later on in their lives their agenda might change and something they heard today might come back to them and be useful. He then handed back to me... but I was at a loss for words... I felt as thought the religion lesson had been well taught - well, it had been to me at least... 

I was so impressed with his words and his inclusion of me in his spiritual world. He had been far more gracious towards me than I would have been towards him. Something quite profound changed in me as a result of that exchange... It helped me to see that while we can spend a lot of time trying to work out who is "us" and who is "them, that mostly, I think, in a lot of ways, it is just all "us" out there, trying to work it all out and make the most out of our lives.

My encouragement on this suspicious anniversary is to go and hug a "them" today... Well, at least say "hi"... particularly if you are planning on hugging them next... Anyway, I'm sure you'll work it out...

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

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

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

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...

"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...

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...

Happy New Year !!!

It's that funny, "in-between" time of the year... The Dec/Jan period is a weird time, unlike any other time of the year. It's a bit like break up day, but for about a month. People are away, work slows down, shops close, you take holidays etc etc - it's a funny, "in-between" time of year.

Christmas has come and gone (thank God). I survived the silliness of the season by focusing on "advent", which means "coming" or "arrival". It involved reflecting on the coming of Jesus for the month prior to Christmas Day. I, and others, reflected on daily personal advent readings and on weekly group-based candle lighting ceremonies and reflections during this time. We all found this a helpful way to keep focused on something deep and meaningful, at a time when we could be forgiven for thinking that the meaning of life was shopping, eating, and wearing funny hats. It was a great reminder for me that God is engaged with us, even though things don't seem to be going too smoothly in much of the world. Maybe there is some hope to work in with and to work toward...

The New Year has also arrived. They just seem to keep on coming (we were in bed by 10pm on NYE - woohoo!!!)... There has been a lot of reflecting in the media on not just the year, but the whole "noughties" decade. Time magazine called the last decade, "the decade from hell". The new millennium held a lot of hope, but that hope quickly faded with wars, terrorism, climate change and global financial concerns. It seems that as time marches on, we get smarter and more advanced, but things don't necessarily get better.

It might actually be true that we need some help in this life, and maybe even someone to save us - particularly as we get smarter, but not wiser. Our advancements just seem to bring new sets of problems with them, rather than the solutions we had hoped for. I hope that your "in-between" time was not too silly, and that you got the chance to reflect on something deep and meaningful along the way. If you didn't, it's not too late. Work starts on Monday, so that still leaves two days for getting even a little deep and meaningful. You'd better get going...

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...

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...

"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...

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...