God is Back...

My old friend, The Weekend Australian, published an article on the weekend entitled, "Nations Prosper with God on their Side." It was essentially an edited abstract from a new book called, "God is Back: How the Global Rise of Faith is Changing the World". The book 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.

The book seems to be social/cultural/historical examination of the relationship between religion and modernity, and traces two histories of the development of modern culture in Europe and America, and thier two very different approaches to religion. The European idea is that you can't become modern while holding onto religion, and the American idea is that you can become modern and still find a place for religion in public life. There is much more to it, but that seems to be the main thrust.

Anyway, read the article or buy the book... (I've read the article but will have to ask my wife whether we can spare $60 for the book)...

At the end of this article, the authors say, "The basic message of our book is a profoundly liberal one. Unevenly and gradually, religion is becoming a matter of choice - something that individuals decide to believe in (or not). Secularists need to recognise that the enemy that "poisons everything" is not religion but the union of religion and power and believers need to recognise that religion flourishes best where it operates in a world of free choice, that, as that doughty free thinker Benjamin Franklin once put it, "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

There are two points that particularly interest me here. The first is that "religion flourishes best where it operates in a world of free choice". The reason this interests me is because of my role in SU Qld in developing state school chaplaincy. What a lot of people don't realise with Chaplaincy, is that Education Queensland defines Chaplaincy - not SU Qld. Chaplaincy is an Education Queensland program that SU Qld is accredited to deliver on their behalf, not an SU Qld program that we deliver in Education Queensland schools. As such, Education Queensland policy says that, "Programs of chaplaincy services are [must be] compatible with policies and practices that apply to delivery of any service in a multi-faith and multicultural state school community". This is not a situation that many Christians would be, or are, comfortable with. They would rather that state governments were a theocracy; that Christians ran the show in relation to Chaplaincy and Christian ministry in schools; and that Christians had preferential access to schools and the kids in them for evangelistic purposes.

What "God is Back" seems to suggest to us, is something that many of us have suspected for awhile. And this is, that the situation we have in Queensland schools, with all faiths and worldviews "getting a seat at the table", is the best situation that any religious group could hope for. Not only does it make the most sense in a modern, pluralistic, multi-faith and multi-cultural society that this would be the case, as it turns out, it is actually the situation that best promotes spirituality in a society. It could then be argued that the best and fairest thing for Christians to do in such a society, is not to fight for "Christian" access to schools, but to continue to fight for the access of all faiths and religions to schools. It is in this environment of "choice and competition" that real faith and spirituality seems to flourish.

The second point that interests me is found in the quote from Benjamin Franklin. That, "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. The presence of Christians in schools should result in people being able to see that the "God things" in life equal the "good things" in life. If our faith is any good, then we shouldn't need to ask the government for preferential treatment and access to kids to promote the Christian cause (however we understand this). Schools should be knocking down the doors to get Chaplains and churches into schools because they know that their children, young people, staff, families and whole school community, are going to be better off from the association.

Happily, this is that case in many situations. And where it is not, let's hope that the Christians are asking themselves why?

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...

April 1st - National Atheist's Day ?

As I was driving to work today, I went passed a church that has one of those message boards that churches seem to like to have these days. Every time I drive passed this church (which is twice a day), I wonder about the impact of these signs on people. Sometimes the messages make me groan, other times I chuckle, and sometimes I do a bit of both at the same time.

Today's message was, "April 1st - National Atheist's Day." There is a bit of an urban legend behind this - that a Florida court set aside April 1 as "National Atheist's Day" after a lawyer argued that there was no religious holiday for athiests. But it never actually happened as far as anyone can tell. The connection being made is between atheism and foolishness (obviously), and is probably inspired by the Bible verse in Psalm 14, "The fool says in his heart - there is no God". If that is the case, then it is not really a fair cop. The Hebrew word used in the Psalm for fool means someone who is morally deficient, not someone who isn't smart or "just doesn't get it". The Psalm goes on to highlight the sins of these particular people as "corruption", "frustrating the plans of the poor" and "devouring people like men eat bread" (Wow - powerful poetry). These are baaaad people...

I have a great neighbour who told me once that he'd love to believe in God but the suffering he sees in the world holds him back from taking steps toward that belief. Hardly seems like foolishness to me. I have wondered about this many times myself. As a 16 year old Christian young man, I went to India on a 6 week trip with a Christian volleyball team, and came back with my own faith in God in tatters as a result of my first-hand experience with poverty and its effects on people. God had some questions to answer as far as I was concerned - if he even existed at all... People often have some pretty good reasons for why they don't believe in God and I'm not sure that we help to change their minds by poking fun at them from signs. I find that the talks with my neighbour help both of us to develop our beliefs. It seems to me that when God wanted to do his most important restorative work among us, he didn't erect a sign with a witty message on it, he moved into the neighbourhood, became one of us and got involved in our lives.

Anyway, foolishness is in the eye of the beholder. I have just started reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Dawkins is a well known atheist who thinks that belief in God is irrational and harmful. He would consider those of us who have a belief in God to be the fools and would set aside April 1 for people like me and call it "National Believer's Day" or something like that. But that is okay... There is another verse in the Bible that I like that refers to us fools who believe in God. It is found in 1 Corinthians 1 ("The Message" Bible) and says:

Take a good look, friends, at who you were when you got called into this life. I don't see many of "the brightest and the best" among you, not many influential, not many from high-society families. Isn't it obvious that God deliberately chose men and women that the culture overlooks and exploits and abuses, chose these "nobodies" to expose the hollow pretensions of the "somebodies"? That makes it quite clear that none of you can get by with blowing your own horn before God. Everything that we have—right thinking and right living, a clean slate and a fresh start—comes from God by way of Jesus Christ. That's why we have the saying, "If you're going to blow a horn, blow a trumpet for God.".

So, I'll see you on April 1st - a day for all of us fools to celebrate not what know, but who we know.

Shalom...

(for an intersting video on Dawkins and atheism from CPX, click on the God Delusion image above)

"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...

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...

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...

A Message from God ???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shalom...

Muscular Christianity

In this weekend’s “The Weekend Australian”, there was an article entitled “Church and State Reunited” with the tag line – “Muscular Christianity is making its presence felt in the nation’s parliament”.

“Muscular Christianity”… what an interesting term… I’ve never encountered it before. It immediately grabbed my attention and I read further to see what it was supposed to mean. Apparently, there has been a growth in the number of Christian politicians in the Western Australian parliament who are prepared to act primarily on the basis of their Christian faith, rather than along party lines. There are enough of them to be considered a “bloc” and a significant influence on political outcomes in Western Australian politics. I assume that this is what makes their Christianity "muscular", and their presence "felt", rather than welcome. They are potentially powerful and have the capacity to push through their Christian agendas, which are largely not shared by others.

The term "Muscular Christianity" seems full of meaning. To me, it conveys the popular perception that Christians want to push their agenda onto others, even if others don’t want a bar of it; and that the only way that Christians can get their agenda acknowledged by others these days is to “muscle” their way into people's lives. The shame of this perception is that it is in many cases true, and in many cases false. In this article's heading, church and state are reunited, and this harks back to a situation that was a reality for a long time in our history and that many are glad is now over. There are a lot of people out there who don't like the idea that the church should have access to the kind of political power that would promote its agenda.

But why? If we lived in a world where the church had the power to make decisions and control resources, wouldn't that bring about God's good purposes in the world? Well, apparently not. Many people who argue strongly for the separation between church and state, cite the terrible track record of the previous arrangements as their reasons for their objections.

It seems to me that we could look at "Muscular Christianity" from two points of view. The first comes from a "when bad Christians happen to good people" perspective with Christians muscling their way into the political arena with agendas that seem to support their own needs at the expense of desires of others. The ultimate top-down approach that says, "God is in charge and I'm with him!", which doesn't go down too well these days, if it ever did. This kind of "Muscular Christianity" makes its "presence felt" rather than its presence welcome, and those who welcome it have something to gain from it.

The second view is a result of "when good Christians happen to bad people" (not the best phrase but mildly poetic in its turning around of my previous one). Here, Christians use their "muscle" to make good things happen for those who don't have enough "muscle" to get their agenda promoted in the political arena. It is a bottom-up approach that journeys alongside with people and sees that the "weightier matters" of "justice, mercy and faithfullness" are put higher on the political agenda. I think that this is a good use of political "muscle". This approach may have to make its "presence felt" with the "the powers that be", but it will be welcome by those who don't normally get a "seat at the table".

So, maybe there is a place for a certain kind of "Muscular Christianity", that is welcome by the widows and orphans but makes its presence felt with the powers that be. Jesus said that his mission in life would be "good news to the poor" and he preached and lived a life that backed that up. He certainly butted heads with the religious and political leaders of his day and engaged in his fair share of "argy-bargy" with them. I guess his Father, referred to himself the "defender of the widows of orphans" and was known to engage in a bit of "argy-bargy" himself - with his own people from time to time. A chip off the ol' block, eh...

Wouldn't it be great to one day read an article with the tag line, "Muscular Christianity is making its presence welcome in the nation's parliament". That would say a lot about how the Christian agenda in politics was being equated with the good things of life and that the good things of life were being seen as coming from God.

Lord, let it one day be so...

God’s Sway at the Ballot Box

During last week, The Australian newspaper published an opinion piece by Ross Fitzgerald called “Moves afoot to counter God’s sway over the ballot box” with the tag line, “Anti-religious parties could play an important role at the next election”. Yes, another news article that speaks negatively about the role of religion, particularly the Christian faith, in Australian politics. What is going wrong here? Why are Christians in politics so poorly regarded? I’m thinking that this is going to be a recurring theme in this blog, because it looks like it is going to be a recurring theme in the media.

Fitzgerald comes across as no big fan of religion. He portrays religious beliefs as irrational and out-of-touch and, of course, cites examples from religious people that could be seen to back up his views. He highlights that religious groups get favourable treatment in terms of political access, and that the failure of the major parties to put an end to this has lead to the arising of three “freedom” parties that want to stamp out this unholy arrangement.

So, what is this all about? And this is an honest (not rhetorical) question… Is it about Christians trying to do the right thing in politics and coming up against opposition and persecution for doing what is right as the Bible said they would OR is it about Christians getting it wrong in the political arena, and getting what they deserve in terms of opposition and persecution. (I’m reminded of the title of a book I have on my bookshelf – “When Bad Christians Happen to Good People”). Are Christians in politics reaping what they have sown? Have people had enough of whatever it is they are doing and are movements rising up to oppose their agenda? I really don’t know...

I do know that there are a few things that Fitzgerald says that I don’t agree with. He certainly (and probably happily) comes from a different spiritual worldview than I do. He scoffs at the idea of the AIDS crisis in Africa as being described as a “spiritual crisis” by George Pell, which suggests to me that he has a dualistic view of the world that is at the heart of so much unhelpful spiritual and secular thinking. I’ve spent time in Zambia and have talked with people who have suffered from AIDS, lost people to AIDS and sought to prevent and respond to the problem of AIDS, and I can say with all my heart that AIDS in Africa is certainly a spiritual crisis in the holistic sense. Fitzgerald also says that religion can be reasonably argued to be responsible for wars, terrorism, child sex abuse and virulent anti-intellectualism. While we would all understand what he is referring to in just about all these cases, I think that the connections he is making are more things that could be “naively argued” rather than “reasonably argued”. Wars, terrorism and child abuse are very complex issues that are deeply influenced by personal, social, political, historical and cultural factors, and religion can play a role at any or all those levels. But to say that religion could be “reasonably argued” to be responsible for all these things is a worthless statement to make, particularly if you are going to accuse others of anti-intellectualism.

But getting back to my original questions… I’ve certainly seen and heard things from Christian politicians that have made me cringe, but at the same time, I’ve seen and heard some things that have encouraged me. I like the way some Christian politicians carry themselves and their faith, even if I haven’t agreed with them or voted for them. But then there are others who… well… you know… make you want to not let anyone else know that you also claim allegiance to Jesus. Could it be that Christian politicians and lobby groups have done too much to push for the rights and benefits of Christians themselves, and have been seen to use their power and influence for the benefit of Christians, rather than for the benefit of others who have needed a voice. Fitzgerald spends some word space in his article on the charitable status of Christian organisations and their businesses. Is the perception of Christians in politics and Christian lobby groups that they are in it too much for themselves and not for the benefit of others and the world at large?

What are Christians to do in the political arena? What and who are they to stand for? How should they carry themselves in their political roles? What is the role of faith in politics? These are questions that keep cropping up for me. Keep watching this space as I try to find some answers…

Shalom!

Good News Week - Religion Awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shalom...

"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...

The Christmas Elephant

Question: “How do you eat an elephant?”

Answer: “One bite at a time”

(insert chuckles here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shalom

No Atheists in Foxholes...

On the weekend, I went camping with my 3 year old son, his best mate, and his best mate's dad. It was a heart warming experience (watching our little ones play together, collect fire wood, chase cows and eat toasted marshmellows etc) even though it was freezing everywhere else. We put on the camp fire at 2:30pm rather than at 6pm as we had originally planned, because our 3 layers of clothing were not enough to keep out the cold, even at that time of day.

My grown up companion and I got talking around that campfire (because that is what camp fires are for [as well as for toasting marshmellows]) about life, the universe and everything. At one point he said that he didn't really believe in God, but that he did this one time when his dog went missing. In his panic, he cried out to God to help him to find his canine friend and to make sure that he was safe. We both smiled at this, knowing the truth of the saying, that "there are no atheists in fox holes"; that when the trouble starts, the God we might not normally have too much time for in our day-to-day life, suddenly becomes our primary source of help and hope in times of trouble and helplessness.

The problem of course is: Where does God go in the times between our crises What does he do with himself? Does he slip back into non-existence or does he inconveniently persist in being real? Maybe these crisis calls are good reminders to us that God might just actually be there - all the time. And he might actually want more from us than to be the 000 calll receiver... Not that he minds that part. The Bible says in Psalm 50:15, "Call upon me in the day of trouble; and I will deliver you..."

Anyway, here is a cool music video that my friend Francis sent to me, called, "Laughing with God"... I hope you enjoy it.



Shalom...

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