Angels and Demons is coming...

No, this heading is not a grammatical stuff up. The movie, "Angels and Demons" is coming to the cinemas on the 14th of May. "Angels and Demons" is the prequel to "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown and is sure to promote the same kind of religious hysteria as "The Da Vinci Code" did.

But why? Why do Christians (and the Catholic Church in particular) get so upset about these books and movies? Sure, Christians and the Church don't come off too well in them, but for crying out loud... let's toughen up people!!! For a start, both "Angels and Demons" and "The Da Vinci Code" are great stories - very clever and with lots of twists and heaps of suspense. I've read both books and they are ripping yarns that are well told. I found "Angels and Demons" to be quite the "page turner" and found it hard to put it down at the end of each chapter. Secondly, we need to be excited about any opportunity that comes along that puts spirituality and the Christian faith in front of people and in the minds of people. Do we know enough about our beliefs to happily engage in robust conversations about them? I should certainly hope so. Personally, I am excited about the opportunities to put spirituality back on the agenda of personal conversations, that the release of this movie will provide.

When "The Da Vinci Code" came out, the contraversies around it were in the newspapers and on the TV everyday for weeks. I was at a party one night and a friend of mine asked me what all the fuss was about. She wanted to know why the Christians were so upset about it all. This gave me an opportunity to talk to her at length about how important it is to Christians that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead (The Easter Story); that this was the central, cosmos transforming event in the Christian belief system. "The Da Vinci Code" put forward the idea that Jesus had not died and risen, but prior to dying had made Mary Magdelene pregnant and that teir heirs of Jesus lived on into the present day. This story line was laced with both loose historical references and pure fiction that might have seemed true and real to casual observors. Christians were both affronted by this challenge to their core beliefs and the threat that others would think the movie accurately portrayed factual and actual events, denying them the opportunity to take the Christian message seriously. These were some of the things we talked about that night.

It was a great conversation that I didn't start, and it provided the chance for my friend and I to talk about spiritual things. I am really looking forward to "Angels and Demons" coming out soon and equally looking forward for the opportunities it will create to put spirituality and Jesus back on the conversational agenda for awhile. So, keep cool when the movie comes out, resist joining in on the hysteria and enjoy any opportunities that arise as a result...

Shalom!

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!

New Life at Easter

It’s such a cliché I know, but we have just had one of the most powerful “new life at Easter” experiences that I reckon people can have. Our new little boy, Jesse George Forward, was born at 12:19pm on Easter Sunday.

Lucky he came when he did or I wouldn't have had anything to write about here on Easter. I didn’t even realise that Easter was coming up until sometime in the week beforehand. Some friends of ours were over and asked us what we were doing over Easter? “When is that?” I asked? For the last few weeks, I had been working hard trying to get everything done at work and at home, so that I could take a month off. Not knowing, of course, when the little bundle would actually arrive. So, Easter kind of snuck up on me…

Megan did such a great job bringing young Jesse into the world. She really wanted an “all natural” birth and she got the whole experience. But the pain… it looked painful, and Megan assures me that it was painful. Just when she thought she was through the painful bit, another painful bit would come along to take its place that totally redefined her previous perceptions of what extreme pain could be. She said that at one point she really wanted to give up during the birth, then she gleaned from a few things that the doctor and midwife were saying, and the tone in which they were saying it, that they had a few concerns about how long it was taking and that it would be good for Jesse to get out soon. Megan said it was the potential danger to Jesse and her love for him that enabled her to move through the pain to push and bring him into the world, safe and sound, healthy and happy…

Being Easter Sunday, I couldn’t help but make a link between Megan’s birthing experience and the Passion story of Jesus. Those of us that have been around Christian circles for years are familiar with the central idea that Jesus suffered and died a painful death, and then rose from the dead, never to die again; and that through his death and resurrection, the cosmos is given the opportunity to be saved from sin and its consequences of sickness, broken-ness and death. I’ve often wondered how Jesus did it – how he pushed through the pain to go through with his shameful and painful death on the cross?

I feel like I have a bit of an idea now...

PS - Jesse comes from the Hebrew meaning "gift"

The Chapel with No Crucifix

The Mossman Daily paper reports that the chapel at the Royal North Shore Hospital has had its crucifix, Bibles and all other Christian symbols removed to avoid offending people of other faiths. Apparently, this is not as a result of any pressure from any religious groups, just the decision of state government bureaucrats.

Read the article here...

I'm not sure that this is the best way for people of different faiths to interact with each other in Australia. What does hiding or denying the symbols of various spiritual beliefs and cultures in publicly shared spaces say to people about the place of spirituality in our individual and collective lives? It suggests to me that spirituality is a private thing that doesn't belong in the public realm. I think that this view reflects a popular, but erroneous dualistic view of spirituality that leads to a harmful slicing up of people's private and public lives that is not natural. My very real concern is that this kind of thinking is taking hold as the leading way of dealing with public expressions of diverse spiritual and religious views and that the outcome for us will be a culture that is spiritually fearful, intolerant and even more spiritually deficient than it is now.

I'd like to suggest that there is another way that might lead to a more spiritually engaging cultural landscape for our communities. What if (crazy as this sounds), we encouraged people of different faiths to respectfully engage with each other, talk about their similarities and differences, and to seek to benefit from each other's teachings and experiences? What if we encouraged people to take an interest in the various public expressions of diverse religious beliefs and to befriend people who don't believe, look or act in the same way we do (whichever "we" you happen to be)...

I've been reading some books by Vinoth Ramachandra lately (you'll see some in my bookshelf on the right hand side of this blog), and he suggests that the best foundation for spiritual interaction in our modern world of different faiths and ideas is to allow and promote respectful and robust engagement between people of different faiths. To the extent, that genuine "conversion" to the other's views should be possible as we allow the perspectives of others to critique our own, and vice versa. This alternative "public offense" stance that we are seeing a bit of will lead to spiritual intolerance and blandness that will be to our society's detriment.

I know a lot of bad things that happen are attributed to religion, but that is a niave point of view, that fails to take into consideration the cultural and historical factors that influence a society's spiritual and religious expressions at any given time. Like ours at this time. How do we define the decision to remove the Christian symbols from the chapel? Is it a political, legal, cultural, historical or spiritual decision that has been made? How we answer that question will say a lot about how we view spirituality and its role in private and public places, and whether societal expressions of spirituality can be separated from their cultural and historical influences.

Shalom...

No Christian Blogs ?

"The Weekend Australian" magazine had an article in it called "Soapbox in Cyberspace: best blogs", that listed the world's best blogs on all sorts of topics. While there was a heading, "Original Thinkers", which had one Buddhist blog in it, there was no specific "Spirituality" section and certainly no Christian blogs mentioned.

What is that about? There seem to me to be a lot of interesing Christian blogs out there. Are they being ignored in such lists, or are Christians simply missing the mark in terms of offering relevant and engaging insights into what is going on in the world?

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...