Doubts and Loves

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

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

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

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

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

Shalom

Steve

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

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

"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...

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...

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...

Religion Makes People Silly...

This is pretty funny, and should make you laugh a lot out loud. But then, if you really start to think about it, it is pretty sad, and it might make you cry a little bit...

Religion makes people silly... (my thought on one of the main points of Jesus' "Good Samaritan" story found in Luke 10:25-37)

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 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

U2: Faith in the Ear of the Hearer

Here is an article that appeared on the www.@U2.com website. I love this band - not only are they the best and most innovative rock band in the world, but they are chock full of substance. An incredible and rare mix in the rock 'n roll world and in the world in general, if you ask me...

Thanks to Francis for passing this article on to me.

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...

The X Factor

No, not the show...

This post is for those of you among my vast readership (cough) who are asking questions about what church should look like today, in light of how things are continually changing in the way people understand and live in the world. I'm one of these people... I ask this question all the time and have considered and even experimented with, from time to time, things that might be some of the answers...

Anyway, my friend Carmen sent me this article the other day. The article is called "The X Factor", and is put out by LeadershipJournal.net. It is a great article that looks at some of the most well known experiments in this area from America, and some of the results (also lots of "lack of results") and conclusions that people have come up with along the way.

This post won't be for everyone. But if you ask questions about the nature and structure of meaningful and engaging church for today, then take the time out to have a read through this article. You won't regret it.

Shalom...

Something to Snort About...

Last Friday, a good guy that we know took his own life. He leaves behind a wife and three kids... It is hard to find anything good in this situation. Every way you look at it - it's pretty crap. It makes you want to scream, cry, rant and rage against God, life, and the way things are in this broken and fractured world. One of the strong feelings I feel at the moment is one of disgust - disgust that we live in a world where this kind of thing happens and that this is what life can dish up for the people who are a part of it.

I was reflecting on my response to this tragedy and that feeling of disgust toward life I was feeling, and a passage from the Bible came to me. It was John 11- a story about Jesus going to the grave of his dead friend, Lazarus. Jesus goes there and the passage says that he was "deeply moved" and called for the stone across the doorway of the grave to be removed, so that he can go ahead and raise Lazarus from the dead. A very cool story in that sense. Jesus doing his thing...

Apparently, the original word that is translated into English as "deeply moved" is probably better translated into English as "a snort of the spirit". The kind of snort that a stallion might give, while rearing on his hind legs as it gets ready to charge into battle. (Thanks to Dave Andrews for this insight from his "Plan Be" book). I imagine it as a kind of snort of contempt from Jesus as he comes face to face with the tragic consequences of sin. I felt and still feel that feeling this week - a snort from my spirit as I wrestle with the contempt I feel for life at this bleak time.

The thing I like about this passage though is that Jesus' contempt for this life and its broken-ness did not stay at that point of despair and it did not remain at the place of hopelessness. He got the stone moved and raised Lazarus from the dead - and that is a pretty good response, although only temporarily good. Lazarus would die again one day in the future and the grief would come again. But from that place, he "set his face like a flint" towards Jerusalem, and went there to be arrested, tried, beaten and crucified. And of course the Bible teaches us that he rose again from the dead, to deal once and for all, with the sin and broken-ness of the world, so that the day will come when we won't have to put up with crap like this again.

Bring it on (or "Come Lord Jesus, Come" as they say in the Christian classics)...

God's Shalom to you all at time...

Go Therese, Go...

I was interested to read the article on Therese Rein (Mrs Kevin Rudd) in The Weekend Australian magazine over the weekend. In it, she talks about her Christian faith...

"When I went to university I really needed to sort this out for myself," she says. "At that point, I personally committed to Christ. It's fundamental to my calling, to my values, and there are two particular pieces of scripture that hsout to me from the rooftops. They are about freedom for the captive and recovery of sight for the blind. They are all about inclusion, being there to feed the hungry and house the homeless."

The report goes on... Her worship is not confined to Sunday services, which she attends regularly for communion and "some quite time for me". She prays often and she sings. "Faith is a living thing."

I was really encouraged by this. Rein is committed to causes like homelessness, indigenous literacy, disability, teenage mental health etc etc... This seems to fit with the verses that she has referred to above, where Jesus tells his listeners, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

In my mind, it also fits with someone who has really grasped the core of the message of the gospel of Jesus. She understands that in accepting Jesus for herself, she accepts living out the priorities of Jesus as the norm for her life. And being Australia's "first spouse", she is in a wonderful position to do some great things on his behalf.

In an earlier post entitled, "Muscular Christianity", I questioned whether it is possible for Christians to be in politics and maintain their integrity? I also asked why Christians in politics almost always seem to be promoting the rights of Christians to do things they want to do, rather than to use their power and influence for the benefit of the marginalised and disadvantaged? I also wondered why we don't ever hear about the "Christian left" in politics? Having read this article, I'm wondering if in Therese Rein, there is some kind of answer to all those questions... And not only Therese, but maybe in Kevin Rudd as well. I know he comes across a pompous nerd to many; a man who uses too many big words and chucks tantrums if his inflight meal is not as he likes it. But, he is also the one who insisted that the parliament apologise to the stolen generation; signed the Kyoto agreement; relaxed tough policies on asylum seekers, introduced social inclusion units into government departments, and sought to tackle a number of other important social issues as part of his government's priorities. This is much more than our previous government was willing to do. (I have it from someone who knows someone who worked very closely with John Howard that his Christianity was quite nominal)...

Maybe there is hope for Australian politics. Maybe there is some room for a little optimism. Maybe God's good work can be done through the world of politics and politicians... (but maybe that's taking optimism just a little bit too far)... :)

Shalom...

PS - On Kevin Rudd and his own professions of Christian faith. Have a read of this article he wrote for The Monthly magazine in 2006 (before he was PM). It is called "Faith in Politics" and is a very interesting read...

Happy 500th Birthday John...

Yes, John Calvin turned 500 on the 10th of July (although he has been dead for most of this time). Who is John Calvin, I hear you ask? He is up there with Martin Luther as the major players in what most would call the "Protestant Reformation" in the 1500s. He was very bold in his challenges to the mainstream Roman Catholic Church of the day and had a lot to say against beliefs and practices that he believed to be false.

Love him or hate him, Calvin was an amazingly influential figure. Such was his influence, that a whole branch of Christian theology called "Calvinism" was developed, based on his teachings. The most well-know tenets of Calvinism are probably the amazing grace of God and the election or pre-destination of Christians. There is even a theological approach to life called "Hyper-Calvinism" (and I include that piece of information here soley because I love the name). Some say that Calvin's ideas even contributed to the development of capitalism and democracy in the West. He wrote heaps on his ideas in various letters, treaties and commentaries and preached many, many sermons - most which are still available for us today.

Why am I bringing John Calvin to your attention? Mainly because he was one of most significant religious people in modern history and his life is currently being remembered across the planet because of his quincentenary. I think that its good to know a bit about these things if you're interested in the kind of private/public spirituality issues that this blog goes on about. Also, if you're a Protestant, then you are probably influenced in some way by Calvin and Calvinism, but you might not have ever known that. I think its good from time to time to look at this thing called Christianity that some of us are trying to live out and ask how much of it is "pure" Christianity (if we can ever discover such a thing), and how much of it is Christianity based on a particular theological, geographical, denominational influence. These kind of questions help us to keep our own truth claims in check , to keep ourselves humble, and to allow ourselves to be open to the views of others.

For more information on John Calvin, you could simply google his name and go for your life, or have a look at some of these sites:

• Wikipedia - John Calvin
  
• History Learning Site
  
• New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia
• The Australian - Decline of John Calvin

I listened to an interesting podcast about John Calvin on the ABC Radio National program, "The Spirit of Things". Host, Rachael Kohn, interviewed Randall Zachman (a "Calvin Scholar" - who knew you could be such a thing?) about the life, teachings and influences of John Calvin. It is worth a listen if you're into such things.

Anyway, "Happy Birthday John Calvin" and I hope the rest of you have a nice day too...

Shalom...

Richard Holloway: Shaking the Kaleidoscope

Richard Holloway is an interesting man who has been on an interesting journey. He used to be a Bishop in Scotland, but resigned about 10 years ago after a Bishop's conference that got a bit nasty around the issue of homosexuality. Since then, he has written over 5 books that deal with issues of spirituality, religion, morality and ethics. His latest book is called, "Between the Monster and the Saint", and his best known book is called "Godless Morality". Holloway describes himself as a "Christian agnostic". He is part of a church community and preaches in his church occasionally, although he isn't sure that God actually exists.

Interesting, as I said...

Last month, Holloway spoke at the Sydney Writer's Festival about his thoughts on the different approaches to religion that are apparent in today's society. This talk was called "Shaking the Kaleidoscope" and revolved around four particular approaches he has identified: strong religion; weak religion; after religion; and no religion. Simple, and yet profound...

The ABC has a short interview with him and the full recording of his Writer's Festival talk. This is really worth a listen to and you can access the audio and/or the transcript by clicking here. You won't be sorry. This is 50 minutes you'll be glad you spent (I've listened to it 3 times so far)...

Just two tiny spoilers / tasters...

In his opening statement, he refers to Paul Gauguin's 1897 painting entitled, "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" Gauguin painted this picture after receiving the news that his daughter had died. Holloway got me in right from here - a dramatic story interwoven with some of THE most important questions that people can ask about life, the universe and everything...

And then in his final "PPS", he says, "When I am actually kind of up against the cosmic wall, there is another philosopher I love who has given me a way of responding to this agonised, kaleidoscopic, shifting, churning complexity. And I want to leave you with this great swashbuckle of a quote. It comes from the great existentialist philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno, and he was quoting a Frenchman when he said these words:

'Man is perishing that may be,
But if it is nothingness that awaits us,
Let us perish resisting,
And let us so live that it will be an unjust fate.'

And I like the idea of living as though the universe did mean something - and if it doesn't, we'll show it that we are better than it."

Very cool. Do yourself a favour and tune in. By the way, I was a "weak religionist". What are you?

Shalom...

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...