Art for God's Sake

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

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

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

Shalom...

This made me laugh...

Whatever Happened to Secular Democracy ?

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

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

Just a few thoughts...

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

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

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

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

Shalom...

Happy New Year !!!

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

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

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

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

Shalom...

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

Thus Sayeth "The Science"

When did science become “the science”?

With the climate change debate going on at the moment, it seems that I read or hear the term “the science” not just every day, but many times per day. Sure, discussing climate change importantly involves discussing various scientific explorations and discoveries, but when did it become “the science”?

I think the idea behind “the science” is to give scientific exploration and discovery a new kind of status – dubious though it may be... In the pre-modern era, the people used to say, “thus sayeth the Lord”, but in the modern era (some would say “post-modern” era), apparently we are now supposed to say “thus sayeth the science”. There are a few problems with this...

The first thing, in relation to climate change science specifically, is that climate change science is not a “the” in the sense that it is not one science, but a combination of many different kinds of sciences (EG - biology, botany, meteorology, marine, environmental, pollution production science etc...). Climate change science is a “young” science, in that it is an amalgamation of a number of scientific traditions and practices, still finding its way. Another problem with “the” in relation to science is that there is no common consensus on what the various studies on climate change is telling us. There is not a strong sense of “the” in how scientists interpret data on climate change, and in fact, scientists are being accused of being parts of factions or sides in the debate, rather than allowing their results to guide their thinking on the matter. This seems to be an area of great concern, given that the objectivity of science is supposed to be its prime strength. The recent “Climategate” scandal has provided some evidence that these camps exist and there is pressure on the scientific community to demonstrate results that prove one way or the other way, rather than to allow the data to speak for itself. It seems that scientists are human after all, like the rest of us, and that science is not the totally rational, values-free domain many had put their hope in.

I wonder if “the science” is really about science’s last gasp at credibility as we continue to move out of the modern era and into the post-modern era. The modern era was supposed to be about science, technology and rationalism saving the world from all of its sins and problems. Instead, what we have seen is new technology and science bringing with it, new problems and sins to deal with. It is the same old story, told in new ways...

Science is great and has contributed a lot of good to many in the world. But the real issues in the world – like climate change, global poverty, war, first world health and mental health, global financial crises etc – will not ultimately be solved by “the science”. These issues need an approach that considers the human condition, not just "the science" involved. The kind of good will that will solve these kinds of problems are found in the teachings of all the Bible and of Jesus – care for neighbours, care for strangers, care for "the least", generosity, hospitality, the common purse, the common good etc etc...

Maybe it is time to go back to “thus sayeth the Lord” and rediscover what it might mean in this post-modern time...?

Shalom...

I can relate to this...




Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.

Christianity and Politics

I just listened to a very interesting podcast by Tony Campolo entitled "Christianity and Politics". It was recorded before Barack Obama became the President of the USA and includes a great quote from him.

I'd recommend a listen to it if you are into such things. It can be found by clicking here ...

Shalom...

Steve

The Rise of "The Mad Monk"

Is anyone else concerned that the nick name of the new opposition leader is "The Mad Monk"? Tony Abbott ended a pretty tumultuous week for the Coalition by getting voted in as the new leader of the party by 1 vote. He certainly seems to have a big job ahead of him to unite the party and start moving ahead towards the next election.

Not everyone is thrilled with the choice of "The Mad Monk" as new leader. Some have concerns with the "mad" part, saying that he is a bit erratic and outspoken, while others are more concerned with the "monk" part. In The Australian today, there were a number of articles about him, describing him as "Conservative" and as a "Devout Catholic". These terms appeared almost always together, painting them as related traits, if not as the same thing. In Tony Abbott's case, this is probably true. In Australia, there has been a long relationship between Conservative politics and the mainstream Christian churches. And for each of us, there is certainly some connection between our worldview or spirituality and our political ideology.

Eva Cox, the Chairwoman of WEL (Women's Electoral Lobby) said that Tony Abbott, "lets his personal religious views interfere with his political role and I think that that's a problem." In 2004, talking about the relationship between his faith and politics, Abbott said, "Christian politicians can not check their faith into the parliamentary cloakroom and be otherwise indistinguishable from everyone else. Still, modern society is not a community of believers and the parliament is not the place to make rules for one." I think that Tony Abbott "gets it". He is no dummy and has clearly thought through his own position on this.

I don't know anyone who checks their world view or spirituality into the 'cloakroom' before before doing their job or living their life. We all certainly have to apply our world view appropriately in the context we find ourselves in at any given time. Our world view is the means by which we engage with and interpret the world, and this most importantly applies to those areas of life where difficult decisions need to be made or strong points need to be debated (EG - in politics!). On one hand, I find it odd that some people expect politicians to 'check their faith' into the cloakroom and then perform their political role.

It reminds me of those old Warner Brothers cartoons with the sheep dog and the coyote, where they used to clock in, fight like blazes, then clock off and go home arm in arm. This was funny because it was a bit ridiculous. I don't know any politicians who don't profess some kind of faith who are expected to leave their world view and values in 'the cloakroom' before doing their job. So, I think that there is a double-standard going on here to an extent.

On the other hand, I don't think that politicians should push their personal beliefs, spiritual or otherwise, in the political arena. The role of politicians is to represent the needs, wishes and desires of their electorate, and to do this in such a way so as to reflect their personal faith stance or world view.

Being a politician in a truly democratic society, seems to me to mean that you would need to ensure that you were representing all the views of your electorate with integrity, and work out the way you would do that "Christianly" (whatever that looks like)... As well as this, in a truly democratic , and even secular, society, those of the Christian faith have a right to engage in the political processes and have their voices heard. Politicians certainly have a right to be Christians and participate in the process without slicing themselves up into spiritual and non-spiritual beings.

Whatever that looks like... So, to all you Christian politicians out there - good luck with that...

Shalom...

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