Two comments on a letter in The Australian:
1: “Religion is a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn’t there and shouting, ‘I found it’?’’
and
2: In that case, that must mean Atheism is a blind man in dark room, declaring "There is no black cat in here", just because he can't find it.
Showing posts with label Public Christians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Christians. Show all posts
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Monday, October 3, 2016
Religion? Optional?
I saw a sign at my local shopping centre about our recent census debacle (brought to you by debacle central - the Australian Public Service - with assistance from IBM.
The census invited us to tell which of about a dozen 'religions' we adhered to. It was optional to answer.
The sign urged those with no express religious affiliation to mark 'no religion', rather than repeat a remembered family or parental affiliation.
Fair enough.
Then I reflected on my own answer on the by then operative website. First I marked an affiliation. Then pondered. Heck, I don't want the government knowing something so personal and so irrelevant to government about me. I want to un click the box I'd clicked. No could do. I had to now click something else. So I did 'other' and described my 'other' as 'optional'.
Worked for me, and none of their business.
The census invited us to tell which of about a dozen 'religions' we adhered to. It was optional to answer.
The sign urged those with no express religious affiliation to mark 'no religion', rather than repeat a remembered family or parental affiliation.
Fair enough.
Then I reflected on my own answer on the by then operative website. First I marked an affiliation. Then pondered. Heck, I don't want the government knowing something so personal and so irrelevant to government about me. I want to un click the box I'd clicked. No could do. I had to now click something else. So I did 'other' and described my 'other' as 'optional'.
Worked for me, and none of their business.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Religion in public life
Not often would I link to a publication outside the church, but this just popped up on the Quadrant on line website. Religion in public life. I'm not endorsing or not, but noting that, following Oscar Wilde's quip, religious interest is at least being talked about, and that's better than not.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Lunch times
When I started work in the city there was a plethora of lunch time meetings sponsored by the Anglican Dept. of Evangelism, I think it was. Don Howard was involved, and I enjoyed talks by John Chapman, Bps. Don Cameron and John Reid as well as others.
There were three venues on different days: St James hall in Philip St, St Andrew's House in Bathurst Street, and in the basement 'hall' at Scots Church in Margaret St. The latter was close to my work. I must admit, I tended to follow Howard and Cameron around. Cameron gave a memorable talk at St James on the life to come...he spoke of a young married couple who by family wealth had life handed to them on a plate. The Bp proposed that that sounded just perfect. Then he said 'but its peanuts' and went on to discuss Paul's disdain for the privations and benefits of this life given the hope we have.
As Christians, we seek to see suffering in this context: Paul does. But it applies to wealth too: in eternal perspective wealth is insignificant. I'm happy to say I've met a number of Christians who've shown how to live mindfully of this.
Also close to my office was the RC church of St Patrick's, in Grosvenor Street. I went there once with a friend to a lunch time mass. Not for me.
This habit dropped off when I worked for firms in North Sydney and St. Leonards. St Thomas' at North Sydney had some lunch time meetings, but they failed to live up to what I was used to.
Slipping abroad, I attended a couple of lunch time meetings at St Helen's Bishopsgate in London: just like home!
After some changes in my faith, and when I was part of St James King Street, I attended a mid-week communion from time to time with a friend from uni. He also of an evangelical background, but like me found the service peaceful and spiritually encouraging.
Time went on again, and I and my office moved to Railway Square. I considered attending lunch time eucharist at CCSL, but didn't get around to it: my priorities and interests were changing, I suppose.
More recently I've been working near Wynyard and attended both lunch time talks and a Friday communion at St Philips, Church Hill. The group at communion was very small, but I quite enjoyed the use of BCP. The pace and old language took me to a different place mentally; that gave a welcome contrast to the pressures of work.
At most there were probably half a dozen of us attending, most older than me, some retired. It seems that at whatever age, I am so often in the 'youth group'! Less so now that I'm approaching 60, I must say.
The Rector, Justin Moffatt, decided that weekly communion was too much, so it became monthly. I couldn't see what the problem was: ministry is ministry and numbers should not be that important and Ray Smith's ministry at it was well received. It was a great 'stake in the city' for the worship of God that we met weekly, I thought.
Justin's lunch time talks were a lot of fun. He is an engaging and lively speaker, but I've not been for some time, as my spiritual preoccupations have shifted, and some evangelical talk seems just to go round in circles.
I was quite shocked at one talk where we had a well known lecturer from Moore College to speak. He was standing by himself, unoccupied as I entered the room. I noticed an elderly man, one of our regulars who quietly attended each week, sitting by himself. Jeff, I think his name was, and he must have been near 80. I sometimes exchanged greetings with Jeff, and was upset to see our diocesan worthy not talking to this old saint. I pointedly avoided bolstering the worthy's ego and sat with Jeff to chat instead.
There were three venues on different days: St James hall in Philip St, St Andrew's House in Bathurst Street, and in the basement 'hall' at Scots Church in Margaret St. The latter was close to my work. I must admit, I tended to follow Howard and Cameron around. Cameron gave a memorable talk at St James on the life to come...he spoke of a young married couple who by family wealth had life handed to them on a plate. The Bp proposed that that sounded just perfect. Then he said 'but its peanuts' and went on to discuss Paul's disdain for the privations and benefits of this life given the hope we have.
As Christians, we seek to see suffering in this context: Paul does. But it applies to wealth too: in eternal perspective wealth is insignificant. I'm happy to say I've met a number of Christians who've shown how to live mindfully of this.
Also close to my office was the RC church of St Patrick's, in Grosvenor Street. I went there once with a friend to a lunch time mass. Not for me.
This habit dropped off when I worked for firms in North Sydney and St. Leonards. St Thomas' at North Sydney had some lunch time meetings, but they failed to live up to what I was used to.
Slipping abroad, I attended a couple of lunch time meetings at St Helen's Bishopsgate in London: just like home!
After some changes in my faith, and when I was part of St James King Street, I attended a mid-week communion from time to time with a friend from uni. He also of an evangelical background, but like me found the service peaceful and spiritually encouraging.
Time went on again, and I and my office moved to Railway Square. I considered attending lunch time eucharist at CCSL, but didn't get around to it: my priorities and interests were changing, I suppose.
More recently I've been working near Wynyard and attended both lunch time talks and a Friday communion at St Philips, Church Hill. The group at communion was very small, but I quite enjoyed the use of BCP. The pace and old language took me to a different place mentally; that gave a welcome contrast to the pressures of work.
At most there were probably half a dozen of us attending, most older than me, some retired. It seems that at whatever age, I am so often in the 'youth group'! Less so now that I'm approaching 60, I must say.
The Rector, Justin Moffatt, decided that weekly communion was too much, so it became monthly. I couldn't see what the problem was: ministry is ministry and numbers should not be that important and Ray Smith's ministry at it was well received. It was a great 'stake in the city' for the worship of God that we met weekly, I thought.
Justin's lunch time talks were a lot of fun. He is an engaging and lively speaker, but I've not been for some time, as my spiritual preoccupations have shifted, and some evangelical talk seems just to go round in circles.
I was quite shocked at one talk where we had a well known lecturer from Moore College to speak. He was standing by himself, unoccupied as I entered the room. I noticed an elderly man, one of our regulars who quietly attended each week, sitting by himself. Jeff, I think his name was, and he must have been near 80. I sometimes exchanged greetings with Jeff, and was upset to see our diocesan worthy not talking to this old saint. I pointedly avoided bolstering the worthy's ego and sat with Jeff to chat instead.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Public Christians
I mentioned the work of Public Christians, as I call them, previously in an adverse manner.
Compare the media use of Australia's public Christians with that of the Dali Lama. The DL is, of course, a consummate faker, so I wouldn't want that aspect of his image to be replicated, but his coining of statements that pull people towards his world view and religion, as duplicitous as they are, is brilliant.
I understand that he takes advantage of the political support for Tibet against China, the Western infatuation with Eastern religions, and the congenial front that Buddhism shows to the West, but who wouldn't use their advantages to manipulate the media's handling of their statements?
A great opportunity not taken was during the debate a few years ago about providing 'Ethics' classes in primary schools. These are promoted as an alternative (a 'cool' alternative) to Christian 'Scripture' classes for children whose parents don't support their attendance at such.
In the debate, the then Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen talked about 'Christian values' being promoted.
The primary Christian value in this connection is provided by Isaiah: all our righteousness is as filthy rags!
The problem with ethics classes is that ethical epistemology is built on a particular view of the world; the world view that structures ethics classes includes (unavoidably) no pathway to deal with ethical failure. Where is forgiveness outside a framework of grace? It might be given lip-service, but it is an applique on a world view that cannot include it. Jensen didn't touch this, and so lost a great opportunity to introduce the heart of the gospel into an active debate.
'Epic fail' as they say these days.
Compare the media use of Australia's public Christians with that of the Dali Lama. The DL is, of course, a consummate faker, so I wouldn't want that aspect of his image to be replicated, but his coining of statements that pull people towards his world view and religion, as duplicitous as they are, is brilliant.
I understand that he takes advantage of the political support for Tibet against China, the Western infatuation with Eastern religions, and the congenial front that Buddhism shows to the West, but who wouldn't use their advantages to manipulate the media's handling of their statements?
A great opportunity not taken was during the debate a few years ago about providing 'Ethics' classes in primary schools. These are promoted as an alternative (a 'cool' alternative) to Christian 'Scripture' classes for children whose parents don't support their attendance at such.
In the debate, the then Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen talked about 'Christian values' being promoted.
The primary Christian value in this connection is provided by Isaiah: all our righteousness is as filthy rags!
The problem with ethics classes is that ethical epistemology is built on a particular view of the world; the world view that structures ethics classes includes (unavoidably) no pathway to deal with ethical failure. Where is forgiveness outside a framework of grace? It might be given lip-service, but it is an applique on a world view that cannot include it. Jensen didn't touch this, and so lost a great opportunity to introduce the heart of the gospel into an active debate.
'Epic fail' as they say these days.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Secrets
Last year in our home group (small groups that meet locally through the week to discuss the Bible and their faith: the idea being one of Wesley's) we worked through John Dickson's The Best Kept Secret of Christian Mission. Sub-titled "Promoting the Gospel with More Than Our Lips"
Meeting fortnightly we have not completed it, and may do so this year. We used the study guide by Simon Smart, which was quite helpful.
The book was a good springboard for discussion. It covered a number of topics that do confront the Christian in everyday conversation, but it failed on a number of grounds, and its object is undermined by the failure of public Christians (those who get media time, whether in general or church media) to speak the gospel!
One doesn't need to go into a long discourse on these dimensions of disappointment, because they are captured in the author's appearance on the ABC's discussion program Q&A. If you've not viewed Q&A, it is typically a forum for jeering at the range of views not held by half-baked socialists. This includes Christian faith, of course.
Dickson, who is also associated with the self-styled Centre for Public Christianity, (I would think more of such an organisation if it was connected with a theological college, for example) was on a panel with a well known and outspoken atheist, Lawrence Krauss (mentioned in this article). Dickson failed at every opportunity to deliver an aggressive Christian critique of the fellow's empty world view. Not only that, he even endorsed its basic premise in materialistic evolution. So if the atheist's basic claims about the structure and content of reality are right, in Dickson's assessment, the gospel has no point!
Meeting fortnightly we have not completed it, and may do so this year. We used the study guide by Simon Smart, which was quite helpful.
The book was a good springboard for discussion. It covered a number of topics that do confront the Christian in everyday conversation, but it failed on a number of grounds, and its object is undermined by the failure of public Christians (those who get media time, whether in general or church media) to speak the gospel!
One doesn't need to go into a long discourse on these dimensions of disappointment, because they are captured in the author's appearance on the ABC's discussion program Q&A. If you've not viewed Q&A, it is typically a forum for jeering at the range of views not held by half-baked socialists. This includes Christian faith, of course.
Dickson, who is also associated with the self-styled Centre for Public Christianity, (I would think more of such an organisation if it was connected with a theological college, for example) was on a panel with a well known and outspoken atheist, Lawrence Krauss (mentioned in this article). Dickson failed at every opportunity to deliver an aggressive Christian critique of the fellow's empty world view. Not only that, he even endorsed its basic premise in materialistic evolution. So if the atheist's basic claims about the structure and content of reality are right, in Dickson's assessment, the gospel has no point!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)