I love Christmas. It is my favourite time of year, which has now extended to the whole of December, due to my wife and daughter having their birthdays during this month. It has become almost like a month long party. Christmas allows us to reflect on Jesus, even if it is only briefly through the haze of last second shopping and the myriad dinner functions that we need to be at. It is in a reflection such as this that I began to think about the role of Christians and anarchism. A bit abstract perhaps, but bear with me. I’ve always been drawn to anarchism as a philosophy, particularly as a Christian. Anarchy has a bit of a bad rap. It’s associated with lawlessness and crime, often portrayed as chaos and mayhem, but the philosophy behind it is different to this common misconception. Anarchism is the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary (Thank you Emma Goldman). Being a salvation army officer I have struggled with reconciling the two apparently polar opposite ways of thinking that is present within the structure and autocracy that is the salvos and anarchism. So can The Salvation Army embrace anarchism as a philosophy and vice versa? Can The Salvation Army be an anarchist movement? Well the initial answer has to be no with a ‘but’! The way the salvos are set up now with an emphasis on structural integrity and administration, along with the reliance of the government for continued funding and reluctance to take a stand politically on hot potato topics due to the reliance just mentioned, creates an environment where anarchy cannot work. In fact it is in many ways the anti-anarchism movement. But if we take a look at two foundational elements of the salvos then perhaps we can say, ‘The Salvation Army isn’t an anarchist movement, BUT it should be/could be’.
The first foundational point I will look at is Jesus, considering he’s the reason for the whole deal after all. Around the Christmas period we hear many carols that talk about a baby Jesus lying down his sweet baby head blah, blah. This shows quite a poor view of the messiah really and I could go on another rant on how these pictures of Jesus have affected the psyche of many Christians and informed how they worship and do mission, but I wont yet. Rather then these carols I prefer the song that quotes Isaiah 9:6-7, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. And the Government shall be on his shoulders”. This is talking about Jesus having his rule reign above all else. A close look a the life and ministry on Jesus reveals a revolutionary who raged against the machine, while bringing healing and love wherever he went. Jesus was trying to bring about a new social order, based on liberty not restricted by the rule and law of man. Sound familiar? Bingo, perhaps Jesus was an anarchist, or more likely, this original Christianity was at its core essentially anarchism in its purest form. With every generation of church leadership this initial social order was eroded a little in exchange for order and conformity, until at last it became the Roman religion of Constantine and became the law. On and on I can go, but needless to say, to embrace anarchism is not to turn from Jesus but to turn towards him. Therefore a foundational point of The Salvation Army is centred around an anarchist movement – albeit one that has lost its way. The second foundational point is the military metaphor that is used by The Salvation Army. I recently asked my mate Jarrod McKenna, about the appropriateness of the salvos military motif considering the amount of war and devastation caused by war that we see today. He said that it was ok as long as it was used subversively. The subversive use of military metaphor in the salvos has been lost. To regain it I think we need to realise that we aren’t an actual army, but we are an anti-army. A group that looks, runs and facilitates like the army, but produces different outcomes – peace, healing, love, reconciliation and joy. If we can use the army’s strengths to achieve these things we subvert the original intention of a military army and became an agent for change and a subversive influence for good.
So with these foundational points established, Jesus as our guide – revolutionary, possible anarchist icon and a strong connection to the subversive influence of the Army culture, The Salvation Army can and should be an anarchist movement, an extremely well administered one!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Would you like Love with that?
As a non-drinking, non-smoking, vegetarian pacifist, I do not have many visible vices. However, one of them is my addiction to McDonalds (as a vego I eat the cheeseburger without the meat – don’t knock it till you try it!!). This is a source of guilt for me as they are shamelessly a multi-national corporation, which does little good and much harm. Yet, I have a problem and find myself eating their food at least once a week. Recently, I was appalled to find on the bag of my purchase in big bold letters the words; COURAGE, HOPE and LOVE. On closer inspection it was referring to its work with cancer patients etc. While I am not trying to diminish the work that happens with this branch of the corporation, what is behind the master stroke of advertising that is trying to market non-purchasable commodities such as courage, hope and faith and subversively putting them out there for retail? There really isn’t room in this blog for indepth discussion on the topic of hyper reality and the tricks advertisers play, I would advise you check out Mark Sayers blog http://marksayers.wordpress.com/ and his book called ‘The Trouble with Paris’. What I want to have a look at is the devaluing of the terms that Maccas casually has used to advertise itself. Faith, Hope and Love are 3 of the essential traits of Christianity and many of the worlds religions. Yet these spiritual attributes, which any spiritual leader of any worth would advise you takes years to develop, are cheapened by association with the popular culture of the day. The word love is so overused that it has no real or tangible meaning. The notion of romantic love which is pushed so hard in most media outlets is a pasty imitation of what love should be. When looking at love within the context of Judeo-Christian thought, what we have presented to us as love today is a lie which creates a sense of dissatisfaction and subsequently fuels our drive to consume arbitrary and unfulfilling things to fill that aching dissatisfaction in our souls. Part of the issue is the lack of a word to sufficiently describe what love is. The Hebrew and Greek meaning of the word love was classified in many different words to express what type of love was trying to be conveyed. When the average Christian thinks of love though, they think of the love Jesus spoke about. A better word for love that was used in earlier translations of the bible is ‘charity’. I think that this word more fully describes love. Love in this form ceases to be a self indulgent, self-serving, personally gratifying experience and becomes about compassion, justice, service, hope, courage and faith. This type of love fills us with a sense of purpose and connects us with other people, enhancing our lives and giving us resilience during suffering….Hmm, now how can we market that??
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Death of Compassion
I have been quite disturbed over the past few weeks about the debate that is raging due to the Sri Lankan asylum seekers on the Australian Oceanic Viking in Indonesia. The level of opposition to these people finding refuge in Australia has astonished me. I am very disappointed with Kevin Rudd and the government for their response, but it is really a reflection of the prevailing attitudes of the voters of Australia. This was confirmed recently in a Newspoll, which showed that over 50% of Australians thought the government were too soft on asylum seekers. This with the humanitarian debacle aboard the Oceanic Viking being on every media outlet around the country. How can good, generally intelligent and caring people look into the faces of these suffering people on board that ship and want anything other then to extend compassion and help them. As a Christian I am even more disturbed about the attitudes of some of my Christian brothers and sisters who are part of that 50%. Without getting into the politics that muddy this discussion, Australia can support asylum seekers. We can support refugees, in fact we should be taking in far more then we do. Despite this, the argument rages on, thinly disguising the ugly reality of rascism. I have been reading Cornell West recently and some of what he wrote made me reflect on the situation that is occurring with the asylum seekers. We live in a society that is chronically adverse to suffering. We do everything to avoid it by living in an artificial, consumer fairyland that shuts out anything that doesn’t bring us happiness. We take drugs, both prescribed and illicit, not to mention the copious amounts of alcohol we consume, to numb our feelings when things get too intense. We have a culture of instant entertainment that can take us away from our problems in a heart beat. The reality of death is ignored, and any discussion of this topic is avoided at all costs. The truth remains though that we all suffer. It cannot be avoided. Suffering permeates the human condition and to deny its existence or affect is to deny our humanity. Suffering has an interesting side effect, it produces compassion. When we see others suffer we can feel compassion. I experienced this during the bushfires in Victoria earlier this year. People became aware of the suffering of so many and compassion abounded. People wanted to help, to donate food, clothing, money, anything to help. They were doing this for people they didn’t even know or have a link with other then a sense of their suffering. It is these same people who showed amazing generosity that was sparked by compassion who are disgruntled about the asylum seekers. How can we be so compassionate at one point in time and so callous, uncaring and selfish at another. I do not believe that it is just about race, although this plays a part. I think that it has far more to do with the lack of understanding of the level of suffering the asylum seekers experience combined with the hyper-real world in which we live, which encourages us to deny suffering. If Australians truly knew the type of suffering asylum seekers experience on their quest for life, the popular attitude would become one of compassion. The bushfires shook people out of apathy due to the fact that they could see and smell the bush fire smoke, they could see the burnt aftermath. It was concrete. The plight of the asylum seekers is limited to Sri Lankans sitting on a boat with life jackets. This separation from the reality of their suffering is what is killing our compassion. The reality for many asylum seekers who become refugees (according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – UNHCR) is that they are fleeing conflict or persecution. They travel enormous distances in dangerous conditions just for the chance of being recognised as a refugee. Then they could be in a refugee camp for months and often years. These are often overcrowded and prone to communicable diseases and infections. I could literally write a thesis on the profound and unimaginable suffering these people experience. I have a daughter and I know that if I lived with the fear of conflict or being persecuted I would want to go to a safe place. I would risk our lives, because our lives were already at risk, for the hope of a better life. I’m sure that as Australians we can understand this and feel compassion for people who are in this position. And by being aware of their suffering and allowing ourselves to feel compassion we can help those people looking to escape conflict and persecution by welcoming them to our beautiful and prosperous country. As Christians, this shouldn’t even be an issue, as we are called to offer shelter to those who have none and refuge for those without a nation. As counter cultural as it may seem, we should embrace the suffering around us to prevent compassion from dying.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Hell or Hope – Exploring the Least Harmful Heresy
I have decided to write about something that I have found to be quite controversial in the church circles I have been part of. That is the heretical doctrine of universal salvation or universal reconciliation. Let me begin by stating that while I am going to be exploring this idea a little, I am by no means saying that it is right. Nor am I advocating for anyone to have this view. I just want to have a look at what its about and why so many Christians automatically discount it without thought or critical consideration. Universal salvation is basically a thought that says that God is love and that due to this love, all people will come to be with Him in eternity. This is expressed in many different ways, such as some people believe in a set time for people in banishment from God, until finally being restored to God, others think that ‘every knee will bow and tongue confess’, and at this time all people will have a realisation of Christ and God and all will be in God. There is also thought that through the process of judgement, the refining fire of God will purify all people, leaving us at our most pure state. Obviously for some people who have been evil in this life, it will take them back to when they were children or younger. While for those who have journeyed in faith, the process will not be as painful or humiliating. Either way, the basic concept is clear. Nothing can separate us from the love of God.
I have many issues with this theologically, but absolutely no objections from a standpoint of hope. As a Christian I love the idea that all people can be reconciled with God. My understanding of God is that He is love, as well as justice. But this justice we cannot really comprehend and as such, I fall back to the position that God is love. While there are many struggles with the theological framework of universal salvation, it is not without theological merit. In fact there were many early Christian schools of thought that taught and believed it. Gregory of Nyssa and Origen, two of the most influential church fathers, taught universal salvation at their schools. Eventually this teaching did not win the day and was gradually stamped out and given the tag of heresy. While this is still the case today, it is interesting to consider why these great men thought this way. And why we have adopted many of their theological positions within the church today, but not this particular thought. In the last 50 or so years, there have been many pre-eminent theologians who have either agreed with or hoped for universal salvation. Among them are; Jacques Ellul, Jurgen Moltmann, Karl Rainer and Karl Barth to name a few. Not to mention the various liberal scholars such as Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan and the like.
The most disturbing thing to me when I talk to other believers about this idea is the level of aggression and anger it provokes. Many cannot fathom their faith without it counter balanced by hell. Often the words I hear come back to me is based on an essentially selfish consideration. That is, “why should I live a Christian life, not doing anything wrong, going to church, helping people, when other people can just party and do bad things and end up in heaven anyway?” This is something that I cannot relate to. While I guess I can see the perspective they are coming from, to me it is the worst possible reason to want to believe in hell. It is basically saying, ‘I think that people who don’t do what I have done or believe what I believe, the way I believe it, should go to hell.’ It is here that we begin to play God a little. We decide who will and will not go to hell. I firmly believe that being a Christian is about living like Christ here and now. In the gospels Jesus talks extensively about the kingdom of God, and doing for others. This life isn’t about earning enough points to get into heaven. Nor is it about being a Christian to avoid hell. God did not create this world and send us here to punish us just because He can. We are made to have life, and give life to others. This is the essence of being a Christian, and this should be reason enough to be a Christian and want others to join with you. People have asked me when I discuss this idea, that it destroys the concept of evangelism. I disagree with this, primarily because, I love being a Christian so much, the connection with God, the peace I feel in his presence and in the community of believers. This is what I want other people to feel. Discipleship is basically being a social worker, community development worker and psychologist all rolled into one. We must never stop sharing the good news, essemtially because it is good news. We are not trying to scare people into coming on board, we surely want people to experience the fullness of the love of God. This needs to be our mission and priority, so that people around us can grow in God and we can begin to build a little bit of the Kingdom of God.
I will parody a conversation that is very close to many I have had with friends and fellow Christians. According to your understanding of Jesus, God and hell; “Will a person who doesn’t believe in God and lives an evil life go to hell?’ ‘Yes’. ‘Ok, will a person who doesn’t believe in God but does good go to hell?’ ‘Well, yes. You have to believe in Jesus, we are not saved by works alone.’ ‘Right, so what if a person has done many good deeds but has never heard the Good News?’ ‘Umm, I think so…maybe not. God can see their heart’. ‘Ok, so it is based on how God views them, not on believing in Jesus?’ ‘Umm, no you have to believe, but if you have never heard of Jesus, God is just and will search the persons heart.’ ‘Ok, so I guess that applies to children and babies too who die before their time?’ ‘Yes of course, God would never send a baby to hell.’ ‘Good, but where is this taught in the bible?’, ‘I’ll have to look that one up….’. ‘Ok, what about people who live a life of faith, but another faith’. ‘Well, Jesus is the only way’. ‘So if someone loves God and serves His purpose, helping others, contributing to society and bringing peace and compassion to all those around them, he will go to hell if he’s from another faith. But a person who, say, has lived an anti-social life, causing harm and pain to everyone around them, an essentially, classically evil person, sincerely asks God for forgiveness and believes in Jesus on their death bed will go to heaven?’ ‘Well its not as clear cut as that, but I guess, yes’.
Let me reiterate; I am not a universalist, and I adhere to The Salvation Army doctrines as an officer within its ranks. I am not convinced about the theology of universal salvation, and there are many real and important issues that strain biblical credibility within this concept. However it brings up important and foundational questions about our lives as Christians. The conversation above shows how quickly we assume that we know the mind of God. The question of what happens after death is ambiguous at best, considering we will all find out, but not till it is our time. Therefore, perhaps as Christians it is best to leave the concept of hell to God, go about our mission as Christians, but have the idea that all will eventually be brought back to God as our hope.
I have many issues with this theologically, but absolutely no objections from a standpoint of hope. As a Christian I love the idea that all people can be reconciled with God. My understanding of God is that He is love, as well as justice. But this justice we cannot really comprehend and as such, I fall back to the position that God is love. While there are many struggles with the theological framework of universal salvation, it is not without theological merit. In fact there were many early Christian schools of thought that taught and believed it. Gregory of Nyssa and Origen, two of the most influential church fathers, taught universal salvation at their schools. Eventually this teaching did not win the day and was gradually stamped out and given the tag of heresy. While this is still the case today, it is interesting to consider why these great men thought this way. And why we have adopted many of their theological positions within the church today, but not this particular thought. In the last 50 or so years, there have been many pre-eminent theologians who have either agreed with or hoped for universal salvation. Among them are; Jacques Ellul, Jurgen Moltmann, Karl Rainer and Karl Barth to name a few. Not to mention the various liberal scholars such as Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan and the like.
The most disturbing thing to me when I talk to other believers about this idea is the level of aggression and anger it provokes. Many cannot fathom their faith without it counter balanced by hell. Often the words I hear come back to me is based on an essentially selfish consideration. That is, “why should I live a Christian life, not doing anything wrong, going to church, helping people, when other people can just party and do bad things and end up in heaven anyway?” This is something that I cannot relate to. While I guess I can see the perspective they are coming from, to me it is the worst possible reason to want to believe in hell. It is basically saying, ‘I think that people who don’t do what I have done or believe what I believe, the way I believe it, should go to hell.’ It is here that we begin to play God a little. We decide who will and will not go to hell. I firmly believe that being a Christian is about living like Christ here and now. In the gospels Jesus talks extensively about the kingdom of God, and doing for others. This life isn’t about earning enough points to get into heaven. Nor is it about being a Christian to avoid hell. God did not create this world and send us here to punish us just because He can. We are made to have life, and give life to others. This is the essence of being a Christian, and this should be reason enough to be a Christian and want others to join with you. People have asked me when I discuss this idea, that it destroys the concept of evangelism. I disagree with this, primarily because, I love being a Christian so much, the connection with God, the peace I feel in his presence and in the community of believers. This is what I want other people to feel. Discipleship is basically being a social worker, community development worker and psychologist all rolled into one. We must never stop sharing the good news, essemtially because it is good news. We are not trying to scare people into coming on board, we surely want people to experience the fullness of the love of God. This needs to be our mission and priority, so that people around us can grow in God and we can begin to build a little bit of the Kingdom of God.
I will parody a conversation that is very close to many I have had with friends and fellow Christians. According to your understanding of Jesus, God and hell; “Will a person who doesn’t believe in God and lives an evil life go to hell?’ ‘Yes’. ‘Ok, will a person who doesn’t believe in God but does good go to hell?’ ‘Well, yes. You have to believe in Jesus, we are not saved by works alone.’ ‘Right, so what if a person has done many good deeds but has never heard the Good News?’ ‘Umm, I think so…maybe not. God can see their heart’. ‘Ok, so it is based on how God views them, not on believing in Jesus?’ ‘Umm, no you have to believe, but if you have never heard of Jesus, God is just and will search the persons heart.’ ‘Ok, so I guess that applies to children and babies too who die before their time?’ ‘Yes of course, God would never send a baby to hell.’ ‘Good, but where is this taught in the bible?’, ‘I’ll have to look that one up….’. ‘Ok, what about people who live a life of faith, but another faith’. ‘Well, Jesus is the only way’. ‘So if someone loves God and serves His purpose, helping others, contributing to society and bringing peace and compassion to all those around them, he will go to hell if he’s from another faith. But a person who, say, has lived an anti-social life, causing harm and pain to everyone around them, an essentially, classically evil person, sincerely asks God for forgiveness and believes in Jesus on their death bed will go to heaven?’ ‘Well its not as clear cut as that, but I guess, yes’.
Let me reiterate; I am not a universalist, and I adhere to The Salvation Army doctrines as an officer within its ranks. I am not convinced about the theology of universal salvation, and there are many real and important issues that strain biblical credibility within this concept. However it brings up important and foundational questions about our lives as Christians. The conversation above shows how quickly we assume that we know the mind of God. The question of what happens after death is ambiguous at best, considering we will all find out, but not till it is our time. Therefore, perhaps as Christians it is best to leave the concept of hell to God, go about our mission as Christians, but have the idea that all will eventually be brought back to God as our hope.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Burnt Toast
This year has been a difficult one for me personally. I have had a turbulent introduction into the politics of a major corporation, being that The Salvation Army is also a Christian movement this has made some of the issues particularly difficult to swallow. The other day I was talking to my wife Peta and she turned to me and said matter of factly, “your burnt toast”! By burnt toast she was implying that I wasn’t so much burnt out, as being burnt out and not really recovering. I have to say that she is right. I wouldn’t say that I am burn out right now or that I’m a shell of the man I was, but there is definitely elements of ‘burnt toast’ about me. It’s interesting that we can at times let people or situations take our peace, joy, passion and compassion. There’s a Psalm that I will paraphrase which talks to God saying in essence, “God, you have allowed my path to become dangerous and me to be consumed by bitterness….But you will restore me.” This is my hope at the moment, for restoration. Despite me being ‘burnt toast’, there is still the capacity within the amazing love and compassion of God to restore me, create in me a clean heart and to renew my spirit. Regardless of the challenges, I have grown as a person and have experienced great joy, with many personal achievements and milestones. I guess that’s like a bit of peanut butter on my burnt toast.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Salvos - moving forwards or backwards?
I was recently reading an article in TIME magazine about how the fundamental and militant section of Islam had rose to prominence and was overshadowing an older more mystical version. This version called Sufism is more introspective and peace loving then the Al Queda and other fundamental versions. Unfortunately, due to diminishing world power, Sufism was not considered to be as viable an option for many Muslims as was the more ‘masculine’ or ‘aggressive’ brands of Islam. The results have been clear and disastrous – increased war and terror reign because of this path that many have taken. It made me think about The Salvation Army and its approach. It seems it too was borne out of a desire to make Christianity more ‘aggressive’ and militant. The resulting Army gradually settled into the dominant culture that surrounded it and became a tool of social justice and change. However, in recent times there has been a resurgence of this masculine, fundamental and aggressive Christianity. Perhaps this is in retaliation to the more liberal and esoterical direction that the Army was heading in at least the Southern Territory of Australia, in large part due to the influence of non-religious employees. Often these paid workers showed greater compassion, drive and grace then the salvo counterparts. As a result, some within the Army seems to think that this is a bad thing and that it has affected the mission and direction of the Army. Thus we return to a time that the Army was wonderful .…..and so is borne, ‘aggressive Christianity’, and ‘primitive Salvationism’, terms coined to incite strong reactions. Particularly from young people who want nothing more then to make a difference in the world here and now. These young people become the backbone of the movement embracing the idea of an ‘acting’ Army, before they develop the alibility to critically think through their decisions. Faith is very difficult and complex, requiring years to work through the multiple layers, consequences and challenges that arise. While the fundamental type of Army is very appealing it has the ability to create a high potential cost to all involved. I think we live in a world where this fundamental type of faith in practice can be very damaging. Damaging to both those who take part and those who are in the so-called firing line of this new fundamental movement. This happens to the young people who are adherents of the movement, becoming burnt out and disillusioned when deep questions of faith obliterate many of the often shallow answers purported by fundamentalists. Damage to those who are told it is Jesus or Hell, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve and believe or burn. Christianity is a way of Love, grace, peace and joy, yet this fundamental Salvationism quietly promotes ways of thinking that are inherently counter these basic premises. We have seen the consequences of this type of rigid belief system within the religion of Islam, and while what I am expressing is on a whole different level, it can come from the same place within each of us. This is the most challenging part. Are we becoming subversively xenophobic? Is aggressive and primitive Salvationism appropriate? Is maintaining war like metaphors in a world torn apart by war necessary? The Salvation Army today must be different from The Salvation Army of 120 years ago, if only due to the learned experiences. When I was 15 I was a moron when I look back compared to myself at 31. How much more should a church look back and hope to have changed and grown.
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Language of God
I have recently finished reading “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. Francis Collins was the head scientist of the Human Genome Project that mapped the entire human genome. Francis Collins is one of the leading scientists of our generation, a dedicated Christian and a believer in evolution. Many Christians would find this disheartening and threatening, I find it thought provoking and exciting. Let me say now that I believe whole-heartedly in evolution, the creation alternative really doesn’t make much sense to me theologically or scientifically. Clearly the creation story in the book of Genesis is a poem, well really it is two distinct poems. This story can teach us a lot about the human condition and give us an understanding of Jewish thought about the beginning of all things, but in no way is it a literal road map of how the earth began. It seems to me that God works gradually and is in no hurry when creating. To watch the process of human development from sperm and egg to foetus then into a new born, followed by 21 years of growth into adulthood. This process is long and difficult, something I see reflected in all areas of life. Why would God create this way now, but in the beginning decide to take 6 days. Furthermore, Genesis says that to God a day is like a thousand days, and 1000 days like a day. This is a way of saying that God doesn’t care about the mechanics of time, especially not like we humans do. As far as science goes Creationism just doesn’t hold any credibility or weight. The world is far older then 10,000 years, this has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
When I was a kid I was always told that evolution is a theory, and the science behind it was all about guessing and estimating, a theory that was not proven. While evolution is a theory, the term theory is not what it appears. In the scientific realm a theory means that it has been proven, it is considered a fact, just as the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity is fact. It is not the word theory like we use in common day language. The science of evolution is the same science, which has sent rockets to the moon, gets our cars from A to B and allows us warmth and light in our homes. By undermining evolution we are basically saying we don’t believe in the scientific concepts behind those things we use and have faith in every day of our lives.
The big bang shows me that there has been a beginning (there are radiation waves that can be detected which originated from the big bang – a fact, it really happened!). God forged this beginning with the divine purpose of creating life and for this life to come to know God and have union with God. Evolution doesn’t break faith down; it enhances and energises it. Well it has for me anyway :)
When I was a kid I was always told that evolution is a theory, and the science behind it was all about guessing and estimating, a theory that was not proven. While evolution is a theory, the term theory is not what it appears. In the scientific realm a theory means that it has been proven, it is considered a fact, just as the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity is fact. It is not the word theory like we use in common day language. The science of evolution is the same science, which has sent rockets to the moon, gets our cars from A to B and allows us warmth and light in our homes. By undermining evolution we are basically saying we don’t believe in the scientific concepts behind those things we use and have faith in every day of our lives.
The big bang shows me that there has been a beginning (there are radiation waves that can be detected which originated from the big bang – a fact, it really happened!). God forged this beginning with the divine purpose of creating life and for this life to come to know God and have union with God. Evolution doesn’t break faith down; it enhances and energises it. Well it has for me anyway :)
Friday, July 24, 2009
Dante's Inferno
I have been reading Inferno by Dante. This poem, along with similar artistic works, has been instrumental in shaping much of our thought on both heaven and hell over the past few hundred years. It is disconcerting for me to read something that Dante wrote, which was heavily influenced by Hellenistic mythology and his own politics of the day, that has so much similarities to many of the sermons and Christian talk about hell and heaven today. We need to go back to the New Testament and actually find out what Jesus in particular was talking about in reference to both heaven and hell. I think there are many people who would be surprised. I find it difficult to articulate my understanding of God with the Inferno of Dante, even though this is perhaps the typical conservative Christians view. I believe in justice, and the justice of God, and I don't think that everlasting torment and anguish is in line with this view of Jesus.
As John Pilch wrote: "The purpose of God's judgment is not punitive but redemptive".
As John Pilch wrote: "The purpose of God's judgment is not punitive but redemptive".
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Harm Minimization
Harm minimization is an often-maligned word within The Salvation Army. Even though our social programs operate under the banner of harm min, the majority of church members and the general public do not easily understand it. There have been various forum discussions that have involved Alcohol & Drug (AOD) treatment, needle exchange and legalised brothel work, which have shown an incredible amount of ignorance on the subject of harm min. While this is quite a broad topic, I thought I would write a short explanation in laymen’s terms of harm min.
Harm min is a public health policy that has as its primary aim to keep people as healthy as possible for as long as possible. Harm min is based on three pillars of theory and action 1) Harm Reduction 2) Supply Reduction and 3) Demand Reduction. This encompasses reducing harm to society and individual, reducing the supply of the harmful activity through policing etc. and reducing demand, which is early intervention and education etc.
Abstinence has often been seen as the alternative to harm min, when in fact it is a significant aspect of it. Abstinence is often the ultimate form of harm min. To ultimately stay away from the thing that is hurting you is the goal, but why do we care so much if an addict needs to use a drug, but aren’t so concerned when a fat person rushes in at the buffet table. Rather then people dying of heroin overdose or the myriad of health complications that come with heroin use, methadone or another pharmacotherapy can be used to reduce the harm to the individual. Rather then getting HIV, Hep C or another blood borne virus through the use of dirty and re-used syringes, needle exchange gives single use clean syringes. This results in less HIV and other infections in the general population and reduces the harm to the individual. Harm min is practised in many areas of society without too much thought. Nicobate gum and patches to help smokers quit is a harm min strategy. Gastro band surgery for obese people is harm min strategy to reduce the capacity for an individual to consume food. The anti-reflux tablets I’m on is harm min to stop me getting cancer of the gut. So, harm min is widely used in our society. It is only when our personal moral biases cloud the argument that we come into trouble. Addicts and prostitutes shouldn’t have the same right to being protected as the obese Christian who needs the intervention of the gastro band surgery. It is a moral issues not based on compassion or justice. Harm min is a compassionate philosophy, rooted in the pursuit of justice for the individual and society.
Harm min is a public health policy that has as its primary aim to keep people as healthy as possible for as long as possible. Harm min is based on three pillars of theory and action 1) Harm Reduction 2) Supply Reduction and 3) Demand Reduction. This encompasses reducing harm to society and individual, reducing the supply of the harmful activity through policing etc. and reducing demand, which is early intervention and education etc.
Abstinence has often been seen as the alternative to harm min, when in fact it is a significant aspect of it. Abstinence is often the ultimate form of harm min. To ultimately stay away from the thing that is hurting you is the goal, but why do we care so much if an addict needs to use a drug, but aren’t so concerned when a fat person rushes in at the buffet table. Rather then people dying of heroin overdose or the myriad of health complications that come with heroin use, methadone or another pharmacotherapy can be used to reduce the harm to the individual. Rather then getting HIV, Hep C or another blood borne virus through the use of dirty and re-used syringes, needle exchange gives single use clean syringes. This results in less HIV and other infections in the general population and reduces the harm to the individual. Harm min is practised in many areas of society without too much thought. Nicobate gum and patches to help smokers quit is a harm min strategy. Gastro band surgery for obese people is harm min strategy to reduce the capacity for an individual to consume food. The anti-reflux tablets I’m on is harm min to stop me getting cancer of the gut. So, harm min is widely used in our society. It is only when our personal moral biases cloud the argument that we come into trouble. Addicts and prostitutes shouldn’t have the same right to being protected as the obese Christian who needs the intervention of the gastro band surgery. It is a moral issues not based on compassion or justice. Harm min is a compassionate philosophy, rooted in the pursuit of justice for the individual and society.
Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher and theologian. He is considered to be the father of existentialism and was a pivotal in the lives of philosophers such as Nietzsche - ironic that Kierkegaards thoughts were based around expressing his faith and yet resulted in a philosophy that doesn't include God and revolves around the meaninglessness of life.
Here are some of my favourite Soren Kierkegaard quotes:
- Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.
- During the first period of a man's life the greatest danger is not to take the risk.
- Face the facts of being what you are, for that is what changes what you are.
- If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.
- It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey.
- Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.
- Listen to the cry of a woman in labor at the hour of giving birth - look at the dying man's struggle at his last extremity, and then tell me whether something that begins and ends thus could be intended for enjoyment.
- Once you label me you negate me.
Here are some of my favourite Soren Kierkegaard quotes:
- Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.
- During the first period of a man's life the greatest danger is not to take the risk.
- Face the facts of being what you are, for that is what changes what you are.
- If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.
- It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey.
- Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.
- Listen to the cry of a woman in labor at the hour of giving birth - look at the dying man's struggle at his last extremity, and then tell me whether something that begins and ends thus could be intended for enjoyment.
- Once you label me you negate me.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Power Quotes by Ellul
Two Quotes by Jacques Ellul on power to contemplate:
"No matter what God's power may be, the first aspect of God is never that of the absolute Master, the Almighty. It is that of the God who puts himself on our human level and limits himself."
“So I can very well say without hesitation that all those who have political power, even if they use it well have acquired it by demonic mediation and even if they are not conscious of it, they are worshippers of diabolos.”
"No matter what God's power may be, the first aspect of God is never that of the absolute Master, the Almighty. It is that of the God who puts himself on our human level and limits himself."
“So I can very well say without hesitation that all those who have political power, even if they use it well have acquired it by demonic mediation and even if they are not conscious of it, they are worshippers of diabolos.”
Anarchy, Christianity and me
The word Anarchy comes from a Greek root which translates to ‘no ruler’ and has several meanings which have developed. These are several of those meanings:
"No rulership or enforced authority."
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."
“Legitimacy of a state is gained through consent, not through coercion.”
When you look at these definitions it becomes more easy to associate Christian practice and tradition with the philosophy of anarchy. The basic premise of anarchy states that we can all live together in harmony through the application of our free will. When this free will is governed by selfishness, greed and other destructive forces anarchy will create a lawless state of chaos. But if the free will embraces peace, love and hope, then anarchy becomes the ideal state of being for Christians and is perhaps a snapshot of heaven. While we wait for heaven to unite with earth, our Christian communities can take this form of anarchy and begin to live it today, as do some communities that operate without direct governence and ministerial hierarchies. You may wonder why someone like me is advocating anarchy when I am part of one of the most autocratic Christian movements in the world, but there is method to my madness. I believe in the power of transformation. I believe that while The Salvation Army may not be a vehicle for anarchy, it is a vehicle for bringing about liberation and freedom from oppression. Through the social justice arm of The Salvation Army, it puts individuals in a position to exercise their free will and either embrace freedom and a spiritual life without rulership or to take on the yolk that often is the church. Regardless, free will is paramount, and part of freedom is the ability to have choice. I am part of The Salvation Army with my eyes wide open, fully aware of the burden that it can be to some people with its beuracratic structure. I feel that while I am able, I will take this burden off of those people who I meet that need help, freedom or transformation. Giving them time to heal and make the changes necessary to move forward. While I am an officer I still am only answerable to God and therefore, not overly concerned with career or political ramifications that may lay in wait when taking certain stands in the Army. I do not respect someone as an authority figure in my life just because of their rank or title. I respect them as an authority when they have shown they deserve that trust. In this way I can ‘give to Ceaser what is Ceasars’ while functioning as a theoretical anarchist. When the time comes that I can no longer bear the yolk, I will put it down and walk away.
"No rulership or enforced authority."
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."
“Legitimacy of a state is gained through consent, not through coercion.”
When you look at these definitions it becomes more easy to associate Christian practice and tradition with the philosophy of anarchy. The basic premise of anarchy states that we can all live together in harmony through the application of our free will. When this free will is governed by selfishness, greed and other destructive forces anarchy will create a lawless state of chaos. But if the free will embraces peace, love and hope, then anarchy becomes the ideal state of being for Christians and is perhaps a snapshot of heaven. While we wait for heaven to unite with earth, our Christian communities can take this form of anarchy and begin to live it today, as do some communities that operate without direct governence and ministerial hierarchies. You may wonder why someone like me is advocating anarchy when I am part of one of the most autocratic Christian movements in the world, but there is method to my madness. I believe in the power of transformation. I believe that while The Salvation Army may not be a vehicle for anarchy, it is a vehicle for bringing about liberation and freedom from oppression. Through the social justice arm of The Salvation Army, it puts individuals in a position to exercise their free will and either embrace freedom and a spiritual life without rulership or to take on the yolk that often is the church. Regardless, free will is paramount, and part of freedom is the ability to have choice. I am part of The Salvation Army with my eyes wide open, fully aware of the burden that it can be to some people with its beuracratic structure. I feel that while I am able, I will take this burden off of those people who I meet that need help, freedom or transformation. Giving them time to heal and make the changes necessary to move forward. While I am an officer I still am only answerable to God and therefore, not overly concerned with career or political ramifications that may lay in wait when taking certain stands in the Army. I do not respect someone as an authority figure in my life just because of their rank or title. I respect them as an authority when they have shown they deserve that trust. In this way I can ‘give to Ceaser what is Ceasars’ while functioning as a theoretical anarchist. When the time comes that I can no longer bear the yolk, I will put it down and walk away.
Power, Ellul and Faith
While I was at Salvo College I had a lot of time to reflect on my faith and where I fit in the scheme of things. This led to many debates with like minded and not so like minded college mates. I began reading some of the great Christian thinkers writings to further uncover what I believed. Starting with Origen, I worked through to Hans Kung, then on to Kierkegaard, then Jacques Ellul and finally finding some peace with NT Wright. During this journey through great books, no author impacted my thinking like Ellul. He wrote extensively on Christianity’s relationship with anarchy and the need for grassroots faith to be anchored by a solid life of anarchy, and the need to confront, reject and oppose power wherever and whoever it may reside. This is a very challenging idea for many, as Christianity has so many rules and requirements which limit the inner anarchist. While Ellul may be too extreme for some, I believe that he uncovered a fundamental truth in regards to the Christian faith. Power is a devastating force that will gradually corrupt and erode the character of even the most well intentioned person. While there are many people who I have spoken to about this issue that strongly believe that power in the right hands will result in good being done, one only needs to look at our politicians to see the gradual rooting that takes place once power is gained. Kevin Rudd for example is a politician that I admire, I voted for him in the last election and was pleased to see his rise to the Prime Minister. Here is a man who has written some very impressive theological papers and claims the renowned Christian thinker, Boenhoeffer is a hero of his. He has a professed faith in God and a social heart. Yet since he has taken power he has been involved in some very ugly, potentially corrupt political manoeuvres. To top this off he decided that giving out $900 to everyone, even the exceptionally rich, was the answer to the world financial crises, rather than investing in infrastructure. But I digress. Since being in The Salvation Army, I have personally seen what power can do to people and the blatant temptation of power that is offered to people who are professing to be followers of Jesus. My next blog will look at two Jacques Ellul quotes and their significance in the life of faith.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
I have recently linked my blog to my facebook account. This is a huge step in the electronic evolution for me as I am fairly inept in these matters. Once upon a time you needed to be a talented thinker or writer to have your thoughts and feelings seen by other people in the form of books or other publications. Now anyone can reveal their thoughts to the world through the facebook, myspace, twitter or blogging communities. While there may be some negatives to this new freedom, overall it is a fantastic way to rebuild our eroding sense of community. Society is setup in such a way that the individual is the ultimate pillar holding up all things. This break down of interdependance on one another leads to lonliness, isolation and despair. These online tools provide an avenue to community which has the potential to be the beginning of renewing community in all of our lives.
Monday, June 22, 2009
My Friend Captain Faz
I have few good friends, due mainly to my inability to keep up communication, a personal flaw forged over years of being an officers kid who moved around alot and had many transient relationships. Despite this I consider a few people very special and try to keep contact with them, even if its only every 6 months. One of these people is Craig Farrell who is a champ. For those of Australian salvo background, no doubt you know faz, but if you dont he is a little smart a%$# with a brilliant mind. He is studying a masters in social research and policy and I am attaching one of his essays on religious fundamentalism which I really liked. I dont know how to attach documents so I have to include it in the main post. Read and enjoy.
Religious belief and faith informs people on how to seek personal contentment and how to care for the ‘other’ in society, this within its self provides no cause for alarm socially or politically. When religion does become a problem is when faith under the guise of fundamentalism seeks to exclude, judge, and explicitly spread understandings of hate towards members of society who are different from themselves. These understandings are direct results of religious people ‘closing the mind’ to the realities of life and the practice of faith. Religious fundamentalists rely on ‘holy scriptures’ as being the only truth and way to live life in the present. This notion of faith being fixed and closed will be explored further in this essay alongside, narrow beliefs and doctrines, the validity of religion in society, and the mystery of why violence is so prevalent amongst fundamentalist religious groups. To do this I will look at various theorists on the validity of religion and other theorists on religious fundamentalism.
To begin with I wish to explore just how believable, religion and faith can or cannot be. The adherence to a religion in the main requires a belief in a ‘being’ beyond our own existence, namely God or forms of that being.
“… the question of the existence of God can either be asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer – whether negative or affirmative – implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as to deny it. God is being itself, not a being.”[1]
Therefore to believe in God requires a belief that not necessarily questions the existence of God, but that our knowledge of the existence of God can never be explained. This is something that religious fundamentalists cannot begin to fathom; every aspect of their faith derives from, what is true in their minds - religious fact. Sam Harris strongly argues against the existence of God and struggles to comprehend how people can begin to believe in God and ‘divine’ scriptures in the first instance. “In fact, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable.”[2] Faith can legitimately be practised and understood, as a valid expression of ‘living life’ when it is accepted amongst believers that faith cannot be proven, that is not to say, that what is believed is not true, nor is it to say that it can be proven. Faith found in the majority of religions testifies to spreading values of hope, love and peace, it is the distortion of these values by fundamentalists that causes opposition or causes questions around religion. At the same time these values are generally, also legitimately shared amongst all humanity. We all wish to seek love, peace and goodness. Harris also states that there is room for religious spirituality and mysticism, as long as it is on good terms with reason.[3] Reason itself is subjective and the pursuit of science will never prove or disprove the existence of God. Faith will never be fully proven, however it is not a threat when it is practised with openness, rationally, and with an intention to include ‘the other’. Harris is correct in saying that belief in religion is not always conceivable, however at the same time its practice still finds value.
The question of belief is central to understanding the motivation of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists perceive themselves to be firm believers, proclaiming an unshakable truth, or as Karen Armstrong describes a ‘militant piety’. “Fundamentalism is an unsatisfactory term, but it is widely used to describe a militant piety that has developed in every major religion during the 20th Century.”[4] So it is with this unapologetic boldness that fundamentalist movements operate, however the motivation behind such facades is not so bold. Fundamentalists operate out of a culture of fear; the power of their movement is perceived to be threatened by progress or by the notion that what is contained in the ‘holy book’ is no longer true or relevant. Armstrong takes this further, “…every single fundamentalist movement that I have studied in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam has been rooted in fear, convinced that the secular, liberal establishment wants to wipe out religion.”[5] The majority of fear is linked to moral social issues such as sex to name one example. Particularly from Evangelical Christian movements and western religious right groups, the fear of potential breakdowns of traditional ideals of ‘family’ and ‘purity’ is a real threat to not only their movements but also the whole ‘holy ordinance’.
“Contemporary evangelicals have concerns about sex and sexuality that focus on issues regarding social order and control – especially over women’s bodies and desires. Within the evangelical framework, lack of control over sex and the desires of the body are thought to threaten the integrity of the soul.”[6]
Susan Rose refers to the voice of the Religious Right in regards to sex education in schools in the USA and their insistence on an abstinence based approach. “Religious Right groups use sophisticated, fear-based tactics in their abstinence-only programs: “Just say no or die.”[7] It seems the fear of fundamentalist groups loosing control serves as a good enough excuse to perpetuate fear into others with sophisticated campaigns, however at the same time being very simplistic in nature. Ignorance and fear are a form of violence, especially when no intention exists to facilitate dialogue or listen to those where opposition or lack of empathy exists. It is from such a closed and dogmatic mindset that fundamentalism causes harm, in both subtle and explicit forms of violence.
So is there an alternative for religious practice? Harris calls for a form of rational spirituality. “A truly rational approach … of our lives would allow us to explore the heights of our subjectivity with an open mind, while shedding the provincialism and dogmatism of our religious traditions in favour of free and rigorous inquiry.”[8] Such a sentiment is fantastic in theory but unlikely in practice, the road is long especially for the established institutionalised religions where ‘holy scripture’ and inerrant doctrines seem fixed entities. Religious fundamentalism will always be with us whilst these creeds are still preached and taught at the mainstream level. From an unwillingness to re-examination traditional doctrines fundamentalism has arisen out of fear and the dangerous belief that ‘they are right’ and ‘others are wrong.’ Vorster alludes to fundamentalists being reactionary in nature; their desire is always to antagonise, and to confront in closed ways, the enemy. “Religious fundamentalism is usually caused by the fear of a perceived enemy. Fundamentalists define themselves in large by what they are against.”[9] Identity is focused around what may be lost and there is no desire for openness or re-learning.
One aspect that has threatened the belief systems of all religions is the rise of modernity. “Modernization confronts all religious traditions with a choice. The polar extreme options are accommodation or resistance: either they try to salvage fragments of their wicked cultural ship while riding the social and cultural tide; or they try to fight back.”[10] It is a strong belief in what Dawkins, Farley and many others describe as ‘absolutes’ that contributes to an unreasoning and aggressive fundamentalist voice. “Fundamentalism arises when the self-preserving ethnocentrism, natural egocentrism, literalism, and cosmology, in short, religion’s traditional meditations, work to maintain themselves in the new Diaspora of religion in the secularized cultures of modern nation-states.”[11] Fundamentalism shows a strong belief in the old inerrant ways of ‘holy scripture’, where there is no room to move beyond what is known and perceived to be righteous. “[Absolutism] constitutes a major reason for suggesting that religion can be a force for evil in the world.”[12]
The characteristic of the inerrant ‘holy scripture’ emphasises the close mindedness of fundamentalists and it is an underlying cause of fundamentalism. One main commonality is the certain belief that God is in control, the text must be right because God has ordained it and is the direct author. No one then is in a position to argue with this, whether atheist or not.
“The “three religions of the Book” namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism have, in spite of deep-rooted differences in theology and ethics, one remarkable similarity. All three are prone to fundamentalism because of the danger of a literalist use of the respective scriptures ... the literalist use of scripture can be regarded as the most important characteristic of fundamentalism.”[13]
The main danger of a literalist and inerrant view of scripture is that it fails to connect with any relevance for society today. This is not to say that certain scriptural texts and values are not relevant at all, but religious texts must be read within context, taking into account authorship and historicity as well. William Swatos sees T.K. Oommen’s definition of fundamentalism helpful, “text without context”.[14] Harris refers to the focus on scripture as ‘The world beyond reason’, where religious texts are considered to be stand-alone, and where “nothing justifies arrogant and exclusionary claims.”[15] It is true that claims alone in the Christian Bible are difficult to comprehend regardless of time or space, (for example, the virgin birth) but particularly dangerous are the claims around morality and the relationship of God and State. Examples from Christian fundamentalism that stem from literalist scripture interpretation involve issues around sexuality, gender concerns, abortion, and race. Similar evidence exists with Islamic fundamentalists; the Qur’an “is the revealed word of God and for Muslims, to invoke the Qur’an, is to invoke God.”[16] The literal reading of Islamic texts is the cause of the inferior position of women, capital punishment and the practice of Jihad and martyrdom. Here the focus is on a strong devotion to God over any form of warfare – any form of violence in the name of Jihad is directly ordained by God. The literal reading of religious texts plays ignorance to the current realities of society and is the cause for bigotry and violence. There is no excuse for such closed interpretations especially when the desire to bring harm or discriminate others is the focus. “I meet in the literal understanding of Scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot believe the heart can finally never adore.”[17] Genuine faith is not based on absolutes but mystery and spirituality found in the everyday realities of life. “Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief.”[18] Faith is not necessarily about evidence, it cannot be easily proved, nor can it be disproved. Dawkins and others will find it hard to find evidence, at the same time religious people must read religious texts within context, or risk the dangers of fundamentalism.
The violence that stems from fundamentalist ideology is enormous, destructive, and can be both subtle and explicit. “The notion of a sacred cause on the side of God declares the “other” as enemies of God and the use of violence as a legitimate course of action.”[19] This statement is true of all religious fundamentalist groups, however in recent years it has been most obvious by Islamic fundamentalists. The trend has seen a militancy approach with the increase in global terrorism involving suicide bombings and or other terrorist actions. Rooted deeply within militant fundamentalism are aspects that were discussed earlier, for example fear of being ‘taken over’ and the closed belief that one’s practice of religion is the only true and right one to be followed and adhered to. “In spite of these teachings, Jihad is interpreted in Islamic fundamentalism as military action to protect the Islam rule and culture in times of oppression or military aggression against the Islamic countries.”[20] Subtler are Christian evangelical movements who tend to focus on moral concerns. Fundamentalism becomes problematic when peoples private spheres are scrutinised and deemed wrong, totally dismissing the worth of others. Classic examples are found in fundamentalist opposition to homosexuality, abortion, and people of non-Anglo origin. As Bob Altemeyer argues, fundamental beliefs regardless of their religious significance are associated with bigotry.[21]
Religious fundamentalism is an aspect of religion that intentionally seeks to prove its inerrant views of ‘holy scripture’ as truth, the only truth, bringing with it an ideology that perpetuates prejudice, fear, violence, unrealistic and outdated moral views, and racism. The essence and beauty of faith is that most things remain a mystery. To begin to prove this mystery hinders the intention of practising genuine faith. Religious belief alone is no threat to truth or reason when it is realistically connected to society, and is open to listening, providing spiritual guidance and compassion to all people.
[1] P. Tillich, cited in M. Thompson, Philosophy of Religion London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1997, p. 115
[2] S. Harris, The End of Faith. Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, New York, W. W. Norton, 2006, p. 23.
[3] S. Harris, The End of Faith, p. 43.
[4] K. Armstrong, Fundamentalism and the secular society, International Journal, 59(4): Fall 2004: p.875.
[5] K. Armstrong, p. 875.
[6] S. Rose, Christian Fundamentalism: Patriarchy, Sexuality, and Human Rights, in C. W. Howland, Religious Fundamentalisms and the Human Rights of Women, London, Macmillan Press, 1999, p. 13.
[7] S.Rose, p.14.
[8] S. Harris, The End of Faith, p. 42.
[9] J. Vorster, Perspectives on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 7(21): Winter 2008: p. 51.
[10] S. Bruce, Fundamentalism, Maldon, USA, Blackwell Publishers, 2000, p. 117.
[11] E.Farley, Fundamentalism. A Theory, Cross Currents, 55(3): Fall 2005: p.392.
[12] R. Dawkins, The God Delusion, London, Bantam Press, 2006, p. 286.
[13] J. Vorster, Perspective on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, p.49.
[14] W. Swatos, Globalization Theory and Religious Fundamentalism, in P. Kivisto, Illuminating Social Life 4th Edition, California USA, Pine Forge Press, 2008, p.332.
[15] S. Harris, The End of Faith, p. 40.
[16] J. Vorster, Perspective on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, p. 46.
[17] S. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, New York USA, HarperCollins Publishers, 1991, p. 24.
[18] R. Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 282.
[19] J. Vorster, Perspective on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, p.56.
[20] J. Vorster, Perspective on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, p. 57.
[21] B. Altemeyer, Why Do Religious Fundamentalists Tend to be Prejudiced?, The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13(1): 2003: p. 19.
Religious belief and faith informs people on how to seek personal contentment and how to care for the ‘other’ in society, this within its self provides no cause for alarm socially or politically. When religion does become a problem is when faith under the guise of fundamentalism seeks to exclude, judge, and explicitly spread understandings of hate towards members of society who are different from themselves. These understandings are direct results of religious people ‘closing the mind’ to the realities of life and the practice of faith. Religious fundamentalists rely on ‘holy scriptures’ as being the only truth and way to live life in the present. This notion of faith being fixed and closed will be explored further in this essay alongside, narrow beliefs and doctrines, the validity of religion in society, and the mystery of why violence is so prevalent amongst fundamentalist religious groups. To do this I will look at various theorists on the validity of religion and other theorists on religious fundamentalism.
To begin with I wish to explore just how believable, religion and faith can or cannot be. The adherence to a religion in the main requires a belief in a ‘being’ beyond our own existence, namely God or forms of that being.
“… the question of the existence of God can either be asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer – whether negative or affirmative – implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as to deny it. God is being itself, not a being.”[1]
Therefore to believe in God requires a belief that not necessarily questions the existence of God, but that our knowledge of the existence of God can never be explained. This is something that religious fundamentalists cannot begin to fathom; every aspect of their faith derives from, what is true in their minds - religious fact. Sam Harris strongly argues against the existence of God and struggles to comprehend how people can begin to believe in God and ‘divine’ scriptures in the first instance. “In fact, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable.”[2] Faith can legitimately be practised and understood, as a valid expression of ‘living life’ when it is accepted amongst believers that faith cannot be proven, that is not to say, that what is believed is not true, nor is it to say that it can be proven. Faith found in the majority of religions testifies to spreading values of hope, love and peace, it is the distortion of these values by fundamentalists that causes opposition or causes questions around religion. At the same time these values are generally, also legitimately shared amongst all humanity. We all wish to seek love, peace and goodness. Harris also states that there is room for religious spirituality and mysticism, as long as it is on good terms with reason.[3] Reason itself is subjective and the pursuit of science will never prove or disprove the existence of God. Faith will never be fully proven, however it is not a threat when it is practised with openness, rationally, and with an intention to include ‘the other’. Harris is correct in saying that belief in religion is not always conceivable, however at the same time its practice still finds value.
The question of belief is central to understanding the motivation of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists perceive themselves to be firm believers, proclaiming an unshakable truth, or as Karen Armstrong describes a ‘militant piety’. “Fundamentalism is an unsatisfactory term, but it is widely used to describe a militant piety that has developed in every major religion during the 20th Century.”[4] So it is with this unapologetic boldness that fundamentalist movements operate, however the motivation behind such facades is not so bold. Fundamentalists operate out of a culture of fear; the power of their movement is perceived to be threatened by progress or by the notion that what is contained in the ‘holy book’ is no longer true or relevant. Armstrong takes this further, “…every single fundamentalist movement that I have studied in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam has been rooted in fear, convinced that the secular, liberal establishment wants to wipe out religion.”[5] The majority of fear is linked to moral social issues such as sex to name one example. Particularly from Evangelical Christian movements and western religious right groups, the fear of potential breakdowns of traditional ideals of ‘family’ and ‘purity’ is a real threat to not only their movements but also the whole ‘holy ordinance’.
“Contemporary evangelicals have concerns about sex and sexuality that focus on issues regarding social order and control – especially over women’s bodies and desires. Within the evangelical framework, lack of control over sex and the desires of the body are thought to threaten the integrity of the soul.”[6]
Susan Rose refers to the voice of the Religious Right in regards to sex education in schools in the USA and their insistence on an abstinence based approach. “Religious Right groups use sophisticated, fear-based tactics in their abstinence-only programs: “Just say no or die.”[7] It seems the fear of fundamentalist groups loosing control serves as a good enough excuse to perpetuate fear into others with sophisticated campaigns, however at the same time being very simplistic in nature. Ignorance and fear are a form of violence, especially when no intention exists to facilitate dialogue or listen to those where opposition or lack of empathy exists. It is from such a closed and dogmatic mindset that fundamentalism causes harm, in both subtle and explicit forms of violence.
So is there an alternative for religious practice? Harris calls for a form of rational spirituality. “A truly rational approach … of our lives would allow us to explore the heights of our subjectivity with an open mind, while shedding the provincialism and dogmatism of our religious traditions in favour of free and rigorous inquiry.”[8] Such a sentiment is fantastic in theory but unlikely in practice, the road is long especially for the established institutionalised religions where ‘holy scripture’ and inerrant doctrines seem fixed entities. Religious fundamentalism will always be with us whilst these creeds are still preached and taught at the mainstream level. From an unwillingness to re-examination traditional doctrines fundamentalism has arisen out of fear and the dangerous belief that ‘they are right’ and ‘others are wrong.’ Vorster alludes to fundamentalists being reactionary in nature; their desire is always to antagonise, and to confront in closed ways, the enemy. “Religious fundamentalism is usually caused by the fear of a perceived enemy. Fundamentalists define themselves in large by what they are against.”[9] Identity is focused around what may be lost and there is no desire for openness or re-learning.
One aspect that has threatened the belief systems of all religions is the rise of modernity. “Modernization confronts all religious traditions with a choice. The polar extreme options are accommodation or resistance: either they try to salvage fragments of their wicked cultural ship while riding the social and cultural tide; or they try to fight back.”[10] It is a strong belief in what Dawkins, Farley and many others describe as ‘absolutes’ that contributes to an unreasoning and aggressive fundamentalist voice. “Fundamentalism arises when the self-preserving ethnocentrism, natural egocentrism, literalism, and cosmology, in short, religion’s traditional meditations, work to maintain themselves in the new Diaspora of religion in the secularized cultures of modern nation-states.”[11] Fundamentalism shows a strong belief in the old inerrant ways of ‘holy scripture’, where there is no room to move beyond what is known and perceived to be righteous. “[Absolutism] constitutes a major reason for suggesting that religion can be a force for evil in the world.”[12]
The characteristic of the inerrant ‘holy scripture’ emphasises the close mindedness of fundamentalists and it is an underlying cause of fundamentalism. One main commonality is the certain belief that God is in control, the text must be right because God has ordained it and is the direct author. No one then is in a position to argue with this, whether atheist or not.
“The “three religions of the Book” namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism have, in spite of deep-rooted differences in theology and ethics, one remarkable similarity. All three are prone to fundamentalism because of the danger of a literalist use of the respective scriptures ... the literalist use of scripture can be regarded as the most important characteristic of fundamentalism.”[13]
The main danger of a literalist and inerrant view of scripture is that it fails to connect with any relevance for society today. This is not to say that certain scriptural texts and values are not relevant at all, but religious texts must be read within context, taking into account authorship and historicity as well. William Swatos sees T.K. Oommen’s definition of fundamentalism helpful, “text without context”.[14] Harris refers to the focus on scripture as ‘The world beyond reason’, where religious texts are considered to be stand-alone, and where “nothing justifies arrogant and exclusionary claims.”[15] It is true that claims alone in the Christian Bible are difficult to comprehend regardless of time or space, (for example, the virgin birth) but particularly dangerous are the claims around morality and the relationship of God and State. Examples from Christian fundamentalism that stem from literalist scripture interpretation involve issues around sexuality, gender concerns, abortion, and race. Similar evidence exists with Islamic fundamentalists; the Qur’an “is the revealed word of God and for Muslims, to invoke the Qur’an, is to invoke God.”[16] The literal reading of Islamic texts is the cause of the inferior position of women, capital punishment and the practice of Jihad and martyrdom. Here the focus is on a strong devotion to God over any form of warfare – any form of violence in the name of Jihad is directly ordained by God. The literal reading of religious texts plays ignorance to the current realities of society and is the cause for bigotry and violence. There is no excuse for such closed interpretations especially when the desire to bring harm or discriminate others is the focus. “I meet in the literal understanding of Scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot believe the heart can finally never adore.”[17] Genuine faith is not based on absolutes but mystery and spirituality found in the everyday realities of life. “Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief.”[18] Faith is not necessarily about evidence, it cannot be easily proved, nor can it be disproved. Dawkins and others will find it hard to find evidence, at the same time religious people must read religious texts within context, or risk the dangers of fundamentalism.
The violence that stems from fundamentalist ideology is enormous, destructive, and can be both subtle and explicit. “The notion of a sacred cause on the side of God declares the “other” as enemies of God and the use of violence as a legitimate course of action.”[19] This statement is true of all religious fundamentalist groups, however in recent years it has been most obvious by Islamic fundamentalists. The trend has seen a militancy approach with the increase in global terrorism involving suicide bombings and or other terrorist actions. Rooted deeply within militant fundamentalism are aspects that were discussed earlier, for example fear of being ‘taken over’ and the closed belief that one’s practice of religion is the only true and right one to be followed and adhered to. “In spite of these teachings, Jihad is interpreted in Islamic fundamentalism as military action to protect the Islam rule and culture in times of oppression or military aggression against the Islamic countries.”[20] Subtler are Christian evangelical movements who tend to focus on moral concerns. Fundamentalism becomes problematic when peoples private spheres are scrutinised and deemed wrong, totally dismissing the worth of others. Classic examples are found in fundamentalist opposition to homosexuality, abortion, and people of non-Anglo origin. As Bob Altemeyer argues, fundamental beliefs regardless of their religious significance are associated with bigotry.[21]
Religious fundamentalism is an aspect of religion that intentionally seeks to prove its inerrant views of ‘holy scripture’ as truth, the only truth, bringing with it an ideology that perpetuates prejudice, fear, violence, unrealistic and outdated moral views, and racism. The essence and beauty of faith is that most things remain a mystery. To begin to prove this mystery hinders the intention of practising genuine faith. Religious belief alone is no threat to truth or reason when it is realistically connected to society, and is open to listening, providing spiritual guidance and compassion to all people.
[1] P. Tillich, cited in M. Thompson, Philosophy of Religion London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1997, p. 115
[2] S. Harris, The End of Faith. Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, New York, W. W. Norton, 2006, p. 23.
[3] S. Harris, The End of Faith, p. 43.
[4] K. Armstrong, Fundamentalism and the secular society, International Journal, 59(4): Fall 2004: p.875.
[5] K. Armstrong, p. 875.
[6] S. Rose, Christian Fundamentalism: Patriarchy, Sexuality, and Human Rights, in C. W. Howland, Religious Fundamentalisms and the Human Rights of Women, London, Macmillan Press, 1999, p. 13.
[7] S.Rose, p.14.
[8] S. Harris, The End of Faith, p. 42.
[9] J. Vorster, Perspectives on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 7(21): Winter 2008: p. 51.
[10] S. Bruce, Fundamentalism, Maldon, USA, Blackwell Publishers, 2000, p. 117.
[11] E.Farley, Fundamentalism. A Theory, Cross Currents, 55(3): Fall 2005: p.392.
[12] R. Dawkins, The God Delusion, London, Bantam Press, 2006, p. 286.
[13] J. Vorster, Perspective on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, p.49.
[14] W. Swatos, Globalization Theory and Religious Fundamentalism, in P. Kivisto, Illuminating Social Life 4th Edition, California USA, Pine Forge Press, 2008, p.332.
[15] S. Harris, The End of Faith, p. 40.
[16] J. Vorster, Perspective on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, p. 46.
[17] S. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, New York USA, HarperCollins Publishers, 1991, p. 24.
[18] R. Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 282.
[19] J. Vorster, Perspective on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, p.56.
[20] J. Vorster, Perspective on the Core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism Today, p. 57.
[21] B. Altemeyer, Why Do Religious Fundamentalists Tend to be Prejudiced?, The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13(1): 2003: p. 19.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
I'm back
This is my first post since march. This is a poor effort by me, and I'm sure the legions of readers of this blog have been devastated :) Never fear I will try to be more diligent and try to rant about Jesus some more. Some interesting developments in bullet form of the last 3.5 months.
- I was a warehouse and distribution manager for the salvos during the fires
- I turned 31
- Isabella is now 18 months old
- My brother and his beautiful wife had another bub, Stella.
- I finished my post grad dip in international health and will embark on a doctorate of the same course
- I wrote a 35 page proposal to the Department of Human Services for the start of a drug and alcohol day program in Bendigo to replace Overdale which burnt down
- I have been questioning my officership
- I discovered that power and bullying is a worrisome part of salvation army culture
Anyway more on stuff in the near future
- I was a warehouse and distribution manager for the salvos during the fires
- I turned 31
- Isabella is now 18 months old
- My brother and his beautiful wife had another bub, Stella.
- I finished my post grad dip in international health and will embark on a doctorate of the same course
- I wrote a 35 page proposal to the Department of Human Services for the start of a drug and alcohol day program in Bendigo to replace Overdale which burnt down
- I have been questioning my officership
- I discovered that power and bullying is a worrisome part of salvation army culture
Anyway more on stuff in the near future
Monday, March 2, 2009
3 H's - Homosexuality: part 2
I recently watched a movie called 'Milk', in which Sean Penn won the best actor oscar this year. It is the story of the first publically elected openly gay man in America. Harvey Milk, the main character, is killed for being who he is. What struck me in this movie was the lack of equal rights that homosexuals had in the USA only 20 years ago. People could be fired from their jobs if it could be proved that they were gay, they were open to constant vilification and abuse and many of their rights were ignored or absent. I was watching this as the most privilaged type of human: white, western, male and heterosexual, trying to fathom what it would be like to not be able to work or marry because of whom I loved. It is hard to understand, and my prayer is that all those who follow Christ will embrace our brothers and sisters who are gay and fight alongside them against bigotry and oppression, so that they may have the same rights as everyone else.
Friday, February 27, 2009
3 H's - Homosexuality: part 1
The lack of equal rights for Homosexuals is something that this generation will be ashamed to have been associated with. The poor acceptance of our society to embrace and try to understand homosexuals is an indictment on our governments, social insitutions and churches. 50 years ago, if you were divorced you were ostracised by the church. Today you can be divorced multiple times and be a minister. While we have progress in this area, we are still sorely behind with the rights of gay men and women. I find it hard to fathom why the church still has this fear of homosexuality. The Salvation Army is the biggest charity in Australia, it has a reputation of being fair and equitable. Below is a part of the salvos position statement on homosexuality:
"Homosexuality is broadly defined as being sexually attracted to, having a definite sexual preference for, people of the same gender. It is The Salvation Army's belief that, whilst recognising the possibility of such orientation, (the origins of which are uncertain), the Bible expressly opposes homosexual practice, seeing such activity as rebellion against God's plan for the created order."
This statement is the basis for the salvos to oppose homsexuality as a legitiamate sexual orientation and one in which God condones. But where is this biblical evidence they speak of? there is no direct scriptual references attached to this statement but they follow it with this:
"The Bible teaches that God's intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions. Such unions (marriages), having the potential for procreation, lead to the formation of social units (families), which are essential to human personal development and therefore to the stability of the community."
The bible teaches statement is interesting as the heterosexual unions of the bible involved one man, many women and the exchange of cattle. In our society we are opposed to bigamy and selling people, but biblically speaking this is what constituted 'Gods intention for humankind'. It is a flimsy response to a very complex and sensitive issue. If reproduction is the basis of union, then those who cannot have children should not be able to marry. This is of course a ridiculous statement, but it is a direct outcome of this kind of thinkning. I have seen families that have been horrible examples of humanity, heterosexual couples that should not be parents and are evil abusers of their children, but because they are heterosexual, this union has been blessed by God. There is imbalance in this view.
The biblical world view is not our world view, and just as we have altered out thinking of biblical expectations of marriage and divorce, so too must we alter our view of homosexuality. Jesus spoke against divorce very strongly, but never raised the issue of homosexuality. Yet we accept divorced ministers and castigate homosexual ones. Perhaps in this regard it is best to take our lead from the guy we are meant to be mirroring our actions on.
"Homosexuality is broadly defined as being sexually attracted to, having a definite sexual preference for, people of the same gender. It is The Salvation Army's belief that, whilst recognising the possibility of such orientation, (the origins of which are uncertain), the Bible expressly opposes homosexual practice, seeing such activity as rebellion against God's plan for the created order."
This statement is the basis for the salvos to oppose homsexuality as a legitiamate sexual orientation and one in which God condones. But where is this biblical evidence they speak of? there is no direct scriptual references attached to this statement but they follow it with this:
"The Bible teaches that God's intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions. Such unions (marriages), having the potential for procreation, lead to the formation of social units (families), which are essential to human personal development and therefore to the stability of the community."
The bible teaches statement is interesting as the heterosexual unions of the bible involved one man, many women and the exchange of cattle. In our society we are opposed to bigamy and selling people, but biblically speaking this is what constituted 'Gods intention for humankind'. It is a flimsy response to a very complex and sensitive issue. If reproduction is the basis of union, then those who cannot have children should not be able to marry. This is of course a ridiculous statement, but it is a direct outcome of this kind of thinkning. I have seen families that have been horrible examples of humanity, heterosexual couples that should not be parents and are evil abusers of their children, but because they are heterosexual, this union has been blessed by God. There is imbalance in this view.
The biblical world view is not our world view, and just as we have altered out thinking of biblical expectations of marriage and divorce, so too must we alter our view of homosexuality. Jesus spoke against divorce very strongly, but never raised the issue of homosexuality. Yet we accept divorced ministers and castigate homosexual ones. Perhaps in this regard it is best to take our lead from the guy we are meant to be mirroring our actions on.
Brother Andrew
Before I launch my tirade on homosexuality, human rights and hell (3 H's) I want to introduce a good friend of mine and fellow blogger, Andrew Walton. Andrew and I went to salvo college together and was instrumental in me making it through 2 years of difficult times. We would often spend hours debating theological and spiritual concepts, which helped me define many of my beliefs. He has started a blog at: http://andrewwalton.blogspot.com/ and it is well worth your while to check him out. He is a bit like a velvet sledge hammer, what he says may come across polite, considerate and almost placid, but it will rock your world. Go see Andrew!
Controversial Topics - The 3 H's
Well the fires in Victoria have taken up much of my time the past 3 weeks. I have been seconded from my role in drug and alcohol and given the task of cataloging and distributing donated goods at the salvation army's warehouse in central victoria. This has been an interesting experience and I am looking forward to getting back into my normal role. Despite the fire threat still present and the recovery process being ongoing, I have decided to steer this blog towards some controversial topics. There are 3 topics that I will explore in the upcoming posts and the are all interconnected in some way. They are: Homosexuality, Human rights and Hell.
I feel I need to digress at this point. I am not a liberal Christian. I have some quite liberal friends (shout out to fazzell and Awol - you know who you are Craig and Andrew...sorry!) But I certainly am not fundamental. I would probably describe myself as a liberal orthodox Christian. Essentially though, labels mean nothing and we are left with our understanding of scripture, our world context and what we know of the Spirit of God. Through these things my opinions have taken shape, and while I believe many things that drive my liberal friends nuts; such as a litteral physical resurrection, future physical resurrection, Jesus as God etc. I also have strong views on things that would see me disbarded and dismembered from many Christian communities. At the end of the day, we must be driven by the need to fulfill the call of God on our lives, despite prevailing or popular opinion, and thus my views on the 3 H's. Here ends the preamble. Please respond and argue away at the following posts.
I feel I need to digress at this point. I am not a liberal Christian. I have some quite liberal friends (shout out to fazzell and Awol - you know who you are Craig and Andrew...sorry!) But I certainly am not fundamental. I would probably describe myself as a liberal orthodox Christian. Essentially though, labels mean nothing and we are left with our understanding of scripture, our world context and what we know of the Spirit of God. Through these things my opinions have taken shape, and while I believe many things that drive my liberal friends nuts; such as a litteral physical resurrection, future physical resurrection, Jesus as God etc. I also have strong views on things that would see me disbarded and dismembered from many Christian communities. At the end of the day, we must be driven by the need to fulfill the call of God on our lives, despite prevailing or popular opinion, and thus my views on the 3 H's. Here ends the preamble. Please respond and argue away at the following posts.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Why I'm a salvo
Having been heavily involved in the salvation army's response to the victorian bushfires, I feel a sense of pride being a salvo. To have access to and be able to help so many people because of the salvo brand, has been a great experience. It reminds me of why I'm a salvo. I wanted to be an officer so I could take advantage of the opportunities being a salvo provides. To be able to be involved in the immediate response to emergencies on this scale and then involved in the recovery process so hands on is a job that many churches are not able to be part of, let alone do. There are many problems with the army and its autocratic power hungry structure, but there are good aspects. And the army's response to the victorian bushfires has clearly shown the good parts of the salvation army, and reminded me of why I'm still a salvo.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Vic Bushfire Update: Overdale interview
I did an interview on ABC rural radio on the impact of Overdale being razed to the ground. I have attached the link if you want to listen to the interview. http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2009/02/11/2488073.htm
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Vic Bushfire Update: Thank God for the CFA
The public relations catch cry of the salvos is 'Thank God for the Salvos'. But as this dark week continues, I think that it can easily be applied to the CFA. When me and my hombre Simon Pickens were feeding the fire fighters in between there shifts, one of the guys, covered head to toe in ash, looked at me through the soot and said, 'you guys do such a great job'. What a revealing thing to say. Here these guys are risking there lives as volunteers, fighting fires and telling the food servers ther doing a great job. Thank God for the CFA!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Vic Bushfire Update: CFA Superheroes
The volunteer fire men and women of the CFA (Country Fire Authority) are certainly heroes, as evidenced by the amazing work that they have been doing in response to the bush fires. But what I have discovered is that they are in fact superheroes. I was at the supermarket earlier today buying some supplies for kids affected by the fires. A maintainance guy who was working near the check out commented on what I was purchasing and the fact that I was in salvo uniform. He started talking about his role in the fires, as he was a CFA volunteer. Here was a man going about normal life doing his day job, who had 24 hours earlier been fighting the worst bush fire in Australian recorded history. These men and women who saved lives, property and livestock who showed incredible mateship towards one another, are normal folk in our communitys. Just like superheroes though, in times of distress and emergency, they shed their normal day clothes and become firefighters staring into the face of the hell.
Vic Bushfire Update: Overdale burnt to the ground
I will be writing a few posts dedicated to the vic bushfires which are affecting many people at the moment. As a previous post of mine showed, I was given an appointment at Overdale a youth drug and alcohol rehab. Unfortunately it has been burnt to the ground. All clients and staff were evacuated and there were no injuries, which is a great outcome. The clients were relocated and the staff are being cared for by the great work of the manager there. Many houses and property have been impacted by these fires along with the tragedy of human loss it is a devestating time. Living in Bendigo, we have been directly involved with the statewide emergency services response, which has been a privilege. I will post an update soon.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Mark 'Hyperreal' Sayers
Mark Sayers is a superstar. When I was a teenager at Camberwell Salvos Mark was the youth pastor there, doing crazy and awesome things. It didn't work out and the salvos let go another emerging prophet. Anyway, he's pretty much an emerging church guru in Australia and he has his blog - which is really good. You all must now go and read his latest post on the emerging church and the impact of hyppereality. Please, dont wait, click on his blog! http://marksayers.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/hyperreal-emerging-missional-churches/
Thursday, February 5, 2009
new position
I have just been given a change of appointment. I will be leaving my previous role as Network Director of Bendigo Community Services and be taking up a role as Program Coordinator for AOD services, which basically means I will help run Overdale Youth Rehabilitation Centre and the Transitional Units in Bendigo and the counselling team located there also. This change for me is exciting as I can focus on what I feel most passionate about - working with people. I will be staying in Bendigo (an hour and twenty commute to and from the only down side), Peta stays as Divisional Drought Coordinator, and Isabella will stay in her Day Care! For thsoe who have been praying for us - thank you and please keep going.
Rant on Power (part 3)
What I love about the previous posts bible verse's is the fact that even though these guys had been with Jesus for quite some time, they had missed the point. It gives me some relief in my own life, and allows me to give other people that same grace. I think that the disciples arguing over power is akin to our church leaders jostling for position in the hierarchy of the church. Within the Salvation Army and its autocratic structure, this is made even more appealing to the ambitious officer. Army officers are not paid well, so financial motivation is not a factor in the pursuit of power. Popularity of the masses is rare for an officer, as the Army is almost cultish in its 'secret squirrel business', so the desire for power to be recognised is not a motivating factor. Therefore, officers persue power for powers sake alone (I am saying officers, but it can easily be pastors, priests, bishops etc.) This pursuit of power is particuarly damaging because it is insatiable and only meets its need through the failure or subjugation of a fellow minister. It creates a situation where it is inconvenient to be spiritually motivated. Jesus said at the end of it all that he came to serve, this is certainly a counter cultural thought within the hierarchy of the church. Many observers can be confused by the fact that the Army serves multitudes of marginalised within our communities. I am not talking about that service, but the internal ladder climbing that takes place within the Army. Rather then being satisfied with service, many church leaders want power, to control. The second bible verse show two disciples, even after being rebuked previously, wanting to be the top dogs of the crew. When the other boys heard about this they were annoyed and upset - no doubt because they didn't get in first. But Jesus constantly and consistently teaches the message of service, service, service. We must try hard to follow the example of Jesus here and put down our ambition, regardless of whom it may benefit, and concentrate absolutely on service.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Rant on Power (part 2)
I find it interesting that the desire for power has been with Christians and the church since it began. One of my favorite bible passages, due to its timeless message and frank commentary on human nature is found in the gospel of Mark. There are two sets of verses that occur directly after each other that show something of the pride of the disciples and the desire for power. I will show them on this blog and in my next post comment. Please take the time to read them and enjoy the interplay of what the writer is trying to convey and the dynmaics of the disciples.
Mark 9:33-37 (NIV)
Who is Greatest?
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."
36He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."
And then a little further on in the text:
Mark 10:35-45
The Request of James and John
35Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.
37They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
38"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"
39"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."
41When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Mark 9:33-37 (NIV)
Who is Greatest?
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."
36He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."
And then a little further on in the text:
Mark 10:35-45
The Request of James and John
35Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.
37They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
38"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"
39"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."
41When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Monday, February 2, 2009
Rant on Power (part 1)
I have recently been confronted with a situation where power has been dangled in front of me as an incentive in my work. I eventually rejected this and am subsequently in the process of trying to re-claim my ministry (and to some degree, my soul). The process of working through this attractive proposition of power was very difficult. I think there are a few reasons for this, but most compelling is that our culture encourages us to blindly persue power in all parts of our lives. It is disheartening to realise that often the worlds view of us is shaped by how powerful we may or may not be. I was informed that I may never get an opportunity like this again and that I would basically fall behind the pack if I didn't take it. The really sad thing was that this was presented in the form of a ministry opportunity. There is good news though, when we reject power and its trappings, people dont know how to deal with us and we can begin to take back our humanity. Once you turn your back on the lure of power and success, it ironically gives you back your freedom, which is the only positive aspect of power. I will post again about this topic soon.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
change of heading
Hello friends,
I decided to change the title of the blog - not the address this time, to reflect what I feel this blog has become in its embryonic stages. That is a forum for people to have their say about different things, and I feel excited by that. Ranting is an important human act, it relieves stress and helps us express things that are often suppressed and controlled. So please keep on with the rants and join in the discussions with your fellow ranters!
I decided to change the title of the blog - not the address this time, to reflect what I feel this blog has become in its embryonic stages. That is a forum for people to have their say about different things, and I feel excited by that. Ranting is an important human act, it relieves stress and helps us express things that are often suppressed and controlled. So please keep on with the rants and join in the discussions with your fellow ranters!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Go meet John 'the Rev' Jensen
Hello folks,
My old mentor and friend John Jensen has begun blogging again. I encourage you to visit his blog: reverendjohn.blogspot.com. He has a fascinating story and is actively trying to share his faith as a Christian anarchist and emerging church planter. He is passionate and has a thorough and critical mind, so go and check out his blog and join in the festivities.
My old mentor and friend John Jensen has begun blogging again. I encourage you to visit his blog: reverendjohn.blogspot.com. He has a fascinating story and is actively trying to share his faith as a Christian anarchist and emerging church planter. He is passionate and has a thorough and critical mind, so go and check out his blog and join in the festivities.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Hello my friends,
I have changed my address to my name. But as you are reading and have received my email you probably already know this. Its funny how our tastes change - especially in western culture. We tend to bore fairly easily, whether its with a blog address, favourite t shirt or even a partner, we like to look for something that is better then we already have. Dont know what the answer is as we are all victims of our dominant cultures default settings. I will post again soon to elaborate.
I have changed my address to my name. But as you are reading and have received my email you probably already know this. Its funny how our tastes change - especially in western culture. We tend to bore fairly easily, whether its with a blog address, favourite t shirt or even a partner, we like to look for something that is better then we already have. Dont know what the answer is as we are all victims of our dominant cultures default settings. I will post again soon to elaborate.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Day two
Well here I am again - faithful to the cause of blogging. I have had an experience at work in the past couple of days that has forced me to reflect on my future, which happens to me from time to time. I came to the conclusion that security and familiarity can often become tools which stop the vital work of change and growth in our lives. As humans we react so poorly to change, particuarly change that occurs after long periods of service or loyalty. Our reaction, which is perfectly normal, can be grief and fear. In my work with people with alcohol and drug issues this was always the last barrier to those ready to have a life without drug use. The complete change of life. It is a very daunting thing, yet those who have had the courage to walk that path have had incredible transformation experiences. There are times in life when we react to circumstances in an emotional way and change occurs due to this. This I think can be unhelpful in the long term, someone once told me that 'you should never get off a train when its going through a dark tunnel'. When we react emotionally to our situation we can make sweeping changes which cause regret. However if we wait till the train pulls up to the station and decide to get off, this will lead to new opportunites. I know that I need to keep in mind that change is good and when opportunity presents itself I hope I have the courage to take it.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Formal Introductions
Welcome to my blog! I dont know if anybody will read this as I am fairly illiterate in the ways of the blog and anything to do with the internet really. However I recognise the importance of a tool such as blogging and as such am determined to air my views. To start with I am a salvation army officer and as such many of my views reflect this. However I dont live in a silo and believe whole heartedly in interfaith dialogue and understanding. I love different forms of church and am excited when people try new things. In saying that I have a particular interest in the emerging church. I believe that The Salvation Army (TSA) is in a prime position to grasp the vision of the emerging church and create a new way to go forward. In saying this I feel that we must learn from the success and failures of others. TSA has a history of innovation but has become somewhat insula and taken on a wait and see approach in recent times. The emerging church can emerge and become a potent anarchist movement, pushing against the Empire (the ruling powers which do all they can to maintain their control and power) to instigate change. TSA with its privilaged position as the biggest charity in Australia and the reputation it has within the community can stand for the most impoverished of our global community in a fresh way. TSA was a prophetic movement and needs to re-capture that, and the medium could be the emerging church movement. I believe that currently the emerging church has too narrow a focus, aimed at meeting people in a third place context and in doing so has veered away from a foundational concept of mission. I believe as Christians our focus must be the most oppressed and marginalised, not just within our social network or local area but within a global context. I feel that the emerging church fails in this area and can sometimes be a meeting place for disenfranchised christians not motivated by much other than shared discouragement. I am not opposed to the emerging concept and consider such Australian emerging church giants such as Alan Hirsch and Mark Sayers and my old mentor John Jensen as friends and prophets. Yet I cannot escape the reality that people are dying all over the world from the most preventable and inexcuseable causes. Until the church has come up with an adequate response to this, I feel we are missing the point and becoming far too western centric. The main goal of the church united and all followers of Christ should be to help through various social justice acts those of the developing world. I believe that at the heart of social justice and mission must be the concerted effort to advocate, lobby and militantly oppose third world debt. Eradication of third world debt is the most important social action of Christians in this day and age and will one day be an indictment on our generation if we have not helped to provide a way forward. I am not an expert on economics, but I do know what I have discovered through my studies: the sins of the father are carried by his sons and daughters. Third world debt has created a situation where new generations are litterally paying the price of the mistakes of previous generations. Children are not being educated or getting adequate food and health care, because of the cumbersome debt racked up by their grandparents. This is the ultimate injustice. In the west we can file for bankruptcy when we are unable to pay our debts, yet these countries can not do the same thing, instead we have a situation where the poor are paying the wages of the rich. Rather then investing all our time in finding new ways to do church, we must as a church find new ways to change the balance of the empire. I'll finish my initial post with a quote that sits close to my heart:
"Poverty wields its destructive influence at every stage of human life, from the moment of conception to the grave. It conspires with teh most deadly and painful diseases to bring a wretched existence to all those who suffer from it" - World Health Organisation
"Poverty wields its destructive influence at every stage of human life, from the moment of conception to the grave. It conspires with teh most deadly and painful diseases to bring a wretched existence to all those who suffer from it" - World Health Organisation
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
