culture – Page 8 – Christ the Truth

Questions of Faith 2

GlenNovember 22, 2010Leave a comment

Following on from here.

How should 'faith schools' be treated in a multi-cultural, multi-faith society?

................................................................................................

Every school is a faith school. Every school will communicate an ethos, a grand vision of what makes for ‘the good life’, what is valuable, what is worthless, what we should aspire to, what we should reject. Every school is a faith school just as every person is a person of faith. We all have some object of hope and desire to which we look. We all give ourselves to ‘something greater’ which becomes our life-shaping object of devotion. We all have a ‘heaven’ we day-dream about and a ‘hell’ we seek to avoid. We all hold ourselves and others to account using some particular measure. We all have faith commitments that shape our lives.

In our particular culture, we think nothing of sending off our children aged 5 years old to be educated by the state. This is just one more example of how we unthinkingly trust in the state from the cradle to the grave. When there is a social ill, we ask “What will the government do to sort it out?” Everyone’s looking for a Saviour, and for many people, the State is it. We trust in the state to feed us, to clothe us, to heal us, to protect us and to educate us.

So for many it’s just a no-brainer to send their children from the age of 5 to be educated by the state. And for the next decade and more, we trust the state to inform our children’s minds for a very great proportion of their waking lives. The government approved curriculum will educate them on matters including religion, family, sex and relationships. A good education should encompass all these things. But there is no neutral way to teach such subjects. For instance, to present all religions as equally valid is itself a religious view – it’s called religious pluralism. And it is a religious view intolerant of billions of people on our planet. (It’s ok to disagree with billions of people, but it’s good to be up-front that you’re doing so).

So it turns out that teaching from a faith perspective is inescapable. All schools are faith schools. It's just that state schools are a lot more clandestine about it. Usually people worry that the 'faith schools' are covering something up. Actually, they are the ones coming clean that they do and they must teach according to certain faith commitments.

Which means all schools should be transparent about the what and the how of their teaching. 'Faith school' should certainly not be a cloak for secrecy. If there’s anti-semitism or racism or the glorification of war in the syllabus, it needs to be exposed to public scrutiny. But we should not bring everything to the bar of secular pluralism, for that turns out to be a faith position of considerable intolerance.

..............................................................................................

To be honest, I don't know what else to say on this topic. Thoughts anyone?

Privatised faith? Try privatised remembrance

GlenNovember 11, 2010Leave a comment

Nine years ago today I was driving over Commonwealth Bridge in Canberra. It was a few seconds before 11 and I was listening to Triple J (Austalia's Radio One). The DJ said something almost exactly like...

It's coming up to 11 o'clock on the 11th of the 11th and traditionally people like to pause for a minute's silence to remember those who sacrificed themselves to defend life and liberty. So, if that's something you'd like to do, turn off your radio because here's the latest track from Garbage... [music starts to blare]

What just happened? The DJ was acknowledging the fact of remembrance but wasn't himself observing it. And he was acknowledging our right to remember but it wasn't going to affect him or his public broadcast. He sold it as a very inclusive stance - "You do what you want to do, I'll do what I want to do. Everyone's happy right?"

Well, no. Not everyone was happy. Now I'm not saying that every radio station must go quiet at 11am. But we should acknowledge that the "Switch off the radio if it's important to you" option is not a win-win compromise. There are significant losers in that approach.

Because there are some things that can't be privatised. There are beliefs that are good and right and proper but, by their nature, they impinge on other people. They affect other people's personal choice and, unapologetically, take up public space. Remembrance is a great example of this.

And maybe we'll come to a place where our culture is unwilling to pay the price of infringements to our liberties and Remembrance will be entirely privatised. But of course, that would be the death of Remembrance.

In which case what we're saying is that all beliefs (Remembrance included) must bow the knee to our real object of faith: "Personal Choice". But let's just be aware that that's the powerplay that has just occured. And all in the name of inclusivity and tolerance of course.

All of which shows that privatising faith is not the way to an inclusive, tolerant society. Because there are good beliefs that cannot be privatised. To insist on their privatisation proves the most exclusive and intollerant path.

Christian Cosmology [a repost]

GlenNovember 4, 2010Leave a comment

A real mish-mash of thoughts...

Everyone - theologians, scientists, historians, philosophers, etc - we all follow a method of enquiry summed up by Anselm's motto faith seeking understanding. This is not simply how Christians do theology, science, history and philosophy, it's how all creatures must proceed. We believe certain axiomatic truths, we have heart commitments to certain ways of viewing reality, and we move out into the world on these bases, finding confirmation as we go.

Here's an older post on how the Large Hadron Collider is a great example of this.

Here's another post arguing that all scientists are believers.

And below is a sketch of some things a Christian can positively say about cosmology.

I'll just jot down three thoughts on the multiverse, two quotes from Barth and then a suggestion about how to proceed with Christ at the centre of our thinking.

The multiverse

1) The Bible teaches a division of creation into invisible and visible - the heaven and the earth. There is a non-observable realm - and it's vitally important and related to the seen realm. But this is not the same as the observable universe versus the non-observable multiverse. For the bible, the heavenlies are a counterpart to earth in a way analagous to the unseen Father's correspondence to His visible Image, Jesus.

2) The seen and unseen realms are reconciled to one another in the decisive, once-for-all event of the crucifixion. (Col 1:20)

3) There simply is no room in a Christian cosmology for multiple incarnations or multiple atonements. And this is really the downfall of the multiverse - its relation to Christ. Christ does not bridge multiple universes in multiple incarnation, He bridges heaven and earth in His singular incarnation.

Two Barth Quotes from Dogmatics in Outline

“‘Heaven and earth’ describe an arena prepared for a quite definite event, in the centre of which, from our standpoint of course, stands man.” (p60)

“…heaven and earth are related like God and man in the covenant, so that even the existence of creation is a single, mighty signum, a sign of the will of God. The meeting and togetherness of above and below, of the conceivable and the inconceivable, of the infinite and the limited – we are speaking of creation. All that is the world. But since within this world there really exist an above and a below confronting one another, since in every breath we take, in every one of our thoughts, in every great and petty experience of our human lives heaven and earth are side by side, greeting each other, attracting and repelling each other and yet belonging to one another, we are, in our existence, of which God is the Creator, a sign and indication, a promise of what ought to happen in creation and to creation – the meeting, the togetherness, the fellowship and, in Jesus Christ, the oneness of Creator and creature.” (p64)

How to proceed in Christian cosmology

Beginning from 'the Cosmic Fine-Tuner' would be like beginning with heaven alone. Beginning from the standpoint of the anthropic principle would be like beginning with earth alone. The Christian can refuse both options. We begin with the heavens and the earth - the theatre of God's Glory. Of course God's Glory is His Son, dying to save. The cross is the crux of creation (Col 1:20). When we begin with this in mind we are able to relate the unseen and seen coherently.

The Christian knows that not only is there a Word (Logos) to make sense of the world - not only an explanation beyond. That Word became flesh, taking our world to Himself. Therefore the Word from beyond has become a Word in our midst. The Christian can simultaneously be in touch with this world and with its Explanation - they are one in Christ.

While we ought not to approach Christ 'according to the flesh' (2 Cor 5:16), still according to the Spirit there is a way of examining this earthed Logos. Now 'according to the Spirit' means 'according to the Scriptures' and therefore this will be a thoroughly theological enquiry. And yet it will not for that reason be a groundless, ethereal investigation. This world in its this-world-ness has been taken up into the life of God and proven to be, beyond any question, a realm fit for God (Col 2:9).

Now that we have seen the creative Word in the world and now that we have seen Him - the visible Image - reconcile the world to the invisible Father in the creative Spirit, we have seen a triune dynamic that is inherent to all creation. Interpenetration of spirit and flesh, then and now, unseen and seen is at the heart of reality. This will lead us to expect similar perichoretic dynamics in the created order. As we move on from what the bible strictly says about creation, we will wear these bible-glasses to investigate creation. This conceptual framework will help us to understand the inter-related-ness of space and time, of waves and particles etc etc.

Just some sketches of thoughts...

Environmentalism – the new religion

GlenOctober 6, 2010Leave a comment

For the Church, the problem is clear. Environmentalism can offer all the upsides of faith – the sense of community, of certainty, of moral superiority – with none of the nagging doubts. The idea that Jesus died for your sins can be hard to get your head around. How much simpler, and how much more appropriate for our age, is the idea that you can save your soul, and the world, simply by shopping in the organic aisle.

Read the whole of this insightful little piece here.

And the Onion, as always, nails the issue:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYbR7os_q9k"]

More from the blog religious environmentalism here.

Do artists make the best apologists?

GlenSeptember 9, 2010Leave a comment

Bono on the gospel.

Twould make an excellent gospel tract if you ask me.

Fit Darwinists Discuss Not Reproducing

GlenSeptember 3, 2010Leave a comment

A fascinating discussion about children on an atheist website.

What happens among fit Darwinists when there's not really a struggle for life? Is there an (evolutionary) imperative to reproduce?

Of course for unfit humans ('unfit' defined by the strong!) the consistent answer must be No. They should not reproduce. (Never forget the subtitle for Origin of the Species: 'On the preservation of favoured races...')

But what about the fit? Especially when their self-preserving instincts tell them this...

I enjoy my freedom and the amount of $$$ I spend and time to raise a child would not equal the joy I would get from having a child

Therefore the overwhelming sentiment of the discussion is summed up in this comment:

This site does a better job than I ever could of explaining the plethora of reasons to *not* bring another eating, pooping carbon footprint into our already bloated planet

I think you'll agree this is an excellent summary of how to view, not only children but any unproductive member of the human race, through Darwinian eyes.

Of course they express disappointment that they are being outbred by the religious. But self-preservation seems to be a far greater motivation than preservation of their own kind.

One commenter found the courage to call planned childlessness "selfish and very self-absorbed." For him, 'spreading our seed' is 'our only real chance at eternal life'. He was quickly rounded on by another commenter:

Chance for eternal life? There is no such thing... Reality is a hard pill to swallow, but intellectual honesty demands it. Your desire for eternal life & your fluffy idealism of parenthood & children doesn’t change it.

Anyway... a fascinating insight into a subculture and into the future (or otherwise) of an idea.

The Importance of Not Being Too Earnest

GlenJuly 17, 2010Leave a comment

If there's one thing Oscar Wilde teaches us about comedy it's the vital importance of not being earnest. If Earnest was earnest there'd be no Earnest - if you catch my drift.

Whatever you put at the centre of your comedy it cannot be earnestness or else it will pull all things down into it's righteous self-absorption.

Which brings me to Rev - the new BBC sitcom set in an East London church. At the centre is Adam, a well-meaning priest who seems world-weary long before his time. We've only had three episodes but from the outset he seems worn out by the clash of his sincere liberalism and the harsh realities of modern ministry. His heavy soul weighs down the whole show and there just aren't any interesting characters to offset this earnest-overload. The writers seem very aware of this, desperately trying to punctuate the morass with some fairly blunt sex gags. Something's got to break up the moralism.

Maybe this sounds weird coming from a minister - but the whole thing is just way too preachy. The punchlines all fall to Adam who turns them into sermonettes:

Colin isn't vital to anyone, Darren, except God. And if God loves you, Darren, then he loves Colin just as much.

In any other comedy this would be the feedline. In Rev it's the punchline.

Now there are ways of communicating the love of God creatively. But you couldn't shift gears more clunkily if Adam turned to camera and said "You know guys, if you're affected by any of these issues, phone the number on your screen..."

So much comedy works off pricking the bubbles that Rev produces. But it's usually a wide-eyed, joyful bubble pricked by a caustic, insightful wit. Think of Blackadder with Baldrick, or Peter Cook with Dudley Moore, or Basil Fawlty with the Major / Manuel, or Del Boy with Rodney, or Sir Humphrey with Jim Hacker, or Bernard with Manny, or Mark with Jez. There's an ebullience and joy to the bubble and a razor-sharp riposte to burst it.

But in Rev it's a tired moralistic bloat bludgeoned by sex gags (oo er vicar).

And it's not as though you need a sardonic crank at the heart of the show. In the church context, Father Ted and The Vicar of Dibley worked exceptionally well as comedies - I'd say largely because there was a joie de vivre in the central characters. In fact here (and with anything Graham Linehan does) it's not so much about bursting the bubble, more about the bubble gloriously flying off into the stratosphere.

But this is so desperately lacking in Rev and instead we have a black-hole of worthiness in the worst sense.

I think it goes to show something I harped on about last year. There's nothing less joyful, nothing less funny, than taking yourself seriously. True joy comes when we take God seriously but not ourselves.

Can you help with examples of righteous judgement?

GlenJuly 16, 2010February 1, 2014Leave a comment

I'm trying to think of examples from films where the bad guy gets his comeuppance and we punch the air.

So Mark Wahlberg taking down Matt Damon in the Departed.

Or the camp commandant executed at the end of Schindler's List.

Or the dragon eating Lord Farquaad at the end of Shrek.

Any more?

Happy Friday

GlenJuly 2, 2010February 1, 2014Leave a comment

Why does the world with its ""creativity"" and ""artistic excellence"" and ""voodoo rhythms"" make all the best music videos?? Ok, Go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv5zWaTEVkI&feature=channel

Sure, impressive. If you like infectious pop anthems, brilliant choreography, eye-popping spectacle and irrepressible joie de vivre. If you're carnal in other words.

Yet for my money, these fine Christian minstrels below have managed to create an equally jaw-dropping response with a fraction of the expense, planning or talent.

Which, if you ask me, just exemplifies those topsy turvy, right-side-up values of the kingdom. Don't you think?

Seething civility

GlenJune 24, 2010March 9, 2015Leave a comment

Here's a terrific excerpt from One Million Tiny Plays About Britain by Craig Taylor. It was a Guardian column that sadly was never allowed to reach its goal...

Two old women finish their tea at a cafe in Lichfield. One holds the bill...

Anna Oh, you. Now don't be so utterly ridiculous.

Eva I insist. I insist, my dear.

Anna Absolutely not and I won't hear another word from silly old you.

Eva Well, I won't hand it over.

Anna You give it to me right now.

Eva I won't. I won't, and that's the end of it.

Anna I can't have you paying for this, can I?

Eva You paid for the last tea.

Anna And that was nearly a year ago, silly.

Eva Exactly. Just put that wallet away now, you troublemaker.

Anna That's enough. Give it to me.

Eva I'm going to pay and that's that.

Anna Then I'm putting some money in your purse.

Eva You're going nowhere near my purse.

Anna I need to say thank you.

Eva Then a simple thank you's enough.

Anna You know how I feel about this, dear.

Eva Well, fair is fair.

Anna I don't believe it is fair, if you don't mind.

Eva Then you can take me out for a nice meal next time, can't you?

Anna This is my treat.

Eva It is completely my treat and I want to pay. The end.

Anna No. [Pause]

Eva Now sit down. I'm just going to put it on my credit card and we'll go on with our lovely afternoon.

Anna Tell me how much it is.

Eva And we'll see the dahlias out in Biddulph.

Anna I'll sit right here then. I'll just sit.

Eva Well, you're being silly.

Anna You're being silly.

Eva I don't want your money. A simple thank you is fine.

Anna I'd like to give you some money.

Eva Just say thank you now. Just say it.

The anger is palpable.

And notice that their civility isn't actually a cover for their rage - it is precisely the vehicle for it. Far from hiding their hostility, their manners are the menacing thing. They will kill each other with 'kindness.'

But what is this 'kindness' that they hurl at each other?

'Fair is fair.' 'I want to pay.' 'I don't want your money.'

They may as well say 'I don't want your friendship.' For what friendship is founded on 'fairness' and 'payment'? No these are not the words of friends. And this is not a demonstration of good manners. Here their manners are weapons. And they destroy themselves and each other by them.

What is the essence of this 'friendship'? What throbs away at the heart of this 'civility'? It is their refusal to receive in gratitude. The turning of gift into duty. A determination to achieve what can only be given.

And by this mentality, however cultured, they despise the gratuity of God's little pleasures and they despise each other. Here is the clenched fist in the presence of grace. It is the deepest perversion of all our natures.

And it's all amply illustrated by two old ladies in a tea shop.