Wednesday 16 January 2013
More religion
Back in the late seventies when I was a young impressionable student and not long a believing Christian, an American pastor (whom I greatly respected and still do) told me that there were hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of genuine Christians in America. I simply didn't believe him. I immediately said, "There couldn't be: it'd make more of a difference".
Thirty years later, I'm not sure which is sadder: that I eventually came to believe him as a young man -- lowering my expectations of Christianity in the process -- or that I have come to realise that I was probably right to begin with -- that what often passes for Christianity there (as here and elsewhere) is really just more religion moulded to suit its adherents.
Way back then, I left the strictures (and hidden abuses) of Catholicism to follow Christ as I thought, but eventually I found myself following an Evangelical religious agenda that was ultimately little different to that which I'd abandoned. Religion just isn't the answer: Jesus is.
Don't get me wrong: I've met some wonderful and inspiring people along the way. Most of the Evangelical Christians that I've met have been lovely, genuine, sincere, loving, kind people. And they've been very kind to me personally: I'd hate to hurt any of their feelings.
But the political culture that comes across from the American religious right, supported by my friends, is just so right-wing, dogmatic, misled, misleading, and simply wrong ...that I can't stand it. Honestly, I want to have nothing to do with it.
Evangelicals don't speak for God any more than the Pope does. Or the Ayatollah, Dalai Lama, Sun Myong Moon, Bono or Sinéad O'Connor. It's just more religion, a religion invented in America (like Mormonism) and if it could all be outlawed, it'd be a good thing: Christians could just go back to loving God and our neighbour and stop trying to dictate to others.
God bless America and free it from the bondage of religion.
Monday 26 November 2012
The Word of God
A kind of turning point came for me a couple of years back when I realised that God has always had a whole lot more to say to people (and even to express without words) than what has been written down. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God.
We desperately need every word of His. And "God's Word" is not co-terminous with "the Bible". Supremely, He's expressed Himself in His Son. We need to listen.
The Bible itself is replete with instances where God has communicated all manner of things to individual people, without them reading anything or following any particular formula. Some saw visions. Others had dreams. Some were visited by one or more angels. In some cases, we don't know any more than that "the Word of the Lord came to..."
God speaks and we are blessed. Let us not will Him to be silent by insisting that we know all about how He expresses Himself.
We desperately need every word of His. And "God's Word" is not co-terminous with "the Bible". Supremely, He's expressed Himself in His Son. We need to listen.
The Bible itself is replete with instances where God has communicated all manner of things to individual people, without them reading anything or following any particular formula. Some saw visions. Others had dreams. Some were visited by one or more angels. In some cases, we don't know any more than that "the Word of the Lord came to..."
God speaks and we are blessed. Let us not will Him to be silent by insisting that we know all about how He expresses Himself.
Wednesday 21 November 2012
Tweet from Greg Boyd (@greg_boyd)
Greg Boyd (@greg_boyd) tweeted at 12:34am - 21 Nov 12:
Here's a very succinct statement about what Open Theism IS & why it MATTERS. RT:"@ReKnewOrg: Video Q&A on Open Theism http://t.co/5LGRo0mF" (https://twitter.com/greg_boyd/status/271048859709501440)
Get the official Twitter app at https://twitter.com/download
Sent from my iPhone
Here's a very succinct statement about what Open Theism IS & why it MATTERS. RT:"@ReKnewOrg: Video Q&A on Open Theism http://t.co/5LGRo0mF" (https://twitter.com/greg_boyd/status/271048859709501440)
Get the official Twitter app at https://twitter.com/download
Sent from my iPhone
Tuesday 20 November 2012
Information overload
"Everybody's talking at me, I don't hear a word they're saying, only the echoes of my mind." (Harry Nilsson 1969).
With the progress in IT in the past two decades or so there have been real advances in the availability of information of all kinds. Much of this has been beneficial and educational: the truth is harder to hide now than ever. Access to the media has become more democratic in most places, so governments or individuals can't conceal the truth just by muzzling the traditional media and silencing journalists.
However, there has also been such a massive rise in mis-information, dis-information, obfuscation and downright lies that the net result is actually more confused than ever before. To defend themselves mentally, many people now only listen to sources that they trust and they refuse to hear the truth coming from elsewhere. It's impossible to hear and weigh all points of view. There's a plethora of FB posts, and tweets and blogs (like this one) out there, to which many of us subscribe, and it's great that we can all get to express ourselves like never before. But -- hey -- who's listening? We're all talking past each other simultaneously without any mutual engagement most of the time. It's is a real sign of our culture -- we all want to tell everyone else what to believe.
Wierdly, in today's world of sound-bites, rhetoric is possibly even more important now than it was in ancient Rome or Greece. And the rules are unchanged. Despite all our information technology, the "performance" of candidates in televised debates appears to be the thing that wins or loses elections.
The truth is precious and I find there's an emotional response to it. It's so satisfying when you hear a reasonable, balanced presentation -- even when you don't agree with the conclusions. Conversely, it's a really galling feeling when you know you are being lied to, or that that invalid, unbalanced mis-information is going out to people and you can't do anything about it.
Part of our problem, in the western world at least, is that for millennia we have validated and embraced an adversarial approach to debate and decision-making. First you present your one-sided view of a thing, with little regard for balance: then I try to demolish your argument and to discredit you, with equally little balance and absolutely no mercy, much less charity. That's how our courts work. That's how our parliaments work. That's often how businesses work. Many broadcasters work that way. It's supposed to be fair if both sides get opportunity to present their arguments.
A lawyer or politician who always presented the whole truth openly would not last very long. They're not even supposed to be fair. Fairness is a lost value when it comes to argument -- "all's fair" in order to win the point.
It is said, with some plausibility, that everybody has a bias and the best we can do (in broadcasting for example) is to state our viewpoint and then go on to present things as we see them ...with litle or no regard for other points of view, since others must speak for themselves. But is that not simply justifying injustice? Permitting and even institutionalising a merciless, uncharitable approach to how we speak and write?
Personally, inwardly I'm screaming "ENOUGH !" The fact is that this approach is just systematic, institutional dishonesty, which we've made respectable. We're effectively saying that it's ok to present only one side and not even try to find the whole truth. I feel disrespected and demeaned by people who do that. And it's a sin against truth, perhaps the most basic sin of our society.
In the present tide of information we need much more than one-sided presentations that are mutually contradictory and incompatible. Thesis and antithesis don't form a cohesive synthesis in people's minds unless we are helped to synthesise fairly. There needs to be a seeking after truth, an embracing of the whole truth even when it's unpleasant or uncomfortable. The truth is always our friend -- anything else is unreality.
Much as I long for it, I am not very hopeful that we will ever see much communal seeking for truth in our broader society: the trend will always be away from this, because any one person's adoption of an extreme position, forces others to adopt the opposite extreme, just to restore balance. So adversarial debate will always be part of our fallen world.
But whatever about our social culture and society more generally, there is much less place for the adversarial approach within the church. Suppose there is a practical issue facing us, like the qualifications required for ministry or something of the sort. If we are not trying to reach out together, side by side seeking for God's way, then we are forced to take up positions on opposite sides, like opponents rather than brothers and sisters.
We are supposed to speak the truth in love. Any community needs to foster trust and we need to trust one another with a full, balanced view of issues that arise. We need the humility to see that we are not the real arbiters of truth -- God is. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth..." and so we need to seek Him together and try to discern His will for all of us. His priority will always be love.
With the progress in IT in the past two decades or so there have been real advances in the availability of information of all kinds. Much of this has been beneficial and educational: the truth is harder to hide now than ever. Access to the media has become more democratic in most places, so governments or individuals can't conceal the truth just by muzzling the traditional media and silencing journalists.
However, there has also been such a massive rise in mis-information, dis-information, obfuscation and downright lies that the net result is actually more confused than ever before. To defend themselves mentally, many people now only listen to sources that they trust and they refuse to hear the truth coming from elsewhere. It's impossible to hear and weigh all points of view. There's a plethora of FB posts, and tweets and blogs (like this one) out there, to which many of us subscribe, and it's great that we can all get to express ourselves like never before. But -- hey -- who's listening? We're all talking past each other simultaneously without any mutual engagement most of the time. It's is a real sign of our culture -- we all want to tell everyone else what to believe.
Wierdly, in today's world of sound-bites, rhetoric is possibly even more important now than it was in ancient Rome or Greece. And the rules are unchanged. Despite all our information technology, the "performance" of candidates in televised debates appears to be the thing that wins or loses elections.
The truth is precious and I find there's an emotional response to it. It's so satisfying when you hear a reasonable, balanced presentation -- even when you don't agree with the conclusions. Conversely, it's a really galling feeling when you know you are being lied to, or that that invalid, unbalanced mis-information is going out to people and you can't do anything about it.
Part of our problem, in the western world at least, is that for millennia we have validated and embraced an adversarial approach to debate and decision-making. First you present your one-sided view of a thing, with little regard for balance: then I try to demolish your argument and to discredit you, with equally little balance and absolutely no mercy, much less charity. That's how our courts work. That's how our parliaments work. That's often how businesses work. Many broadcasters work that way. It's supposed to be fair if both sides get opportunity to present their arguments.
A lawyer or politician who always presented the whole truth openly would not last very long. They're not even supposed to be fair. Fairness is a lost value when it comes to argument -- "all's fair" in order to win the point.
It is said, with some plausibility, that everybody has a bias and the best we can do (in broadcasting for example) is to state our viewpoint and then go on to present things as we see them ...with litle or no regard for other points of view, since others must speak for themselves. But is that not simply justifying injustice? Permitting and even institutionalising a merciless, uncharitable approach to how we speak and write?
Personally, inwardly I'm screaming "ENOUGH !" The fact is that this approach is just systematic, institutional dishonesty, which we've made respectable. We're effectively saying that it's ok to present only one side and not even try to find the whole truth. I feel disrespected and demeaned by people who do that. And it's a sin against truth, perhaps the most basic sin of our society.
In the present tide of information we need much more than one-sided presentations that are mutually contradictory and incompatible. Thesis and antithesis don't form a cohesive synthesis in people's minds unless we are helped to synthesise fairly. There needs to be a seeking after truth, an embracing of the whole truth even when it's unpleasant or uncomfortable. The truth is always our friend -- anything else is unreality.
Much as I long for it, I am not very hopeful that we will ever see much communal seeking for truth in our broader society: the trend will always be away from this, because any one person's adoption of an extreme position, forces others to adopt the opposite extreme, just to restore balance. So adversarial debate will always be part of our fallen world.
But whatever about our social culture and society more generally, there is much less place for the adversarial approach within the church. Suppose there is a practical issue facing us, like the qualifications required for ministry or something of the sort. If we are not trying to reach out together, side by side seeking for God's way, then we are forced to take up positions on opposite sides, like opponents rather than brothers and sisters.
We are supposed to speak the truth in love. Any community needs to foster trust and we need to trust one another with a full, balanced view of issues that arise. We need the humility to see that we are not the real arbiters of truth -- God is. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth..." and so we need to seek Him together and try to discern His will for all of us. His priority will always be love.
Thursday 15 November 2012
How "absolute"?
A few decades back, many of us in the evangelical fold were vocally exercised about the postmodern trend away from any absolute positions on right & wrong or even the concept of absolute truth. Most of the world has of course been blithely unaware of such misgivings and has just gotten on with life in a subjective world. The world has moved on ...but I think some of us have been left behind looking a bit confused.
By now, there has grown up a kind of conceptual disconnect between those on opposite sides of that old debate -- by now we're now nearly talking two different languages -- one side holding strong moral positions and the other going "thanks for your opinion but who made you the judge?" But what good has this done for anyone? We've just made ourselves irrelevant and less able to communicate.
Christians (amongst others) generally believe in absolute truth. We also generally believe that some (absolute) truth has been revealed and everyone is bound by it. The mind of God is the truth and where He reveals His thoughts (e.g. in the 10 commandments), then all humanity needs to pay attention. The image of the Watchman warning the land (Ez 33) is sometimes applied to the church. The watchman's duty is to sound the trumpet and give warning -- but note that he's not responsible for the outcome too.
How do we respond when others will not listen to our point of view? Suppose they say our opinions are just as subjective as theirs? There's no proof you can give that is going to be acceptable. Or suppose they come back with an alternative set of absolutes, based on the Koran or the Book of Mormon for example? Who can explain (practically speaking) that someone's paradigms aren't right? ...and without a tinge of superiority or self-righteous condemnation? You may be right, but to others, it doesn't matter a toss whether you are or not: they already live quite happily with a whole different set of paradigms.
'let you in on a secret? The world already knows we're a pompous, self-righteous bunch, because we talk as if our opinions were more valid than theirs and we claim an exemption for ourselves because "God says so" (in the Bible). We're not open to meaningful dialogue on the pressing issues of life because we already know all the right answers and we just want to preach it.
You can have the satisfaction of being in the right if you want, but it's a no-win position. Really we've got to engage with people in their own language and work from there. The church can't set the rules of engagement: we have to work in the world as we find it. Imagine for a moment if we could set the rules. We set the paradigms, set the agenda for what's important and what's not, control the definitions -- would that look like success? No. We'd then have become "the world" -- the dominant way of thinking -- we'd be back to the dominant position of the church in the middle ages and we'd need to be won back to the love of God ourselves.
By now, there has grown up a kind of conceptual disconnect between those on opposite sides of that old debate -- by now we're now nearly talking two different languages -- one side holding strong moral positions and the other going "thanks for your opinion but who made you the judge?" But what good has this done for anyone? We've just made ourselves irrelevant and less able to communicate.
Christians (amongst others) generally believe in absolute truth. We also generally believe that some (absolute) truth has been revealed and everyone is bound by it. The mind of God is the truth and where He reveals His thoughts (e.g. in the 10 commandments), then all humanity needs to pay attention. The image of the Watchman warning the land (Ez 33) is sometimes applied to the church. The watchman's duty is to sound the trumpet and give warning -- but note that he's not responsible for the outcome too.
How do we respond when others will not listen to our point of view? Suppose they say our opinions are just as subjective as theirs? There's no proof you can give that is going to be acceptable. Or suppose they come back with an alternative set of absolutes, based on the Koran or the Book of Mormon for example? Who can explain (practically speaking) that someone's paradigms aren't right? ...and without a tinge of superiority or self-righteous condemnation? You may be right, but to others, it doesn't matter a toss whether you are or not: they already live quite happily with a whole different set of paradigms.
'let you in on a secret? The world already knows we're a pompous, self-righteous bunch, because we talk as if our opinions were more valid than theirs and we claim an exemption for ourselves because "God says so" (in the Bible). We're not open to meaningful dialogue on the pressing issues of life because we already know all the right answers and we just want to preach it.
You can have the satisfaction of being in the right if you want, but it's a no-win position. Really we've got to engage with people in their own language and work from there. The church can't set the rules of engagement: we have to work in the world as we find it. Imagine for a moment if we could set the rules. We set the paradigms, set the agenda for what's important and what's not, control the definitions -- would that look like success? No. We'd then have become "the world" -- the dominant way of thinking -- we'd be back to the dominant position of the church in the middle ages and we'd need to be won back to the love of God ourselves.
Idolatry
This is pretty much equally applicable in many religions: Christians, Muslims, Jews and others note:-
If you, by your words or deeds, create a view of God that is unattractive to people, that shows God as basically opposed to people's welfare...
and if you then find that people don't like your God...
then don't be surprised: you have no right to be offended. And don't fool yourself that the people are enemies of God. What the people dislike is not the real God, but the idol that you have set up in His place.
If you, by your words or deeds, create a view of God that is unattractive to people, that shows God as basically opposed to people's welfare...
and if you then find that people don't like your God...
then don't be surprised: you have no right to be offended. And don't fool yourself that the people are enemies of God. What the people dislike is not the real God, but the idol that you have set up in His place.
Wednesday 14 November 2012
A dream fulfilled: Proverbs 13:12
Sent from my iPhone
Proverbs 13:12
"Hope deferred makes the heart sick but a dream (longing) fulfilled is a tree of life."
When the Holy Spirit speaks by a dream and gives a vision of the beautiful things God wants to do/ intends to do in various lives all around us, that sets up a whole new set of possibilities in the spiritual space. There is a thrilling potential for sharing in the very dream of God for good to his children ... Then seeing that dream fulfilled, as you work alongside the parakletos ("called alongside"), is energising and stimulating. It is exciting. God's will is being worked out! Who wouldn't delight to see that? And it is a whole "tree" of life: the work now being done in co-operation with God's Spirit, fulfilling though it be, is just the lower part of a tree. The out-workings, in the fulness of time, are untold and widespread like the spreading branches of a maturing tree, each branch dripping life brought from the central source and outworking the original dream. Untold blessings!
Pat
Sent from my iPhone
Proverbs 13:12
"Hope deferred makes the heart sick but a dream (longing) fulfilled is a tree of life."
When the Holy Spirit speaks by a dream and gives a vision of the beautiful things God wants to do/ intends to do in various lives all around us, that sets up a whole new set of possibilities in the spiritual space. There is a thrilling potential for sharing in the very dream of God for good to his children ... Then seeing that dream fulfilled, as you work alongside the parakletos ("called alongside"), is energising and stimulating. It is exciting. God's will is being worked out! Who wouldn't delight to see that? And it is a whole "tree" of life: the work now being done in co-operation with God's Spirit, fulfilling though it be, is just the lower part of a tree. The out-workings, in the fulness of time, are untold and widespread like the spreading branches of a maturing tree, each branch dripping life brought from the central source and outworking the original dream. Untold blessings!
Pat
Sent from my iPhone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)