I won't be blogging for a week or so because I'm off to look after intoxicated School Leavers. Making sure that they get enough water to drink and that they don't need to be calling an ambulance or get into any other trouble. It basically means hanging out with 17 year olds and doing a bit of vomit catching as well. It should be more fun than it sounds.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Jesus for the Non-Religous: A Reflection
I've just finished reading John Shelby Spong's most recent book. Jesus for the Non-Religious. In part one of the book Jack (apparently that's what his friend's call him) dismisses the birth narratives including virgin birth, the 12 disciples, the miracles and the resurrection, which is probably enough to get most evangelicals to stop reading. It was an interesting exercise reading this book that I believe is pretty much a summary of much of Spong's thoughts. Spong is the liberal theologian that evangelicals to love to hate. Seeing I think of myself as liberal evangelical it was an intersteding read to say the least.
The Book is Divided into 3 parts. Part 1 looks at the supernatural stuff aroun d Juesus and trys to seprate the myth from the reality, part 2 looks at Jesus in his jewish context and part 3 looks at what it means to be Xn with the understanding of part 1 and 2.
Whilst many people reading the openng chapters on virgin birth, the 12 disciples and the miracles might find them confronting, as Spong dismisses all of them, I had this feeling of almost relief that at least he wasn't going after anything that was central to my faith. Although inexorably linked who Jesus was and what he encouraged others to be was always more important than what he did. That is in healing a leper, it was always more important than a social outcast was brought back into the community than a miracle occuring. His arguments around the birth narratives and and the 12 disciples I found particularly persuasive. Whether Jesus was born of a virgin (Luke 1:30-35) or a young woman (Isaiah 7:14) possibly out of wedlock (Mark 6:3 - where he is called son of Mary rather than Joseph), I don't think bothers me all that much. His arguments around miracles was so so and the arguments about the resurrection were least persuasive. I just couldn't see why the disciples would invent something that so quickly became the central part of their faith.
Part of Spong's central thrust around dismissing the supernatural stuff in the gospels is that different gospels have different slants and use different events or different takes on the same event to paint a slightly different theological point. For Example: There is no passover in John's gospel that's because Jesus is the passover. The turning of the tables in the temple is the climatic final event in Mark, Mathew and Luke but the very first event in John. On the cross Jesus three different last words "it is finished", "father in your hands I place my spirit" and "Father forgive them they know not what they do" depending on what Gospel you are reading. The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew are also good examples of these differences.
A more fundamentalist person would argue that everything in the two birth accounts happened and the gospel writers just picked and chose which events to put in their gospel. The problem is that there a many bits of the gospels that you just can't harmonize without some seriously difficult logical gymnastics. Spong on the other hand says almost everything is a literary device used to illustrate a point. The problem with with this is that almost every event in the gospels becomes a literary device to illustrate a point.
The Book is Divided into 3 parts. Part 1 looks at the supernatural stuff aroun d Juesus and trys to seprate the myth from the reality, part 2 looks at Jesus in his jewish context and part 3 looks at what it means to be Xn with the understanding of part 1 and 2.
Whilst many people reading the openng chapters on virgin birth, the 12 disciples and the miracles might find them confronting, as Spong dismisses all of them, I had this feeling of almost relief that at least he wasn't going after anything that was central to my faith. Although inexorably linked who Jesus was and what he encouraged others to be was always more important than what he did. That is in healing a leper, it was always more important than a social outcast was brought back into the community than a miracle occuring. His arguments around the birth narratives and and the 12 disciples I found particularly persuasive. Whether Jesus was born of a virgin (Luke 1:30-35) or a young woman (Isaiah 7:14) possibly out of wedlock (Mark 6:3 - where he is called son of Mary rather than Joseph), I don't think bothers me all that much. His arguments around miracles was so so and the arguments about the resurrection were least persuasive. I just couldn't see why the disciples would invent something that so quickly became the central part of their faith.
Part of Spong's central thrust around dismissing the supernatural stuff in the gospels is that different gospels have different slants and use different events or different takes on the same event to paint a slightly different theological point. For Example: There is no passover in John's gospel that's because Jesus is the passover. The turning of the tables in the temple is the climatic final event in Mark, Mathew and Luke but the very first event in John. On the cross Jesus three different last words "it is finished", "father in your hands I place my spirit" and "Father forgive them they know not what they do" depending on what Gospel you are reading. The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew are also good examples of these differences.
A more fundamentalist person would argue that everything in the two birth accounts happened and the gospel writers just picked and chose which events to put in their gospel. The problem is that there a many bits of the gospels that you just can't harmonize without some seriously difficult logical gymnastics. Spong on the other hand says almost everything is a literary device used to illustrate a point. The problem with with this is that almost every event in the gospels becomes a literary device to illustrate a point.
Personally I think each event needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The birth narratives, I can understand the argument that this is a period of Jesus life that the writers may have known little about, Paul for example doesn't talk about it, and it is conceivable that the gospel writers added these narratives. The Resurrection on the other hand was something that was something that from as early on as we know was central to Xn theology. To argue that it was not literal is fine but I, at least, need a better explanation of what was the the resurrection experience was that the disciples had that they could only write about in this way. Spong's explanation doesn't quite cut it for me.
I have a lot of empathy for Jack Spong. He is trying to wrestle his faith into the 21st century. He is a theologian who is a product of his time and place, Growing up in a fundamentalist, racist, sexist and homophobic deep south he has grown to see Jesus and the gospels as something which condemns all of this. He may not be quite as aware as could be helpful how much he is a theologian of his time and his place This is not to say that what he has to say is not valuable any less than to say that Liberation theology should be dismissed, because of the circumstance that it came from in South America.
The Truth, about what is history and myth in the gospels, I think, lies somewhere in between Spong and a more literalistic reading of the text.
The Second part of the book Spong looks Jesus in a Jewish context. No matter what you think of Spong's conclusions in part one I thoroughly recommend this part of the book, to any regular evangelical. If you can set aside the argument over whether the events (like the miracles) were invented to give colour to the theology or whether the theology came to describe the miracles, it is still worth reading. Spong's analysis of the Jewish overtones and illusions throughout the gospels is excellent and I'd challenge any evangelical to find fault with that. It is certainly something that I will re read again with a copy of the Bible, pen and paper in hand.
In part three Spong describes what it means for him to be Xn. I wish that this part of the book had been longer and more in depth. I think almost all of what Spong said about the essence of Xy is I agree with, this part of the book is really about how we live. He describes Jesus as a human portrait of the love of God. When it comes down to it this is really what is most important. I read this book because I when I hear Jack Spong say that the church is dying, it is sexist and and doesn't have a decent grasp of Xys Jewish roots I agree with him. His resolutions I may not agree but no matter what you think the third part of the book has a beautiful resonance to it and his writing style is almost poetic reminding of the writing style of Sister Joan Chitster.
So I recommend that you read the book it won't hurt it's just words on a page. Even if like me you don't agree with everything that Jacks says their is still plenty to learn even for a hard line evangelical.
The Truth, about what is history and myth in the gospels, I think, lies somewhere in between Spong and a more literalistic reading of the text.
The Second part of the book Spong looks Jesus in a Jewish context. No matter what you think of Spong's conclusions in part one I thoroughly recommend this part of the book, to any regular evangelical. If you can set aside the argument over whether the events (like the miracles) were invented to give colour to the theology or whether the theology came to describe the miracles, it is still worth reading. Spong's analysis of the Jewish overtones and illusions throughout the gospels is excellent and I'd challenge any evangelical to find fault with that. It is certainly something that I will re read again with a copy of the Bible, pen and paper in hand.
In part three Spong describes what it means for him to be Xn. I wish that this part of the book had been longer and more in depth. I think almost all of what Spong said about the essence of Xy is I agree with, this part of the book is really about how we live. He describes Jesus as a human portrait of the love of God. When it comes down to it this is really what is most important. I read this book because I when I hear Jack Spong say that the church is dying, it is sexist and and doesn't have a decent grasp of Xys Jewish roots I agree with him. His resolutions I may not agree but no matter what you think the third part of the book has a beautiful resonance to it and his writing style is almost poetic reminding of the writing style of Sister Joan Chitster.
So I recommend that you read the book it won't hurt it's just words on a page. Even if like me you don't agree with everything that Jacks says their is still plenty to learn even for a hard line evangelical.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
A Rough Guide to Building a Better World
The Rough Guide people have put together A Rough Guide to Building a Better World. What's more it's a free PDF!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
TV frustration
Last night I sat down hoping to see the first episode of Weeds season 2. I don't what a lot of TV and this is the best American or UK TV drama for the last couple of years. This week was the first time I saw it mentioned in the paper and channel 9 has not advertised it what so ever and they have buried it at 11pm on Monday night. Alas it was episode 5. Previously I have whinged about the delay in screening programs like six feet under and Weeds. In America Weeds is up to Season 4. Mostly I can put up with waiting for a TV show to arrive put it's the lack of advertising combined with putting it in obscure time slots and the occasional out of order running of programs. Shaun Mcaileff explains how channel 9 does it's programming in this clip - you have to fast forward to 2:05 to see it.
Surely this pain could be easily averted by setting up an email service where viewers are emailed a reminder when their favourite shows return? Having missed out on the main character getting married and her son getting his girl friend pregnant I can either give up on the show having missed so much of the back story or try an hire the DVDs or download the episodes. If I get either of these formats for the first half of the season why not the second half as well.
My second gripe is the shows TV actually show. If they are not buried at 11pm they are ignored completely. The Flight of the Conchords is a prime example of this (see clip below). Surely with two New Zealanders in the lead role we could try and claim that the show is Australian like we did with the band Crowded House. Instead we are inflicted with more crime investigation "NCIS vs CSI in Kentucky" or whatever is the latest variation.
Again I'm forced to find the show elsewhere. The easiest probably being to watch it on you tube, on a tiny screen having to find the next part of the program every five minutes. painful to say the least. The internet isn't killing TV, TV is killing TV.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Bible quoting Greens
Last week Stephen Crittenden (ABC's Religion report) interviewed Jim Wallace (Managing Director, Australian Christian Lobby), Christine Milne (Greens senator) and Rev. Fred Nile (Member of the NSW Legislative Council). Beyond the thinly disguised right wing rhetoric of family values from the Australian Christian Lobby it was interesting to note that the only one of the three interviewees quoted the Bible (and more than once). That was Greens senator Christine Milne. The other two interviewees seemed happy enough to say that Xy is about "family values" and then talk about those values. "Family values" has always struck me as strange term since everybody is part of a family. When I used to listen to Parliament (before the days of podcasting) I was always impressed with the way the Greens conducted themselves and their commitment to social justice as well as the environment.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Election Resources
If you're tired of the way electoral candidates are presented either through the media or their own advertising and would like something meatier than a 15 second sound byte, usually about why you shouldn't trust the other guy then, the Australian Student Christian Movement WA have put together a great resource outlining many of the parties policies about some key issues. I have reproduced most of that page below.
What is your vision for how government can best benefit the poor?
What is your vision for how government can best benefit the poor?
- Issue information: Vision (pdf - 22KB)
- Collated response: Vision (pdf - 32KB)
How do you intend to address global poverty? Will you be increasing Australia’s aid budget to at least 0.7% of GDP?
- Issue information: Global Inequality (pdf - 28KB)
- Collated response: Global Inequality (pdf - 33KB)
Links to more information:
- Poverty History Report Card (pdf) (compares policies of four major parties)
- AusAID Intro to Australian government aid program
How do you propose to support humanitarian entrants to Australia, including those who arrive informally to seek asylum?
- Issue information: Asylum Seekers (pdf - 26KB)
- Collated response: Asylum Seekers (pdf - 34KB)
Links to more information:
- CARAD Frequently Asked Questions
- Amnesty International Australia – refugees – Q&A
- Immigration Department detention statistics (Oct 2007) (pdf)
- A Just Australia comparison of party policies
- A Just Australia score sheet
- Issue information: Housing (pdf - 33KB)
- Collated response: Housing (pdf - 40KB)
Links to more information:
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Homeless People in SAAP: SAAP National Data Collection Annual Report 2004–05 (pdf)
- Real Estate Institute Australia 2007 market outlook (pdf)
- Shelter WA 2004 paper ‘State of Affordable Housing in WA’ (pdf)
- Youth Facts & Stats – Homelessness
- Tenants Advice Service WA
What is your national anti-poverty strategy?
- Issue information: Anti-Poverty Strategy (pdf - 29KB)
- Collated response: Anti-Poverty Strategy (pdf - 36KB)
How will you ensure low-income earners are supported through the tax and welfare system? Will you be introducing a less punitive welfare system?
- Issue information: Tax and Welfare (pdf - 29KB)
- Collated response: Tax and Welfare (pdf - 41KB)
How does your industrial relations policy protect the powerless, support family life and ensure adequate income for all?
- Issue information: Workplace Law (pdf - 31KB)
- Collated response: Workplace Law (pdf - 45KB)
Links to more information:
- Queensland Industrial Relations Commission Final Report: Inquiry into the Impact of Work Choices on Queensland Workplaces, Employees and Employers, 29 January 2007 (pdf) (report in full 2MB). An Executive Summary is available here (pdf - 87KB).
What policies do you have to support the development of indigenous Australians, including closing the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians’ health and well-being?
- Issue information: Indigenous (pdf - 29KB)
- Collated response: Indigenous (pdf - 43KB)
Links to more information:
What is your party’s policy response to student poverty and high levels of debt?
- Issue information: Student Poverty (pdf - 28KB)
- Collated response: Student Poverty (pdf - 32KB)
Links to more information:
How will you ensure universal access to high-quality education and health care?
Health
Health
- Issue information: Education (pdf - 25KB)
- Collated response: Education (pdf - 44KB)
Links to more information:
- Australian Medical Association Key Health Issues for 2007 Election (pdf)
- Australian Bureau of Statistics Health Care Delivery & Funding 2006
- Australian Nursing Journal Federal Election articles
- Doctors Reform Society Policy Statements
Education
- Issue information: Health (pdf - 26KB)
- Collated response: Health (pdf - 35KB)
Links to more information:
- March 2007 article about HECS in The Age
- Australian Bureau of Statistics report ‘Education and Work 2006’
- Australian Bureau of Statistics report ‘Schools 2006’
What is your plan to reduce Australia’s negative environmental impacts?
- Issue information: Environment (pdf - 29KB)
- Collated response: Environment (pdf - 63KB)
Links to more information:
What is your position regarding the loss of civil rights brought about by recent anti-terrorism legislation?
- Issue information: Civil rights and Anti-terrorism (pdf - 28KB)
- Collated response: Civil Rights and Anti-Terrorism (pdf - 29KB)
Links to more information:
How do you intend to work for peace, especially in Iraq and in our region?
- Issue information: Peace in our Region (pdf - 24KB)
- Collated response: Peace in our Region (pdf - 46KB)
Links to more information:
Responses by Party The full responses as received by the parties are available here.
- Australian Democrats (pdf - 69KB)
- Christian Democrats (pdf - 51KB)
- Coalition (pdf - 572KB)
- Family First (pdf - 7KB)
- Greens (pdf - 55KB)
- Socialist Alliance (pdf - 38KB)
- Socialist Equality (pdf - 38KB)
- Liberal
- Labor
- Nationals
- Democrats
- Greens
- Family First
- Socialist Equality Party
- Socialist Alliance
- Christian Democrats
- Uniting Church
- Anglican
- Catholic
- Centre for Ethical Studies - they are also collating responses from parties on justice issues
- Young Christian Workers (pdf)
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Back on the Father Bob Podcast.
Today I had the pleasure of joining Father Bob and Cameron Reilly for the 76th Father Bob Podcast. I don't think I did much talking, which I think is what tends to happen when you're not in the room with the other two people that you like listening too. Plus I'm not good at talking over the top of others, I"ll never make a good politician.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Atheism vs Christianity: A Reflection
I've been feeling a little but fatigued by the Atheism vs Xy (or faith of any description) debate. It is something that has struck an unusual chord with me over the last year or so. Mainly because when I listen to these debates I find myself tending to cheer on the side of the atheist rather than the Xn, which is a little disconcerting seeing that I identify as a Xn and have not been persuaded to give up my faith. This is not to say that I haven't been persuaded by any of the arguments of atheists, I think I have, but rather than those arguments demolish my faith I feel like they have sharpened it or trimmed off the woolly bits. I do wonder whether this will eventually whittle my faith into nothing or whether it will only refine it further.
Perhaps one of the unspoken limits of the debate is that the debate is always going to be about someones dentition of God rather than just God. Never the less they are still worthwhile especially given the kind of things people will do in the name of their definition of God. This is why I often find myself cheering on the atheist, thinking "that definition of God is not my idea of God", or cringing at the Xn because I feel like my definition of God or what God is like is very different to theirs.
I wonder if it would be helpful to concede that the big problems with Religion and God believers is not that they believe in God, but what they subsequently believe and what that belief gives them a right to or, instructs them to do. Most people don't have a problem with people who believe that aliens landed in area 51 or that the moon landing was staged because it doesn't actually impact on the way they treat other people. The big problems with religious people, as I see it, is when religous people do evil things because they believe it is what God wants. That evil stretches the spectrum from genocide to indoctrinating children in their own faith with out giving them a choice about it or denying the rights of scientists to do science.
I also think it is worth Xns conceding that science has more to say to faith than faith has to say to science. Faith is about a general whole of life perspective, science is about specific measurable things. Faith is like a big blanket and Science is like a knife, hitting only specific areas of the blanket. It may cut a hole in the creationism part of the blanket, but the blanket is still there, it may cut so many holes that many people consider the blanket is no longer a blanket.
I can remember hearing someone say that Atheism or Faith might be genetically determined. To me, often the debate seems to be trying to work out who is blessed and who is cursed. Are the believers blessed because they can experience something other or are they cursed because they are deluded. Are atheists blessed because they can see the world rationally and clearly with out the distortion of faith or are they cursed because they are missing out on a connection with something other. Too often it has felt like two sides yelling at each other telling the other that they are the blessed ones and the other is cursed. As a Xn I would like to say that I do not know whether I am blessed or cursed by my faith. It has certainly been important to me and it is something that has been shaped not only by other Xns but more recently by atheists too.
Richard Dawkins says that on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is absolutely sure that God exists and 7 is absolutely sure God doesn't exists, that he would be a 6. Personally I think I waver between 2 and 3. As much as it is easy to get caught up arguing about what is the "right belief" I'm convinced that what is important is how we live and I will always feel like I have more in common with an atheist who cares for the poor and their fellow human being than an Xn who is protesting against the teaching of science or protesting about someones private sexual ethics.
Perhaps one of the unspoken limits of the debate is that the debate is always going to be about someones dentition of God rather than just God. Never the less they are still worthwhile especially given the kind of things people will do in the name of their definition of God. This is why I often find myself cheering on the atheist, thinking "that definition of God is not my idea of God", or cringing at the Xn because I feel like my definition of God or what God is like is very different to theirs.
I wonder if it would be helpful to concede that the big problems with Religion and God believers is not that they believe in God, but what they subsequently believe and what that belief gives them a right to or, instructs them to do. Most people don't have a problem with people who believe that aliens landed in area 51 or that the moon landing was staged because it doesn't actually impact on the way they treat other people. The big problems with religious people, as I see it, is when religous people do evil things because they believe it is what God wants. That evil stretches the spectrum from genocide to indoctrinating children in their own faith with out giving them a choice about it or denying the rights of scientists to do science.
I also think it is worth Xns conceding that science has more to say to faith than faith has to say to science. Faith is about a general whole of life perspective, science is about specific measurable things. Faith is like a big blanket and Science is like a knife, hitting only specific areas of the blanket. It may cut a hole in the creationism part of the blanket, but the blanket is still there, it may cut so many holes that many people consider the blanket is no longer a blanket.
I can remember hearing someone say that Atheism or Faith might be genetically determined. To me, often the debate seems to be trying to work out who is blessed and who is cursed. Are the believers blessed because they can experience something other or are they cursed because they are deluded. Are atheists blessed because they can see the world rationally and clearly with out the distortion of faith or are they cursed because they are missing out on a connection with something other. Too often it has felt like two sides yelling at each other telling the other that they are the blessed ones and the other is cursed. As a Xn I would like to say that I do not know whether I am blessed or cursed by my faith. It has certainly been important to me and it is something that has been shaped not only by other Xns but more recently by atheists too.
Richard Dawkins says that on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is absolutely sure that God exists and 7 is absolutely sure God doesn't exists, that he would be a 6. Personally I think I waver between 2 and 3. As much as it is easy to get caught up arguing about what is the "right belief" I'm convinced that what is important is how we live and I will always feel like I have more in common with an atheist who cares for the poor and their fellow human being than an Xn who is protesting against the teaching of science or protesting about someones private sexual ethics.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Critical Child Rearing Mistake No. 5 - The iPod
Scarlett loves nothing more than pushing buttons on things she's not allowed to play with and the iPod falls into that category.
Only problem is she keeps talking to the iPod like it's a phone. I think iPhone will be the first thing she'll write on her Christmas list. Her chance of getting one? About as likely as a pre-election merger between Family First and The Greens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)