Recipe bringing youth back to church

More from the SMH - - their obession with the megachurch movement is only rivalled by the constant monitoring of the Sydney Anglicans. Quite an interesting news angle considering The Courier-Mail (going Tabloid in March) almost wholly fails to cover any religious issues at all (though this is not too much of a disappointment cosidering their latest leading articles is that the Federal government is - shock! horror! taxing superannuation! Stop Press!). Anyway, back to the gushy, capitalist, anti-intellectual megachurches:

Quote:

Populist forms are often derided by the elites found in theological faculties of mainstream seminaries, and by Samuel Kobia. Populist forms these days tend to be more energetic in worship style, using more modern music and advanced electronic media presentations. This is more in keeping with the trend away from reason-based and cerebral forms of Christianity focused on logically crafted sermons to more experiential and charismatic forms. No Bach cantatas, Bruckner motets or hymns more ancient than modern will be found here.

More

RU486 debate

. .. copied from http://www.matthiasmedia.com

RU486 debate

10 February 2006 AD

I couldn’t help noticing one of the interesting arguments being used by some of the (particularly female) members of the Australian Parliament in relation to the RU486 legal debate (Here’s one report about the current debate).

To paraphrase, I heard it said a number of times that “Male politicians should trust women to make thoughtful ethical decisions about their own bodies, and should not try to impose their male/chauvenistic/catholic/religious ethical views.”

This is, on the one hand, a very clever tactical argument. What man is going to counter that argument by saying, “No, actually we can’t trust women to do that!”? You’d have to be a very brave or a very stupid male (indeed, being both would be a distinct advantage).

But, on the other hand, it is a fundamentally silly argument that clearly attempts to avoid the main question.

For example, do we trust men to “make thoughtful ethical decisions about their own bodies”? Or do we outlaw rape and carnal knowledge?

“But hang on, that’s different! In that case you’re talking about men hurting another person! We’re not talking about a situation like that … “

Ah, now we’re getting closer to the real question.

Noticed by Ian at 10:53 AM

Which way will they jump?

... copied from Matthias Media

Which way will they jump?

7 February 2006 AD

The affair of the Danish cartoons has not only again exposed the fragility of relations between the West and Islam; it has also laid bare the West’s own double mind on how to relate to Islam. (See the cartoons in question.)

The controversy is really a clash between two sacred modern values: freedom of expression, and religious tolerance. And it is has been interesting to play ‘which way will they jump’ as different media commentators line up to have their say. Leading Australian cartoonist Bruce Petty was on the radio this morning, and as he was being introduced I thought to myself, “Which way will he jump? Probably on the publish-and-be-damned side.” But no. Petty thought there were limits, and that it was wrong needlessly to offend people. He was pleased that Australian newspapers had decided not to publish the cartoons.

As Christians, we also have conflicting thoughts on the issue. On one hand, we can understand the Muslims’ pain. We know what it is like to be sneered at and mocked, and to have our Saviour caricatured and ridiculed. It hurts. Some of us may have been among the protesters outside Life of Brian or The Last Temptation of Christ. As Ian pointed out in his post yesterday, while we value free and open debate on all subjects, we would prefer the discussion to be loving and respectful. Misrepresentation and insult hardly advance understanding.

On the other hand, Ian’s quote from Islam in our Backyard also shows why Christians might also support the cartoonists. If we support free and open public argument about religious belief, it is very difficult to proscribe the form in which the argument takes place. A cartoon is an argument, stated in the extreme. Like all arguments, it may be false, but it is a legitimate and often effective form of communication. Sometimes the best way to oppose an idea is simply to point out how absurd it is (as Isaiah does in his bitingly satirical portrait of the stupidity of idol worship in Isaiah 45). And this is what cartoons do best.

Newspapers must be quite free to publish cartoons challenging the absurdites of Islam, just as they must be (and are!) free to publish cartoons satirising the absurdities of Jews, Christians, atheists, right-wing politicians, left-wing politicians, and everyone else besides. The decision as to whether to publish them must be an editorial one, according to what the paper wants to say.

There is a further question. Granted that the Danish paper was exercising a perfectly legitimate right to publish the original cartoons, should other papers now also publish them, thus maximising the offence to Muslims everywhere? If we acknowledge that the papers ought to be free, in principle, to do so, should they use their freedom in this instance to publish? Or should they, for the sake of Muslim sensibilities and public order, decline from publishing?

It sounds to me rather like the situation that confronted the Apostle Paul with respect to circumcising his Gentile proteges. He was quite free to have them circumcised or to not have them circumcised. And indeed he did have Timothy ‘done’ (in Acts 16) for the sake of not offending the Jews among whom he was hoping to minister. However, in Galatians 2, Paul takes the uncircumcised Titus with him to Jerusalem, and “does not yield in submission even for a moment” to those false legalistic brothers who were apparently insisting on Titus being circumcised. Circumcision is neither here nor there—that is, until someone attempts to compel circumcision.

Considering the cartoons purely on their merits, I doubt whether many Western mainstream newspapers would have published them. Their editiorial decision would probably have been No. But as soon as pressure is placed upon them not to publish, regardless of artistic or editorial merit, then they can hardly be blamed for asserting their freedom, as the Apostle Paul did. “We wouldn’t have bothered publishing these cartoons — until you told us that we MUST NOT publish them. Now, we must.”

So which way will I jump?

As I argued in Islam in our Backyard, our society needs a great deal more vigorous, open, public debate about religious truth claims—including those made by Islam. I think we need to go a lot further than the publishing of a few rather lame cartoons. Islam is essentially a Judaeo-Christian heresy cult that has grown very big and very old, and that now enslaves more than a billion people in spiritual darkness. Out of love for Muslims, and everyone, we should refute it with all our energy. We need to do much more than caricature Mohammed. We need to show why he was a false prophet, whose revelations did not come from the true and living God.

Noticed by Tony at 11:55 AM

...peace be upon her

A reprint of a Washington Times article from the Age. Noted author of www.muslim-refusnik.com is, to paraphrase the Wesleyan quadrilateral, a Secularist, not a Sunni, a Shi'a or a Sufi. And a woman.


Lighten up, fellow Muslims

Date: February 8 2006

Islam can take a joke, even a bad one, at the prophet's expense, writes Irrshad Manji.

At the World Economic Forum last month, I observed something revealing. In a session about the US religious right, a cartoonist satirised one of America's most influential Christian ministers, Pat Robertson. In the audience, chuckling with the rest of us, was a prominent British Muslim. But his smile disappeared the moment we were shown a cartoon that made fun of Muslim clerics.

... more

From today's (Feb 6) Letters page at the SMH:

Anglican Church's only obsession is with Christ

February 6, 2006

I am greatly puzzled by James Pilkington's claim that Archbishop Peter Jensen and the Anglican Church are obsessed with such issues as homosexuality, swearing, drinking, and the like (Letters, February 4-5).

I have been a regular member of an Anglican congregation for more than 14 years. On Saturday I was ordained as a deacon in the diocese of Sydney. In my discussions with Dr Jensen and, indeed, with many of the men and women serving in Anglican congregations, I see people who are obsessed with promoting Jesus Christ. I read the diocesan mission statement, framed under Dr Jensen's leadership and embraced by virtually every Anglican church in the Sydney diocese, and find that churches are aiming to glorify God by proclaiming our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. I see no reference to homosexuality, swearing, drinking or any other issues mentioned by Mr Pilkington.

In the recent Boyer Lectures given by Dr Jensen, he took neither homosexuality nor premarital sex as his theme. Rather, I heard him talking quite plainly about Jesus.

So how does Mr Pilkington find Dr Jensen and others obsessing about these other matters? Could it be that the media, social commentators and certain lobbyists are the obsessed? It seems to me that many speak from a distinct lack of familiarity with both Dr Jensen and the Anglican Church in Sydney.

Is it any wonder, then, that many will prejudge him and other Anglican Christians without taking a closer look?

Do Dr Jensen and the Anglican Church have the opposite concerns of Jesus?

On Saturday, 51 people were ordained or commissioned to promote Jesus Christ in Sydney. Most of them have left their jobs and lucrative careers to do so. Some of them have faced great opposition from family. Some have come to Australia as refugees and been welcomed by the diocese. Some of them are serving in multi-ethnic congregations, filled with foreigners who are overjoyed to be in church. Some are serving among the disadvantaged and economically challenged. And this is not to mention the hundreds of other clergy in the diocese engaged in these same activities and more. And they are all concerned to promote Jesus Christ.

Are Anglicans obsessed with petty issues? For heaven's sake, just take a look and see.

Reverend Dr George Athas Newtown

The letter that inspired the response above:

Twisting Jesus' obsessions out of the Bible

February 4, 2006

The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, appears in the Herald defending the Anglican Church's obsession with homosexuality ("Jensen condemns sin of homosexual acts", February 3). It is the biggest issue in a list of church obsessions, including not having sex before marriage, not drinking or swearing, the importance of getting married, having children and working hard in your job.

What's funny, though, is that Jesus' obsessions and Jensen's obsessions are totally different. Jesus either never talks about these issues, or else contradicts the church's stance. He doesn't talk about gay people or not having sex before marriage (which isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible), or not drinking or swearing.

Rather than affirming families, he ignores his own and says his coming will bring division among families. Rather than saying work hard, he calls people to leave their job, or to stop aspects of their job which reinforce their unjust economy.

He instead has this crazy obsession with helping the poor, the hungry, the sick and the needy. His instructions to his followers were not the long list of "don'ts" that Jensen and the like throw at us, but "do's" - to spend our lives helping those in need.

Most relevant for gay people, he spends a lot of time including those who today's religious establishment exclude, such as disabled people and foreigners. In an interesting parallel, Jesus constantly criticises those in charge who exclude them. It's easy to see who his criticism would be levelled at today.

It's interesting that when I talk to homeless people in the shelter where I work voluntarily, the only church they have felt welcomed in is the Metropolitan Community Church, Sydney's "gay church".

Jensen and his allies use one passage, not even said by Jesus, about pagan fertility orgy cults, to oppress, judge and exclude gay people.

Rather than obsessing about homosexuality, I want to see a church obsessed by what Jesus was obsessed about. We live in a world in which billions of people contend with extreme poverty, famine and disease while we Christians ignore their needs and instead obsess about how much we swear or how we can twist the Bible to justify our own bigotry.

James Pilkington Maroubra

The article that kickstarted the current round of debate:

Jensen condemns sin of homosexual acts

By Linda Morris Religious Affairs Reporter
February 3, 2006

THE Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, has called on the Anglican Church to declare homosexual practices a sin, defending the church's "obsession" with human sexuality.

He joined fellow evangelicals in criticising English laws recognising civil partnerships as unbiblical.

Disputes over homosexuality - including gay priests and gay marriage - have racked the church worldwide. As head of the conservative Sydney diocese, Dr Jensen has emerged as a leader of the evangelical section of the world's 78 million Anglicans.

Dr Jensen said the church was on a slippery slope if it was to weaken on the definitions of sin, and risked compromising the central message of Christianity, that of redemption from sin through Christ.

"… our culture is obsessed with sex so we should not be embarrassed with engaging with this issue. If we did not engage we would be divorced from our culture. Scripture declares this to be a matter of life and death."

His comments are drawn from notes published on the website of Anglican Mainstream, a group of conservatives said to represent 1500 Anglican archbishops, bishops, clergy and laity in several countries. They form the basis of a speech Dr Jensen gave to an informal gathering in England last month.

Dr Jensen said acceptance of homosexual practice "would be to call holy what God calls sin to be repented from".

The efforts of liberal theology to gain control of the church had gone too far and was endangering the "whole gospel enterprise of the church", he said.

Dr Jensen co-signed a letter with 18 prominent evangelical Anglican leaders "warmly" supporting the criticisms of the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, that gay unions were inconsistent with traditional teaching on marriage.