modern crusades and the story
Posted on November 20, 2007 by Rebecca Matheson
Filed Under Culture, Emerging Questions | 3 Comments
I’m not a great fan of the whole ‘pass the email petition along’ but I was especially disturbed when I received one about the author Phillip Pullman (of the controversial series: His Dark Materials) and the soon to be released movie of The Golden Compass. Pullman is controversial in his anti-C.S Lews, anti-Christian/Religious themes. What disgusted me, was not that these books were now ‘a bit more public’, but that emails like this are sent with ‘all the information needed’ for an individual to create a certain opinion.
People’s naivety is conducted into some kind of modern crusade. It becomes a propaganda of distrust of perhaps even hate, which doesn’t seem very Christ-like to me! I understand the concern, but I think there are limits as to how far we can jump moral our hobby horse and ride it.
We claw at the few often minor imperfections in light of our often ridiculous ‘Christian’ moral positions and forget to search fiction such as this (or Harry Potter) for it’s redemptive themes, it’s story and the why of the story. Why are things like this written? Why don’t we bravely engage the debate rather than sulk from the sidelines? Why don’t we tell the story we know.
Following on from this, but less related directly to crusades, I was reading an interview between Phillip Pullman and the Archbishop Rowan Williams. Williams says the following,
“You can’t communicate Christianity simply as a set of ideas. At some point you’re going to have to sit down and tell a story. And tell a story which, because it’s a story, is bound to have some loose ends, some awkwardnesses. As it is we have four versions of the story of Jesus in the New Testament, because of that sense that a story can always be retold. And that introduces a bit of this irony in the narrative, which is very important in reinforcing the sense that this is something mysterious. I think there is something in that fundamental characteristic of Christianity which helps to enable a particular kind of storytelling.”
His words ring brilliantly true after a discussion I had with a guy this week about why I believe in this Christianity stuff. Anything of worth that I said (and I said more that was not valuable than was) came from a personal narrative within God’s broader narrative and not the relaying of facts.
I would like to see an approach of beginning to understand Christianity coming from more of a narrative than set of ideas.
death and doubt
Posted on November 19, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Discipleship | 2 Comments
I’m aware that this blog has tended to lean towards a more theoretical approach to issues, so here is a specific practical situation for your reflections. In our Sunday morning youth session, we were discussing how we deal with (rather than ignore) doubts, and in the small group discussion afterwards had one of our girls asking their leader-person the following question (or words to that effect):
I’ve got a friend who has had three of her friends die in the past year and now they’re not sure if they believe in God. What should I tell them?
It’s a scary question, and by the sounds of it our leader-person did an admirable job in trying her best to handle it. But I’m intrigued to hear what you, the wise readers out there think. How does someone respond to that situation?
the church lobby
Posted on November 15, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Church | 13 Comments
*WARNING* - You are reading a post on politics by a self-confessed lefty. Be careful.
At the moment, in Australia (where lots of your Amateur Theologians are living), we are in the midst of a Federal election campaign. I’m also aware that our poor cousins in the You-nited States are revving up for a big presidential election next year. So politics, and political campaigning is everywhere. And there’s no doubt that some of the really loud voices on both sides of the pacific come from christian churches and lobby groups. From the hard-right conservatives, through to the environment-loving lefty christians - it seems that Christianity is involving itself in the political process more and more. For the moment I’m not really looking to the “what” of their message (although that will inevitably seep into the conversation), but the “why” and “how” of church involvement in politics.
The way I see it, there are a few different approaches to politicking that churches and para-church groups take:
- The “Jesus would vote for…” approach. It’s not that hard to spot, but it’s certainly around - even from pulpits. It’s distasteful to many (myself included), but it does have one thing going for it: it’s transparent and honest. There’s no “read-between-the-lines-to-see-who-you-should-vote-for” - it’s this guy or you’re going straight to hell. I’d include in this basket the approach of: “we think you should be very serious about who you vote for so we’ve invited one candidate from a certain party to speak at church”.
- The “this position is the Christian position…” approach. A slight deviation from the “vote for Bob” but it can often end up being a thinly veiled attempt to say exactly that. At it’s best, this approach shows genuine concern for a specific issue and asks people to vote for whoever they feel best responds to that issue. At it’s worst, it reads from a party policy document (or words to that effect), highlights who might be aligned with that particular view.
- The “these are things that Jesus spoke about” approach. A deviation further away from number 2 - this presents issues as less explicitly political, but more issues of morality or justice. It has the advantage of not patronizing the people being presented to, but also has the potential to have people miss the connection between their Christianity and the rest of their lives (duality, etc.)
I can see people in churches and church-organisations adopting all three of these approaches. So I’m interested to see what people think? Should churches be voicing their opinions on political issues? Should that come from the pulpit? Is the line between issues that are “political” and “non-political” a furphy? Is it more OK for Christian organisations than it is for churches?
Rhetorical questions over. Comment away.
has it occurred to you that you might be wrong?
Posted on November 13, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions | 2 Comments
The above clip is more of your traditional “tell-a-funny-story-that’s-vaguely-related” rather than making a specific point. And the title is taken from a often referred to peanuts cartoon (stole the linked image from pomomusings - hopefully they don’t mind). But here’s what I’ve been pondering. A big part of what the “emerging conversation” and considering “post-modernism” has been doing to my feeble little brain has been to reinforce this notion that there are things I’ve been “certain” of, that might actually be wrong. Some of those things I’m quite sure I was outright wrong about.
Now, if we consider that:
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1)
then I’m a little bit flummoxed about how we ought to act in regard to things we could quite well be wrong about. Because it’s easy to mistake faith for intellectual arrogance. I could try and unpack this a whole lot more but I think the discussion might be better served if I leave it there. How does humility about the things we “know about God”, interplay with wanting to act and live out of a place of faith?
a spectrum of approaches to leadership
Posted on November 7, 2007 by Tim Ogilvy
Filed Under Church | 15 Comments
I’m currently re-thinking my beliefs about the role and nature of leadership, and I thought it might be interesting to share some of those ideas here.
While I’ve learned a lot about the values and traits that make ‘good’ leaders from church and family, most of what I’ve learned about the skills and attitudes that make it all happen I’ve learned from being an adventure guide, and studying education and psychology. Sometimes these things dovetail and complement each other, and sometimes they conflict rather badly.
Of particular interest to me at the moment is the interaction between risk, responsibility, and control… and the implications for how we lead as those parameters change. As a member of a fairly liberal church, we aren’t especially ‘hands on’ with our leadership, often preferring to let things find their own way, with love and encouragement… and I think this can be justified with reference to Mathew 20:25-28. On the other hand, there are other circumstances, where we have a duty of care, or where a situation is life-threatening, where an increasingly direct approach to leadership might be mandated. Especially in reference to Mathew 18:6. The diagram below illustrates the need for an adaptive approach, and is based on theory from Kurt Lewin, and Priest and Gass (Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming, 1997).
Some churches, especially larger and more traditional ones seem to find it easy to justify staying at the authoritarian end of the spectrum, even in low risk conditions… but I find this difficult to justify, both in the light of Mathew 20, and because I believe that excessive authoritarian control can stand in the way of young people and even adults moral development (Kohlberg).
The sources of leadership power and social power, and the risks involved in misuse of power, and failure to understand the servant heart of leadership are other very interesting issues, and these ideas all have interesting implications for Christians in leadership… but I’m going to have to do more reading before I can bring a theological angle to that discussion!
