about 18 months ago I got a gig running Hamo's blog for a couple of weeks while he was away. More for my benefit (as in having a record) than for anything else, I am going to post the old posts from that time up on here - starting with my introductory post:
Grendel.
Ok - weird kinda name, like many internet handles.
There is a reason for it - anyone study early English literature? because this is from some of the very earliest. The story of how the hero Beowulf slew the monster Grendel. How I came to acquire the Dane-eating monster’s name rather than the hero’s is a whole other story.
So Hamo has turned me loose on his blog (”whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in blog also. . .”) and he has suggested that I may provoke some discussion because I am in a different place than him.
“Oh crap! He’s let a catholic loose in the blogsphere!” Ha, not quite.
An Atheist (A post on that term later! And I’ll be talking to the one I heard say “thank God it wasn’t a catholic” about the spirit of ecumenism after class.)
So why would an atheist have an interest in a blog that is essentially about religion - and about communicating that religion to others?
Is it that I want to read it and then go have a laugh with all my atheist mates about how silly it all is?
Or am I here to convert people way from their faith from some bizarre sense of atheistic duty?
Or am I here, at the inspiration of some malevolent (and from my perspective - non-existent) spiritual power to lure the faithful into sin?
Well, none of the above response are correct.
Mostly I’m here because of Hamo.
He’s a good bloke, he cares about people, and unlike many of us he acts in ways that make that care a reality not rhetoric.
He also likes coffee and he lives in Brighton. I first encountered Hamo in planning for a backyard blitz up here in Brighton, and he talked about what he was doing here. My background predisposed me to listen to what Hamo had to say and also to recognise his genuineness and commitment to what he feels is where ‘the spirit’ is leading him.
Now, it would be easy for me to engage at this point on trying to explain away ‘Holy Spirit’ as impulses derived from a deep empathy combined with an ethos that makes demands outside the normal realm of dedication to genetic family and immediate social supports. To engage in that exercise would become tedious in the extreme (at least to me) and I am not in the business of attacking those who have faith. I see that as disrespectful, a denial of rights and in (most) cases a futile exercise.
So Hamo has handed his blog over to a self-described athiest for two weeks. What kind of opportunities does this pose for those involved in missional Christianity? That is really up to you - I’m willing to take the discussion along some wide ranging paths - not so much from a debate about who is right or wrong, but more about the role of church and faith in my world.
I’m going to leave the first post there because I’d like to see what the reaction is to our experiment at this point. In the next post I will provide a little more background about me and how I moved to where I am now (spiritually speaking).
At the very least this fortnight will be an interesting exploration into why people who have faith, lose it and their journey from that point on.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I'm Sorry
Paraphrased from the Prime Minister's speech to parliament this morning:
He may be dry but that comment shows he's got a nice complex sense of humour!
Mr Rudd told the story of an elderly indigenous woman, part of the Stolen
Generations, an elegant, eloquent and wonderful woman in her 80s full of life,
full of funny stories despite what has happened in her life's journey.
Mr Rudd said his friend told him of the love and warmth she felt while
growing up with her family in an Aboriginal community just outside Tennant
Creek. In the early 1930s, at the age of four, she remembers being taken away by
“the welfare men”. “Her family had feared that day and had dug holes in the
creek bank where the children could run and hide,”
They brought a truck, two white men and an Aboriginal stockman who found
the hiding children and herded them into the truck. She remembered her mother
clinging onto the side of the truck, with tears flowing down her cheeks as it
drove off. She never saw her mother again. After living in Alice Springs for a
“few years”, government policy changed and the young girl was handed over to the
missions. “The kids were simply told to line up in three lines ... those on the
left were told they had become Catholics, those in the middle, Methodist and
those on the right, Church of England. That's how the complex questions of
post-reformation theology were resolved in the Australian outback in the 1930s.”
He may be dry but that comment shows he's got a nice complex sense of humour!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Priority
How should we prioritise government spending?
The state government here in Western Australia seems to have no real pattern to how it allocates major spending on either infrastructure or services.
That's not so say money is misspent, only that there is no rationale provided for some projects are they relate to others.
Naturally, the political party/s that hold government get to decide the main policy on how and where money will be used, but nationally, Australians seem to place a strange priority on how, when and where our taxes are spent.
We will applaud a decision to build a $1 Billion sports stadium - yet only the week before the media and public may have been crying their dismay at an under spent service area.
Working in the area that I do, I often see unmet demand for services. This is a problem for the individuals directly involved but it is also a problem more broadly because not providing the services required directly impacts on productivity and engagement with the community.
At the same time, the government is funding projects, that some would see as essential, but others would see as further down the line in terms of priority.
Sports stadiums for example. How do you weigh the benefits of a new sports stadium against providing accommodation and personal care support for a sportsman who is now a tetraplegic?
More to the point - how about ensuring that all West Australians with a disability can actually go to the football first (if they want to) before we build another sports stadium.
For many West Australians the stadium comes a long way down their list of priorities - they'd like to be able to be helped into bed at a time of their choosing, rather than wait for 5 hours while a lone carer travels between homes getting people into their beds.
They'd like a hot meal every day - instead on one or two days a week.
They'd love to be able to go out once in a while, but their pressure sores haven't been dressed, they have infections as a result and the priority is to have these cleaned and dressed.
I know capital spending is different to recurrent service funding but we are, after all, talking about ONE BILLION DOLLARS. We seem to forget just how much money that really is - ONE THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS.
3.5% of that amount would provide enough money to meet the needs of people with disabilities. The interest on $1 Billion alone would cover what is needed twice over. And yet, the stadium will get built while West Australians, who, through no fault of their own, suffer in pain - often alone and they'll still not have the opportunity to get to see any event staged at the $1 Billion 'success' for the government.
I'm sure it will be accessible - it may even have a terrific viewing area for wheelchair users that is not shoved off to some dark corner of the ground - but what use are the ramps and the lifts, the special parking and the toilets if the people who would love to use those facilities are not even having their basic daily needs met?
I'd love to see governments come to elections with a 'Strategic Spending Plan' that shows how they will spend government money and why - and prioritises spending because I think that is the best indicator of the true influences on that government.
If they are going to build a massive infrastructure plant that benefits only one group or organisation and this is at the top of the list, then you can clearly see the level of influence that group or organisation has - it may not be fair, but at least it is transparent.
I can however, imagine the horror of any government being asked up front where they saw that money was most needed - imagine how many voters you could put offside in just one list!
The state government here in Western Australia seems to have no real pattern to how it allocates major spending on either infrastructure or services.
That's not so say money is misspent, only that there is no rationale provided for some projects are they relate to others.
Naturally, the political party/s that hold government get to decide the main policy on how and where money will be used, but nationally, Australians seem to place a strange priority on how, when and where our taxes are spent.
We will applaud a decision to build a $1 Billion sports stadium - yet only the week before the media and public may have been crying their dismay at an under spent service area.
Working in the area that I do, I often see unmet demand for services. This is a problem for the individuals directly involved but it is also a problem more broadly because not providing the services required directly impacts on productivity and engagement with the community.
At the same time, the government is funding projects, that some would see as essential, but others would see as further down the line in terms of priority.
Sports stadiums for example. How do you weigh the benefits of a new sports stadium against providing accommodation and personal care support for a sportsman who is now a tetraplegic?
More to the point - how about ensuring that all West Australians with a disability can actually go to the football first (if they want to) before we build another sports stadium.
For many West Australians the stadium comes a long way down their list of priorities - they'd like to be able to be helped into bed at a time of their choosing, rather than wait for 5 hours while a lone carer travels between homes getting people into their beds.
They'd like a hot meal every day - instead on one or two days a week.
They'd love to be able to go out once in a while, but their pressure sores haven't been dressed, they have infections as a result and the priority is to have these cleaned and dressed.
I know capital spending is different to recurrent service funding but we are, after all, talking about ONE BILLION DOLLARS. We seem to forget just how much money that really is - ONE THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS.
3.5% of that amount would provide enough money to meet the needs of people with disabilities. The interest on $1 Billion alone would cover what is needed twice over. And yet, the stadium will get built while West Australians, who, through no fault of their own, suffer in pain - often alone and they'll still not have the opportunity to get to see any event staged at the $1 Billion 'success' for the government.
I'm sure it will be accessible - it may even have a terrific viewing area for wheelchair users that is not shoved off to some dark corner of the ground - but what use are the ramps and the lifts, the special parking and the toilets if the people who would love to use those facilities are not even having their basic daily needs met?
I'd love to see governments come to elections with a 'Strategic Spending Plan' that shows how they will spend government money and why - and prioritises spending because I think that is the best indicator of the true influences on that government.
If they are going to build a massive infrastructure plant that benefits only one group or organisation and this is at the top of the list, then you can clearly see the level of influence that group or organisation has - it may not be fair, but at least it is transparent.
I can however, imagine the horror of any government being asked up front where they saw that money was most needed - imagine how many voters you could put offside in just one list!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Apologies
I'm not the PM, so I don't have to be quite so circumspect in my words. The following is where I got to on my version of an apology - It could probably go much further than this but it is about where I would start.
To the first Australians, the custodians of this wide brown land, I express on behalf of parliament our sorrow.
Between a mix of good intentioned and ill intentioned actions, successive Australian governments have caused harm and grief to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The result of these actions has been the perpetuation of injustices against you, our fellow Australians, our sisters and our brothers.
Recent governments have recognised these wrongs, and some have acted, but still we have failed. The result is that you do not live as long as your fellow Australians. You suffer from crime and unemployment at levels that would never be tolerated if they were experienced by all Australians.
We are sorry that this situation has been allowed to continue.
We are sorry that we came, uninvited, and took away your land.
We are sorry that we gave you work, but took away your pay.
We are sorry that we gave you money, but took away your work.
We are sorry that we took away your children and gave you despair, for well intentioned as our motives may have been, the grief from those days has remained and continues.
We are sorry for all the right things, done the wrong way and for all the wrong things done in the name of the government.
We are sorry for dragging our heels when you asked for help and for placing bureaucracy in the way of compassion.
We are sorry for acting compassionately without consulting you on how best to turn that compassion into useful actions.
We are sorry that even today you die sooner than your fellow Australians, and that 'benign neglect' has been our most positive policy response to this.
We are sorry that because of this neglect you are more likely to be victims and perpetrators of crime, your women assaulted and raped, your children abused and your young men jailed.
We have known this has been happening for years and we have not done enough.
It may be that we can never do enough to restore what has been lost, but perhaps, together we can build something new – an Australia that is owned by all of us, that works for all of us and for whom each one of us is willing to take responsibility.
We can be the best of all nations – but we cannot be the best of all nations unless our first people take their place in the continued renewal of our nation.
For this we all are responsible and for having prevented you from participating in our national life we are indeed very sorry. This has harmed us all and you most of all.
We are sorry that this apology has taken 200 years to make.
To the first Australians, the custodians of this wide brown land, I express on behalf of parliament our sorrow.
Between a mix of good intentioned and ill intentioned actions, successive Australian governments have caused harm and grief to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The result of these actions has been the perpetuation of injustices against you, our fellow Australians, our sisters and our brothers.
Recent governments have recognised these wrongs, and some have acted, but still we have failed. The result is that you do not live as long as your fellow Australians. You suffer from crime and unemployment at levels that would never be tolerated if they were experienced by all Australians.
We are sorry that this situation has been allowed to continue.
We are sorry that we came, uninvited, and took away your land.
We are sorry that we gave you work, but took away your pay.
We are sorry that we gave you money, but took away your work.
We are sorry that we took away your children and gave you despair, for well intentioned as our motives may have been, the grief from those days has remained and continues.
We are sorry for all the right things, done the wrong way and for all the wrong things done in the name of the government.
We are sorry for dragging our heels when you asked for help and for placing bureaucracy in the way of compassion.
We are sorry for acting compassionately without consulting you on how best to turn that compassion into useful actions.
We are sorry that even today you die sooner than your fellow Australians, and that 'benign neglect' has been our most positive policy response to this.
We are sorry that because of this neglect you are more likely to be victims and perpetrators of crime, your women assaulted and raped, your children abused and your young men jailed.
We have known this has been happening for years and we have not done enough.
It may be that we can never do enough to restore what has been lost, but perhaps, together we can build something new – an Australia that is owned by all of us, that works for all of us and for whom each one of us is willing to take responsibility.
We can be the best of all nations – but we cannot be the best of all nations unless our first people take their place in the continued renewal of our nation.
For this we all are responsible and for having prevented you from participating in our national life we are indeed very sorry. This has harmed us all and you most of all.
We are sorry that this apology has taken 200 years to make.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Orstrayian Test
Of all the ludicrous attempts at defining a national identity, former PM John Howard's authorship of some of the questions in the citizenship test would have to rank fairly high.
I however, think the man has been misjudged. I think he was a visionary - he saw from the start that the nation must inevitably accept wave after wave of immigration if it was to survive and he saw the need for a unifying force to bind the new Australians together.
The Cult of the Don.
Yup, that man, who was by repute an "arsehole" - a nasty little stock trader from South Australia was to become the new idol of a national religion that was, at its core, the epitome of John Howard's "Vision for Australia".
Howard wasn't writing questions to keep people out - he must have been coldly aware that five of the biggest groups seeking to land on our shores already knew very well who Don Bradman was - he just wanted to make sure they understood how high the Don must be placed in the national esteem.
After all it is not as if the English, South Africans, New Zealanders, Indians and Pakistanis have never seen a game of cricket - its just that their idea of who is a cricket hero needs a little adjustment before they'll really fit in to Australian society.
Sadly for Howard, although he may have been able to bowl a googlie in the last term, the electorate were all too aware that Howard, like Don Bradman had a limited game, played it then sat back and traded on the success that was as narrow in its scope as it was emphatic in effect.
Frankly the sooner the Bradman question, and some of the other pathetic attempts to deter African and European migrants and dealt with, the happier I'll be.
I however, think the man has been misjudged. I think he was a visionary - he saw from the start that the nation must inevitably accept wave after wave of immigration if it was to survive and he saw the need for a unifying force to bind the new Australians together.
The Cult of the Don.
Yup, that man, who was by repute an "arsehole" - a nasty little stock trader from South Australia was to become the new idol of a national religion that was, at its core, the epitome of John Howard's "Vision for Australia".
Howard wasn't writing questions to keep people out - he must have been coldly aware that five of the biggest groups seeking to land on our shores already knew very well who Don Bradman was - he just wanted to make sure they understood how high the Don must be placed in the national esteem.
After all it is not as if the English, South Africans, New Zealanders, Indians and Pakistanis have never seen a game of cricket - its just that their idea of who is a cricket hero needs a little adjustment before they'll really fit in to Australian society.
Sadly for Howard, although he may have been able to bowl a googlie in the last term, the electorate were all too aware that Howard, like Don Bradman had a limited game, played it then sat back and traded on the success that was as narrow in its scope as it was emphatic in effect.
Frankly the sooner the Bradman question, and some of the other pathetic attempts to deter African and European migrants and dealt with, the happier I'll be.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Unintended consequences
Policy changes in government can sometimes communicate a more general message to the community.
Australia has just emerged from 11 years of conservative government and the policies enacted by that government have had a broader impact than intended.
Take for example the policy towards refugees. It was touted as a way of protecting the country and all statements to the contrary it also communicated an attitude of ‘we don’t care’ and if even we did actually care, it has been interpreted by some Australians as meaning just that.
Other areas of social justice have also been ‘harder’ – the approach towards the unemployed and the ‘tough love’ strategies in dealing with indigenous issues are some examples of where policy, with probably good intent, and even with good interventions in some cases can be misinterpreted.
I work with people with disabilities – probably the easiest group to defend in terms of justifiable need and yet there has been a hardening towards funding for the disability sector that parallels the situation in other sectors. This has occurred even while the rhetoric has been directly contradictory to the funding situation.
Everyone agrees that funding should be increased, that people with disabilities should be included and that families and carers should be supported – this is bipartisan politically and yet. . .
Australia has been conditioned not to care. 11 years of being told to put ourselves first and that security is the most important national priority has resulted in behavioural change at the social, cultural and political levels and acculturated a nation that no longer has the capacity to care.
The greatest task facing this nation today is to restore compassion as a central core of policy, practice and belief.
Australia has just emerged from 11 years of conservative government and the policies enacted by that government have had a broader impact than intended.
Take for example the policy towards refugees. It was touted as a way of protecting the country and all statements to the contrary it also communicated an attitude of ‘we don’t care’ and if even we did actually care, it has been interpreted by some Australians as meaning just that.
Other areas of social justice have also been ‘harder’ – the approach towards the unemployed and the ‘tough love’ strategies in dealing with indigenous issues are some examples of where policy, with probably good intent, and even with good interventions in some cases can be misinterpreted.
I work with people with disabilities – probably the easiest group to defend in terms of justifiable need and yet there has been a hardening towards funding for the disability sector that parallels the situation in other sectors. This has occurred even while the rhetoric has been directly contradictory to the funding situation.
Everyone agrees that funding should be increased, that people with disabilities should be included and that families and carers should be supported – this is bipartisan politically and yet. . .
Australia has been conditioned not to care. 11 years of being told to put ourselves first and that security is the most important national priority has resulted in behavioural change at the social, cultural and political levels and acculturated a nation that no longer has the capacity to care.
The greatest task facing this nation today is to restore compassion as a central core of policy, practice and belief.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Future for Christianity in Australia (Synchroblog)
My mate Hamo let me know about this synchroblog and mentioned I might be interested - he's right! Normally I blog here: at Cafe Grendel, but I kind of like to keep it mostly about coffee - or food, or with at least some coffee kind of context. This post however is so radically outside I thought it better placed here - after all having only used this one once or twice it could use a good dust off.
You may well ask why an atheist bothers to concern himself with the future of Christianity at all - perhaps some might think I should be working my hardest to see that religious belief has no future. I however believe that is folly and my personal consideration has always been that people are entitled to their faith and for many life would be poorer without it.
In that context then, what does an atheist see as the future of Christianity in Australia, and why would I consider Christianity important in Australia's future.
Primarily I am a culturally Christian atheist - that is the culture and beliefs of Christians are not significantly different from my own and I would fit quite comfortably within most Australian churches but for the simple fact that I do not believe in the existence of God.
This has not always been the case - for nearly 30 years I did believe in God - and was very active in a Christian community - I won't go into the reason for my lack of faith here, but generally I consider that most of the core teachings of Christ are relevant and beneficial to humanity.
Australia will continue to be largely 'culturally Christian' but it will also continue to drift to less formal expressions of faith as the various church structures and strictures fail the relevency test for the common Australian.
The challenge for the church (broadest sense) is to make itself continually relevent - but without betraying the truths that are at the core of the belief of Christianity.
I think that the church needs to revisit the way that society's moral demands have changed it - and vice versa and look closely at some of the issues that have resulted from moral positions that result in outcomes that cause harm and hurt to Australians.
I'm not suggesting the church should allow what it considers 'immoral behaviour' to be acceptable - this would abandon some core beliefs, I am however suggesting that the church in Australia appears to lack compassion and has abandoned any pretense of the missionary approach which were the origin on the church and the reason it grew and thrived. That is a rather general statement and there are some excellent examples of missionary church approaches even here in Perth with the Peace Tree crew in Lockridge and the various emerging church groups in the suburbs.
Bigger in this case, is certainly not better. The greatest dangers to Christianity is Australia is from the most conservative elements of the churches who in thinking to defend their faith are isolating their faith. By building walls and guard towers and defending these with arrows of malignancy, they have managed to place themselves in a position where they believe they are under siege.
Sadly for them, it wasn't really an attacking army just a very large crowd wandering along the road outside their castle walls - they'll have all passed by soon and the castle will be left to defend the wasteland.
The second threat is from those who run corporate churches - the corporate model was not the vision of Christ - and if there is a kingdom of God then the corporate model certainly has no place within it. Historically the merchant class was always distrusted by the aristocracy.
Sadly the corporate approach works - as a business. They have a great product, cool marketing and well known brand and are full of loyal customers who bought the sales pitch and enjoy the show. They also enjoy the feeling of belonging to a large and significant group because that makes them feel significant too. The bit that makes me angry was that these people were already significant but because no one had ever told them this there are now grateful to the first group who ever did.
Pauline Hanson managed much the same thing with ultra conservative Australians in the late 1990s.
The corporate approach however does not meet my earlier criteria of the church needing to remain true to the core beliefs of Christianity - there has been too much traded in in order to make the package more attractive.
Australia has a long history (both good and bad) of the church as a central player in Australian life. This will continue - and change will continue. Australians who hold a genuine faith are actively discussing how they can serve. It's kind of refreshing to hear that word used in the proper Christian context from time to time but it is all too rare.
I'd like to see more discussion from Christians that objectively seeks opportunities to improve life for their fellow Australians rather than increase attendance at services. Do the first and I think the second will follow.
Christ taught love. Repeatedly. From our far neighbour the United States of America we see the ultimate betrayal of this teaching by the Westboro 'Baptist Church' who use only the language of hate. I fear that those churches who have isolated themselves in their fortresses risk the same sin.
Christ taught love. Repeatedly. The church must live this if it is to live at all.
This post is part of the Christianity In Australia synchroblog which a number of Australian Christians are participating in to celebrate Australia Day. For more on Christianity in Australia see:
You may well ask why an atheist bothers to concern himself with the future of Christianity at all - perhaps some might think I should be working my hardest to see that religious belief has no future. I however believe that is folly and my personal consideration has always been that people are entitled to their faith and for many life would be poorer without it.
In that context then, what does an atheist see as the future of Christianity in Australia, and why would I consider Christianity important in Australia's future.
Primarily I am a culturally Christian atheist - that is the culture and beliefs of Christians are not significantly different from my own and I would fit quite comfortably within most Australian churches but for the simple fact that I do not believe in the existence of God.
This has not always been the case - for nearly 30 years I did believe in God - and was very active in a Christian community - I won't go into the reason for my lack of faith here, but generally I consider that most of the core teachings of Christ are relevant and beneficial to humanity.
Australia will continue to be largely 'culturally Christian' but it will also continue to drift to less formal expressions of faith as the various church structures and strictures fail the relevency test for the common Australian.
The challenge for the church (broadest sense) is to make itself continually relevent - but without betraying the truths that are at the core of the belief of Christianity.
I think that the church needs to revisit the way that society's moral demands have changed it - and vice versa and look closely at some of the issues that have resulted from moral positions that result in outcomes that cause harm and hurt to Australians.
I'm not suggesting the church should allow what it considers 'immoral behaviour' to be acceptable - this would abandon some core beliefs, I am however suggesting that the church in Australia appears to lack compassion and has abandoned any pretense of the missionary approach which were the origin on the church and the reason it grew and thrived. That is a rather general statement and there are some excellent examples of missionary church approaches even here in Perth with the Peace Tree crew in Lockridge and the various emerging church groups in the suburbs.
Bigger in this case, is certainly not better. The greatest dangers to Christianity is Australia is from the most conservative elements of the churches who in thinking to defend their faith are isolating their faith. By building walls and guard towers and defending these with arrows of malignancy, they have managed to place themselves in a position where they believe they are under siege.
Sadly for them, it wasn't really an attacking army just a very large crowd wandering along the road outside their castle walls - they'll have all passed by soon and the castle will be left to defend the wasteland.
The second threat is from those who run corporate churches - the corporate model was not the vision of Christ - and if there is a kingdom of God then the corporate model certainly has no place within it. Historically the merchant class was always distrusted by the aristocracy.
Sadly the corporate approach works - as a business. They have a great product, cool marketing and well known brand and are full of loyal customers who bought the sales pitch and enjoy the show. They also enjoy the feeling of belonging to a large and significant group because that makes them feel significant too. The bit that makes me angry was that these people were already significant but because no one had ever told them this there are now grateful to the first group who ever did.
Pauline Hanson managed much the same thing with ultra conservative Australians in the late 1990s.
The corporate approach however does not meet my earlier criteria of the church needing to remain true to the core beliefs of Christianity - there has been too much traded in in order to make the package more attractive.
Australia has a long history (both good and bad) of the church as a central player in Australian life. This will continue - and change will continue. Australians who hold a genuine faith are actively discussing how they can serve. It's kind of refreshing to hear that word used in the proper Christian context from time to time but it is all too rare.
I'd like to see more discussion from Christians that objectively seeks opportunities to improve life for their fellow Australians rather than increase attendance at services. Do the first and I think the second will follow.
Christ taught love. Repeatedly. From our far neighbour the United States of America we see the ultimate betrayal of this teaching by the Westboro 'Baptist Church' who use only the language of hate. I fear that those churches who have isolated themselves in their fortresses risk the same sin.
Christ taught love. Repeatedly. The church must live this if it is to live at all.
This post is part of the Christianity In Australia synchroblog which a number of Australian Christians are participating in to celebrate Australia Day. For more on Christianity in Australia see:
- Andrew Hamilton at Backyard Missionary
- Matt Stone at Journeys In Between
- Ben Thurley at Ben’s Blog
- Rodney Olsen at RodneyOlsen.net
- Geoff Pengilly at The Healing Project
- Andy Porteous at Not Yet Finished
- Paul Robotham at A Christian’s Blog
- Chris Summerfield at A Churchless Faith
- Christina Aitken at Sojourn
- Heather at A Deconstructed Christian
- Geoff Matheson at Amateur Theology
- Deborah Taggart at The Bright Side
- Rob Hanks at Pump House
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
