G’day!!!!
Hamo has invited me [Jarrod] be back this year and have some great stuff coming on the witness of the early Christians with my friend Ali and what it means for seeking lives of grace today!!!! More of that latter.
But first hear is some stuff EPYC is partnering with to “Empower Peacemakers” bring the witness of “Radical Christianity” to the mainstream:
1. John Jensen:
former cage fighter, bull fighter, and jiu-jitsu expert whose in Perth cause God is calling him to now be a preacher of the Way of Christ: nonviolence love. He is looking to start EPYC back in the States
He’s preaching Sunday night 6pm at Riverview: 1 Thorogood St Burswood
2. Donna Mulhearn:
Donna you may have seen on “Australian Story”. See was a human shield in Iraq, has done humanitarian work in Palestine, teaches ‘the prayer of the heart’ or what is often called Christian meditation and was one of the history making Pine Gap 4. Donna is in Perth wanting to be a part of EPYC nationally.
She’s speaking at Newbigin group meeting Monday, March 10 (7.30 -9.30) at the Hills, 8 Kirby Way, Samson. The first part of the evening will be an introductory discussion of our program for the year: the theme of which will be to explore and reflect on the activities of admirable, controversial and inspiring Christians who are examples of what it means to live out the gospel as public truth. The second part of the evening will involve a conversation with Ms Donna Mulhearn, a former political advisor in the Carr Labor government in NSW, who has spent time in Iraq. Hearing about her journey as an activist and a Christian will provide an interesting and challenging start to our discussion of living out the gospel as public truth. Ms Mulhearn is in Perth has a guest of Jarrod McKenna.
Donna has been featured on the ABC’s Australian story. If you would like to find out a bit about her go to:
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2005/s1404292.htm (or just google her name!)
Hope to see ya there.
Grace and peace,
Jarrod
Ah Jarrod.
Bless you for your unfailing enthusiasm.
Donna is – I am sure (and have been assured by one who knows her well) – a delightful person, but a person whose outlook and actions have convinced many of us to run a mile away from anything she is associated with.
And the darling Rev. We love him too. Tatooed tummy and all. We’d give him a hug, send him off on his bike with a bunch of organic vegies from our garden, maybe some extra for his friends, and thank God he’s not a policeman.
As for EPYC: Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Badshah Khan and Vincent Lingiari…every trendy political left hero is there. Do you also lionize loonies like Chavez?
Not sure what you wish to achieve in schools and churches with all that. (I think Palestinians have more PhDs in peace studies per capita than any other state in the world and fat lot of good that’s done them). But if that’s indicative of “radical Christianity”, then may it never enter the Christian mainstream, or any school attended by any child in my family.
Peace bro.
Ooops, forgot: Cause junkies unite!
Saint – your comments make me pretty sad. And I’m an atheist and probably shouldn’t care.
What I see from Jarrod is a different approach – not necessarily a better one but certainly a necessary one. How sad it would be if all Christianity progressed in its staid path with the outriders ready and willing to witness to those beyond the norm – and willing to carry a message of peace at the risk of their own lives.
The ‘loony left’ heroes you listed are not heroes because they are of the left, but because they too had a vision of peace.
No one could doubt they were human with all the failings of humans, and even though politically they may be ‘out there’ ALL of them acted to awaken people to what was possible and have had a real and lasting impact on the world.
I have trouble thinking of any heroes of ‘the right’ who have had a lasting impact beyond economics.
Chavez (to my knowledge) is not an advocate of peace. No more than ‘W’ Bush is.
The fact that Palestinians have more ‘Peace PhDs’ per capita is probably an indication of how much their educated class really to want peace and makes the fact they don’t have peace yet all the more tragic.
Grendel, don’t be sad.
If I am critical of how the gospel has been subjugated to right-wing politics, I am also critical when it is subjugated to left-wing politics. And I also critical that many Palestinian Christians have subjugated the gospel to Arab nationalism and their hate for Israel and/or Jews.
I may be critical of Ghandi’s stupidity in thinking that if only the Jews just marched to their deaths in the hands of the Nazis, the Nazis would have woken up, all by themselves. I may even be critical of his anti-semitic grandson.
I may be critical of the whole “rights” discourse….or anything else.
And you may be critical of me.
Nothing to be sad about.
And I am critical of people who are too critical… 🙂 cheer up, go make yourself some fairy bread. Or are you critical of fairies?
Roo – the first thing I notice about all the luvvies, greenies and peaceniks is that they hate criticism or anyone who disagrees with them.
The second thing I notice is that love to deride or shut down people like this.
Yeah he’s a Lutheran. But then as Luther said: sin boldly, and believe more boldly still.
“luvvies, greenies and peaceniks”
As in:
“love one another as I have loved you”?
Grendel,
No.
Let’s take greenies as an example. A lot of greenies base their activism on foundations that are antithetical to a Christian understanding of creation and man’s vocation within creation (and there are valid reasons why present day greenies are called watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside) That can have significant, if not deadly outcomes, for humanity.
Unfortunately because so many Christians these days are ignorant of their own history and theology (or else just take non-Christian’s interpretation as gospel truth) and have never properly examined the foundations of say the present day environmentalist movement, they just go along with the latest fad and prevailing mindset, thereby subjugating the gospel to politics and other false gods again (or else they water it down to some diluted wishy-washy notion of “stewardship”).
are you seriously contending that environmental conservationism is antithetical to Christianity?
While feeling pulled to fight – i will instead just want to say, i enjoy you Jarrod, your commitment to what God is doing in the world and to following Jesus Christ whom he sent.
Shalom
*Irony Alert*
Why does everyone from the right always generalise?
“are you seriously contending that environmental conservationism is antithetical to Christianity?”
Roo, much of the present day environmental movement is.
Something for you to think about: was God’s mandate to man “conservation” and if so, conserve what? Why?
(BTW to ease your little greenie mind, I am not advocating full scale trash and pillage of the planet…:-))
Saint – I’d respond with a question of my own – Has God given us a mandate to use all the non-renewable resources in our time?
I’d suggest that the only alternative to this is thoughtful conservation of those resources.
Grendel –
As an atheist you would think in terms of “non-renewable”, “depletion”, “use” or “consumption”… you know, something along the lines of “Gaia is going to eat us all up if we don’t stop consuming her”.
Which taken to it’s natural ends becomes: “Quick, kill all who stand in the way of Gaia” (how many environmentalists for example, whinge about overpopulation and also advocate for abortion, reduced family sizes etc. despite the act that the entire population of the world can comfortably fit into an area the size of Queensland) or else “silence anyone who questoins Gaia’s wisdom”
Indeed I expect you to.
But don’t expect me to share your views or way of thinking.
As a Christian – and a former atheist – I don’t. Or more correctly, while I will have my own deficient understanding, I hope that I don’t subjugate my mind to this sort of Gaia nonsense.
So feel free to worship Gaia Grendel, but don’t presume you – as a self-professed atheist, one who of his own volition is outside of Christ – can tell a Christian what they *should* believe. You are free to disagree, but you can’t dictate (although more honest atheists of old, like Nietschke, recognized such dictates as a natural outcome of atheism).
Indeed, I reckon atheists – particularly today’s neo-atheists – should stop sucking off theists, particularly Christians – and start explaining their own foundations and reasoning, and the ends to which they lead. Try making your own positive case Grendel. Let’s see how good that is.
(yes I am giving you and others a bit of wind up, but if one is going to run around trying to indoctrinate children or ask people – Christians included – to bend their knees to Ghandi and Gaia, then they had better do some of their own hard work).
Roo and Grendel – why even engage with someone who is dripping with such disdain and patronisation? Your valuable input into this blog is wasted – ‘saint’ shows no interest in genuine dialogue but instead petulant backhanders.
I noticed Travis, but Saint also seems intent on projecting what I consider to be an extreme view onto me. Worship Gandhi and Gaia? Please.
Think pragmatism Saint and you’ll be a lot closer to my position. I have children – I want a future for them. If that means that I have to be a little less selfish for myself then so be it.
Further than this however I acknowledge that there are other parents out there, also with children and if again, I have to reduce my own consumption in order that they too might have a future, then this is a sacrifice worth making. If I then stretch my responsibility further and consider the children of parents in other countries, is this wrong?
What is anti-Christian about that?
Just as I would not give my own son a stone instead of a fish, why would I offer that as the option for other parents?
I don’t need to make a case for atheism Saint – I am not here to promote it or ‘lure’Christians from their faith (not that I’d imagine I’d have much luck in this crowd), it is just who I am. My own experiences have led me to unbelief and I have described this journey on this blog as a guest blogger, and on my own blog. Perhaps you might consider reading it before you tell me who I am?
Again Travis offers the standard response.
And Grendel is free to tell Christians what they should believe and what “causes” they should support, but can’t cope with some criticism, much less an examiniation of the foundations or the natural outcome/a> of the sorts of views he supports.
FWIW I read your series here Grendel but can’t remember it and don’t care to reread. Hamo thinks you’re a good bloke, and that is enough for me. Indeed, I am suggesting you do not different to what I suggested Christians do above. Some serious (self) examination.
Oops stuffed up the link.
My last contribution concerned with dialoguing with ‘saint’ on this matter is:
While I may actually agree with some (few) aspects of your argument ‘Saint'(which may surprise you), my objections regarding your input are twofold:
Firstly, I have little respect for someone who, masquerading as a courageous ‘defender of the faith’, makes stinging sarcastic remarks under the covers of a pseudonym. If you want to be taken seriously or ever associated with the word ‘courageous’ then at least put your name to it, as people like Hamo and Jarrod have been prepared to do.
Secondly, you may formulate a convincing argument ‘Saint’ but your presumptions and arrogance are nothing short of disturbing, and show little of the character of the Christ you profess. On this, I am not suggesting we need to embrace a weak, tamed, always-agreeable Jesus; I don’t believe that is who Jesus was. I do believe, however, he engaged in a way that was minus the haughtiness you exhibit and in so doing compelled people’s attention, even the attention of his opponents.
That said, I’m out.
“Firstly, I have little respect for someone who, masquerading as a courageous ‘defender of the faith’, makes stinging sarcastic remarks under the covers of a pseudonym.”
Your call Travis.
The pseudonym argument is a common one and bit of a yawn for those of us who have been online for years (and I won’t say anything about all that you have assumed…because I don’t want to embarass you more)
But I note no disagreement with what I said, just someone who takes criticism personally even when not directed at you personally, and one who resorts to personal attacks, even though I have pointed out that
(a) Jarrod, Donna, the Rev Grendel, Hamo are all commendable for various reasons, and
(b) I have been winding you up a bit even though I am deadly serious about my statements: I would not be sending any kid to a Jarrod peace talk nor would I be wanting to see this politico-religio syncretism move into mainstream Christianity.
What I read in these comments is
(a) people who are miffed because I disagreed
(b) people implying that a Christian should not think as I do/or to disagree is just. not. Christian (from a self-professed atheist no less, although I reckon Grendel would at least see the humour in that) or
(c) what a presumptious arrogant prick I am (from someone whom I don’t know but who apparently knows me – that would be you Travis)
Indeed, someone speaking in a school or a church has the benefit of a *captive audience* and an implied authority which you don’t get out in the public square. And if it comes to kids, I get particularly sensitive about what is shoved down their throats as I am sure you are with your kids too.
But we are not is a school or church here, but in a public space. So have at it guys, show me the error of my way, and show me why I should follow yours.
And something for you to think about Grendel given you don’t like my Gaia and Ghandi statement.
Everyone – including you – is a theologian.
Meaning everyone has a view of god and the world and the particular relationship between both.
And everyone has a god or even gods. The real question is which god, or even, who is god?
Now if I were to grossly oversimplify and classify these theological views I might come up with something like this:
1. THE WORLD = GOD
2. THE WORLD – GOD = THE WORLD
3. THE WORLD – GOD = 0
Actually I might be tempted to reduce it, like some have, to just two:
1. THE WORLD = GOD
3. THE WORLD – GOD = 0
Atheists, Ghandi and our little Gaia greenies fall into 1.
Christians fall into 3.
Sure people fall into big broad tents covered by such classifications and no one is exactly consistent or coherent in their theology – and wev carry all sorts of baggage as we cross the divide in one direction or another – but our theology has all sorts of implications.
You can see it immediately when one oversimplifies it like that before one starts really delving into important theological and philosophical questions.
Wow…
These comments don’t get emailed to me so I didn’t even know they were there!
I’m a little bemused as I read it all.
Saint, I guess you started the ball rolling with your first comment, but I must admit I read it and find myself wanting to arc up in response also! 🙂
Grendel & Gaia… a little funny but maybe a little rude also. Nice that Grendel is such a nice atheist!
Saint, nowhere in your equation did I see a coffee bean.
But seriously – each time I have seen you ‘simplify’ something or generalise something else it comes nowhere close to what I believe. In that respect simplification serves no useful purpose and I’d rather have the more complex discussion.
You didn’t quite get around to responding to my earlier question about why it is wrong to be aware of what resources I use with a view to the future – and please this time don’t respond with an extreme example like the ELF crew who are to the green movement what the guys who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors are to the Right-to-Life movement.
Saint i have taken my time to respond because i am unsure how to. your arguments show a lack of understanding of the issues when it comes to environmental conservation, an area i am passionate about, as I am about my faith, and have chosen to spend the next several years in under and post grad study, after having spent the previous six years studying theology.
Saying the worlds population can fit into QLD is specious.
Citing articles about extremism when talking about the issues is exactly like analogy Grendel has used above.
Stating environmentalism is antithetical to Christianity is not only ignorant of what the environmental cause is, but absurd and likely only done to get a reaction, which makes the conversation redundant as you are an anonymous face trying to cause a fuss and that seems a somewhat immature way to have a genuine discussion about what are serious issues.
do you blog? maybe you could write up your thoughts on the problems with environmentalism and post a link here so we can interact with them?
dear saint,
would you kindly stop lumping me in with those ghastly greenies and gandhi and atheists – you know me better than that. oh, and jesus asked me to tell you that he received all your recommendations but he’s got christianity fairly under control, thanks.
your friend always,
gaia
Saint,
I am trying to follow Jesus. Jesus says love your enemies, so I try to do that. Jesus says not to have power over others, so I try to do that. Jesus says to not put our trust in the material possessions of this world, and I make an effort to move in that direction. Jesus tells us to consider the lillies of the field, and the birds of the air, and tells us that none of them are not in the Fathers notice, so I try and be more conscious of the creation that my Father called good. Jesus also stood against the status quo, the church authorities, and the moralists, and I seek to do that while not becoming one myself, (which ofcourse I do not succeed in very often). My journey of discipleship may disturb and anger you, but that is not my problem.
When the early church contemplated the issues of violence, and leadership they came to the same conclusions that I have, so I feel I am in good company. They also followed in their discipleship in the way they approached money, a fact shown in scripture quite clearly. Their concern for the environmental issues was not of course an issue, as they still lived on the land in a more healthy way, not destroying the land by an unhealthy voracious consumerism, but it is very common sense that if we live simply, and care for the good creation our Father entrusted to us, that we are doing a good work.
But just in case you are worried:
Jarrod and I spoke about how we can be more faithful in sharing our faith, and making new disciples of Jesus. How we can live free of our sinful natures. Spend more time in the scriptures, be more faithful in our worship, and learn to be better more loving people in our communities.
I am sorry I have been unloving in my responses to you in the past, and I pray you will forgive me. I would challenge you to remember that gentleness is a fruit of the Spirit.
rev
Sounds like we need an old school cage fight to sort this one out (bring it on Rev) or… we could all drop our pants and see who has the biggest and then get on with it. Glenn
Hamo – sorry if I made you want to arc up. I was almost going to email you to make sure you didn’t. But like I said, I am prodding you guys a bit to see what comes out.
Grendel – I’m a heathen, I’ll even drink instant. And tonight I was drinking tea. OK then, I dare you to come up with an equation (or similar) representing your understanding of god and the world and how they relate to each other and explain to me how it differs from any of those.
Roo – you’ve read more into my comments that what I have stated. Go back, read them all again. Note what I am saying and not saying. Surely that’s rule no. 1 in peacemaking *pokes finger in rib*. I am not saying go and pillage the earth.
Anyway, I do blog. I’ve been meaning to hit this angle for a while now but don’t know if I can do it justice in the time I have. I will see what I can do – if only fish out some good online sources which explain it better – and let you know. In the meantime, in your theological studies, did you get to do any theology or philosophy, especially historical theology? Did you perhaps ever look at the history of the doctrine of creation (I suspect maybe not, very neglected) Will help me work out where to start/pick a point of contact (but I am not formally trained in theology; I did other stuff)
BTW, the only abortion related violence in Australia was perpetuated by a loner and a loon. Even the judge recognized that in his sentencing; I haven’t checked through the few incidents elsewhere around the world but I doubt I would find say, a Cardinal Pell or a Rev. Hamo amongst them. Our eco-terrorsts however, are following the natural trajectory of modern day Gaia greeny thought. That sort of violent outcome was predicted decades ago. This is what mum and dad greenies are uncritically supporting.
Rev – stop apologizing, you have nothing to apologize for. Your “journey” (bleh, too much time reading Signposts made me hate that word) does not disturb or anger me. I have no qualms about your sincerity or buying you a beer. I have even more faith in our God who will bring you home. But doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with you or question you.
“Gentleness” btw, is “restrained strength”. Which means I will just poke you in the ribs not bang you over the head.
Well who gets to decide what is a poke and what is a smash over the head, as I felt belittled and insulted, with no constructive instruction by your remarks.
rev
Oh and Glen, I like my chances in the cage fight much better than the alternative 🙂
rev
by the way if anyone wants to listen to a podcast of my message at riverview last sunday you can find it here: http://media.riverviewchurch.com.au/podcast/20080309_1800.mp3
rev
“The first rule about Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club.”
What’s encouraging about this thread is everyone is trying to defend their position from a Christian point of view, even the atheist. Can an atheist be a hypocrite? Sorry Grendel. If we ever meet, the coffee will be on me.
Another stunning contribution from Glenn.
I’ve watched women at work argue and bicker over stuff they work on together and go off to lunch together and still remain the best of friends much to the absolute annoyance of the big he-man boss who bristles every time someone asks him a question because he thinks someone is about to castrate him or something. Tell you what mate – if your ego is as fragile as his, learn something from those women.
Well Rev, I am sorry you felt belittled and insulted so let me try again: I don’t lose sleep over you. I expect you not to lose sleep over me.
Ummmmm….. That was my point, lets get it all out and get on with it. I would like to see my previous stunning contributions as well. Maybe I’m just having a poke.
Rev,
Sorry I missed Sunday… but we will always have the memory of the emu breakfast
Glenn
(PS – Sorry Hamo for socializing on your blog. Its too easy)
Was a breakfast fit for a king.
Saint, it isn’t about losing sleep, its about being accountable for the way we speak to our brothers and sisters in public. What exactly are you attempting to accomplish by your glib dismissals of our lives and influence? What is it that motivates you?
rev
Saint – i am puzzled too.
I have always liked you and enjoyed your interaction, but I feel like you are ‘poking my friends in the ribs’ and I’m not sure for what reason.
I have read your comments, and theirs, but I’m struggling to see what has stirred you up.
Maybe others are having the same quandry.
Can you state in 100 words or less (the old English teacher in me coming out!) what the primary issue/s are here so that i can understand what the ‘fight’ is about?
You know Saint, that I don’t mind a stoush in a good cause 🙂 I’m just finding it hard to see the cause and still wondering at your jibes towards people who are good mates in ‘real world’.
Thanks mate
I.m unconcerned Hamo – I’m still waiting for a point from Saint that actually hurts.
Saint – you gave us an example of violence by ELF in the US then attempted a ripost to my example by returning the conversation to Australia. The violent anti-abortion murders I had in mind were in the US, not Australia – and there was ‘organisation’ and they could also be said to be following a natural progression that follows from rejection of peaceful protest. I just don’t think your example of ELF was relevent.
Tea is fine – drink it all you like. I do.
Instant however is the work of the evil one who is called Nescafe.
Obviously, as an atheist any equation for me does not include God. I also don’t like simple equations to replace complex reality. It is a false way of attempting to describe something.
Equations are precise representations of a statement of equal values – your equation for atheists includes God, why?
Do you think I see the world as god? or nature as god? or gaia as god?
You might understand someone else’s atheism, but you sure don’t get mine.
Lance – I’ll have a ristretto thanks.
I remember a few years ago having a crack at Jarrod about being “left-wing”. He replied, saying he wasn’t left or right, but Christ-centred.
Shouldn’t we work to abolish all this stuff about Christians being left or right?
Hamo –
If you want me to cease and desist, say so. You’re the boss on this blog. I have no problem with that.
I noted above my concern about the gospel being subjugated to either right wing or left wing politics; I hinted at why I don’t like what I know of EPYC. Jarrod and others are free to promote tghis program but I am free to not promote it, to challenge it and the philosophy and theology on which it is based.
And as I said above to Grendel:
“yes I am giving you and others a bit of wind up, but if one is going to run around trying to indoctrinate children or ask people – Christians included – to bend their knees to Ghandi and Gaia, then they had better do some of their own hard work” i.e. not hide behind the implied authority and compliant audience conferred to them by a school or a church which lets them run their program.
Well perhaps mr Saint you should find out what exactly EPYC teaches. It is unashamedly about Christ and his way of non violence. It addresses a need in our world, an area not under God’s rulership, in each talk, and then shows how we as people are called to address that need. He uses people of all faiths to illustrate, (though most of the Gandhi quotes center on Gandhi’s being influenced by Jesus), and is therefore welcomed into public schools. As we discussed the future of EPYC, the one non negotiable was it has to be centered on Jesus.
Now it is possible that you have not taken a good long look at the way Jesus lived, but he healed people, restored them to community, confronted in justice, and oppression and addressed the politics of his day, calling for a “radical” new way. And this was so true that those the followed Christ were called “the way” as they lived some completely different. So Jesus was not so focused on the eschatology of the people, or the earth, that he was not involved in the politics of the world in which he lived. In fact, he was more involved in them. Jesus says more about money and economics than he does about heaven, more about non violence than he does about hell, and more about social justice that he does about personal salvation. If we are to truly follow Jesus, it should effect all of our lives, the way we consume, the way we worship, the way we work, the friends we keep, the practices that define our lives, and our yearning for the kingdom of God, God’s will, to be done here on earth as it is in heaven.
rev
Just to be very clear, economics, non violence, ecology ect. are all results of us trying to take seriously the claims of Jesus. It is a matter of how we follow Jesus, not politics. I was a right wing fundementalist, but the more I followed Jesus, the more I changed. I am not left winger either, more government, and social programs will not do. We need to live in the radical kingdom of God, as taught by Jesus, if there is any hope for a world free of violence, oppression, and hatred.
rev
In the context of this discussion, this NYTimes Report from the Southern Baptist Convention may be of interest:
In the context of this conversation I find the recent policy shift from the Southern Baptist Convention to be interesting:
OK link meltdown somewhere. . .
You may just have to cut and paste!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/10baptist.html
Rev,
As I said, Jarrod and you and SU and whoever are free to promote this program in schools or wherever. But the rest of us are also free *not* to promote it, free to question it, to refuse to send our kids to it, (and should it and similar programs ever be made compulsory, pull our kids from that school), to recommend our churches not participate in it etc.
If you can’t handle that, if your desire is to totalize the other or advocate for semblance, if get miffed that everyone is not running to your radicalised whatever thought up by whomever, then I doubt you can teach much more than join hands and sing kumbaya (actually I believe you have more to offer than that, but that is the direction in which I believe you are heading).
Dear Gaia,
What, are you now denying the fruit of your loins and all your other illegitimate spawn? Oh wait that’s right. Gaia eats her children.
Yes Jesus has it all under control, which makes me ask why Jarrod & co. would like to radicalize our children, although I note, with particular pleasure, that you, like all of His enemies, get to be Jesus’s footstool.
saint
Saint, everyone here can hold their own.
I’m only into ‘cease and desist’ as a last resort.
I don’t think we are there.
dear saint,
I only eat the really bad ones, and they’re delicious with soy sauce and a hint of lemongrass. you really should try one sometime. start with an atheist, they’re lighter on the palate.
and round things make terrible footstools. too roly-poly. jesus will tire of it eventually and get something from ikea.
don’t believe your own hype kids,
gaia
Yes saint you are free to disagree, you can pull your kids out, and say whatever you like and I would support your right to do so. The thing I do reject is your implication that we are not Christian, not focussed on Jesus, and somehow pluralists, when in fact the opposite is true. I believe you are wrong your rejections of our “agendas”, I believe that your understanding of the gospel is seriously wrong headed if you do not have an ecological concern, or a deep desire to see violence stop in all its forms, but I do not suggest or imply that you are mamby pamby, or not christ focussed.
The suggestion that we would be a insular group that are only good for standing around holding hands and singing kumbaya is particularly laughable. While a large percentage of the church sits silent, does nothing, and says almost nothing we are part of a movement that actually gets involved, volunteering in our communities, taking in those needing care, sharing our resources, and putting action to faith.
Jesus said that the way we treat others is the way we treat him, and that requires us to actually be involved not only in personal issues, but corporate and institutional ones as well. Jesus gives us a vision of the kingdom that is mutual shared prosperity, which means we look at economics, I see no basis for capitalism being a “Christian” ethic.
But in the end we are called to follow Jesus, are we not? And was Jesus not a radical? He got killed for being so, so did all of his friends, and those that followed as well. Following the mediocre, non radical Jesus, is perhaps not really understanding who Jesus really was. Jesus tells us in revelation that a lukewarm faith makes God sick, and as with everything in Jesus life and teachings it was not just a head and heart thing, but also an action thing.
rev
Lighter on the palate?
Me?
Ask Hamo why that one is funny.
Rev, radical sounds about right to me.
Came to the poor and the criminal first, healed anyone who is sick and asked for help – then didn’t ask for a fee, taught publically, asked the rich to give up their riches, ejected the tax collectors from the temple, bade his followers to be like little children and to seek their treasure in the afterlife. After all this he gets killed as an enemy of the ruling regime.
Doesn’t sound like an economic conservative to me.
“The thing I do reject is your implication that we are not Christian, not focussed on Jesus, and somehow pluralists, when in fact the opposite is true. I believe you are wrong your rejections of our “agendas”, I believe that your understanding of the gospel is seriously wrong headed if you do not have an ecological concern, or a deep desire to see violence stop in all its forms, but I do not suggest or imply that you are mamby pamby, or not christ focussed.”
Rev:
Please point out to me which statement(s) I made which supports each accusation in this paragraph.
Indeed every time you comment on this thread Rev, in the way that you comment, you are not really giving me a good example of this transformative peacemaking. Come on Rev, show us your stuff. Put it in action. Start with where I implied you are not Christians. Then move through each phrase. I want to see your transformative reasoning here.
Dear Gaia,
Some soy and a hint of lemongrass ay? Not surprised that you’ve developed the same culinary taste as many of those who give you your theological roots.
And not surprised you find atheists light on the palate. They would be like chicken feed to you really – especially the new-breed battery-hen variety. They implode all on their own at the first hint of serious self-examination. They must make a delightful pop in your mouth although I am sure it not exactly life-affirming for them.
But then, life’s not really your game, is it. For you, it’s all about annihilation, death.
saint
Free-range atheist thank you very much.
“But if that’s indicative of “radical Christianity”, then may it never enter the Christian mainstream, or any school attended by any child in my family.”
I would say that statement would insinuate those thoughts.
“Ooops, forgot: Cause junkies unite!” “Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Badshah Khan and Vincent Lingiari…every trendy political left hero is there. Do you also lionize loonies like Chavez?”
I would say this was meant to belittle our convictions, and to cast us as trend chasers rather than people that are seriously considering the way of Christ in our world.
“Roo – the first thing I notice about all the luvvies, greenies and peaceniks is that they hate criticism or anyone who disagrees with them.
The second thing I notice is that love to deride or shut down people like this.
Yeah he’s a Lutheran. But then as Luther said: sin boldly, and believe more boldly still.”
Another snide remark.
“Unfortunately because so many Christians these days are ignorant of their own history and theology (or else just take non-Christian’s interpretation as gospel truth) and have never properly examined the foundations of say the present day environmentalist movement, they just go along with the latest fad and prevailing mindset, thereby subjugating the gospel to politics and other false gods again (or else they water it down to some diluted wishy-washy notion of “stewardship”).”
and
“Grendel –
As an atheist you would think in terms of “non-renewable”, “depletion”, “use” or “consumption”… you know, something along the lines of “Gaia is going to eat us all up if we don’t stop consuming her”.
Which taken to it’s natural ends becomes: “Quick, kill all who stand in the way of Gaia” (how many environmentalists for example, whinge about overpopulation and also advocate for abortion, reduced family sizes etc. despite the act that the entire population of the world can comfortably fit into an area the size of Queensland) or else “silence anyone who questoins Gaia’s wisdom””
are both designed to question the Christian character of an environmental concern that we share. I believe that Muslim extremists also tell their children to brush their teeth, I tell mine to as well this does not make me a muslim extremist, nor does it mean that my views are based on syncretism. If I find that Muslim extremists advocate tooth brushing, and am addressing children on the subject of tooth brushing, and their are radical muslims in the room, I will most likely quote from one of their scholars.
So when it comes to trans formative, I ask you what it is you want from us? What would make you happy?
rev
G’day Saint,
I’m not sure if we’ve met. But I’d like to hear your story and share with you mine. Would you like to come round for dinner sometime? We could pray together and inspire to follow Jesus in “true and love”?
My contact details are available on the pace e bene blog. Hope to hear from you soon.
Grace and peace,
jarrod
P.S. think you’ve inspired me to call my blogging this year “The voices of radical Christianity: Going to the roots of the early Church” Hope you can join us in the discussion find it fertile ground for growing deeper in Christ.