Archbishops say extreme capitalism has become a new creed | Ekklesia
Thought this was interesting in light of our discussions at house group last Wednesday.
Huw
Friday 26 September 2008
Wednesday 24 September 2008
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
Well this was quite annoying at times, I think he over writes, it could be much more to the point, also he is unnecessarily rude, in particular the names/labels he uses.
As to the arguments, less to fault him here, most of his arguments against "proofs" of God are fine, but familiar from Christian theologians. His arguments about how awful the church can be are also fine but again Wink, Wallis, Mclaren et al have been there before him.
Where I would take issue is with his selective rating of the bible (we all do this!) he talks about the awfulness of the "Old Testament God" but this is not news, he says Jesus is a little better (but can't resist adding "if he existed at all") but that ultimately the Old Testament and New Testament are exclusive, they are about the Jews only. He quotes some verses to back this up, but ignores? all the passages from the prophets that speak of caring for the alien and stranger, he misses Jesus on loving our neighbour and then defining the neighbour as "the other". He misses so much in the gospels that point to this message being for all people. It is annoying as if this is deliberate it undermines his argument and if it is a mistake then he really hasn't done his research.
His arguments about how natural selection could have caused the rise of religion, ie. mems etc. was, for me, not very convincing. Also his explanation for why we are good still leaves morality as some kind of accident of evolution (not that I have a better explanation).
Overall, not as annoying as I thought it would be.
As to the arguments, less to fault him here, most of his arguments against "proofs" of God are fine, but familiar from Christian theologians. His arguments about how awful the church can be are also fine but again Wink, Wallis, Mclaren et al have been there before him.
Where I would take issue is with his selective rating of the bible (we all do this!) he talks about the awfulness of the "Old Testament God" but this is not news, he says Jesus is a little better (but can't resist adding "if he existed at all") but that ultimately the Old Testament and New Testament are exclusive, they are about the Jews only. He quotes some verses to back this up, but ignores? all the passages from the prophets that speak of caring for the alien and stranger, he misses Jesus on loving our neighbour and then defining the neighbour as "the other". He misses so much in the gospels that point to this message being for all people. It is annoying as if this is deliberate it undermines his argument and if it is a mistake then he really hasn't done his research.
His arguments about how natural selection could have caused the rise of religion, ie. mems etc. was, for me, not very convincing. Also his explanation for why we are good still leaves morality as some kind of accident of evolution (not that I have a better explanation).
Overall, not as annoying as I thought it would be.
Thursday 11 September 2008
everything must change - jesus, global crises, and a revolution of hope
Brian d. Mclaren
This is a long a detailed book trying to get a handle on the crises that faces the world and what our understanding of Jesus' teaching/message might be able to say about that. It very clearly gets the issues that face us and in particular looks at things in terms of "framing stories" - the idea that our current framing story is leading to the suicide of our world. Mclaren offers an alternative framing story which is a particular reading/understanding of Jesus' message/kingdom. He is very critical both of the existing story and also the existing understanding of Christianity. Part of the existing story is about growth (for its own sake) and consumption, without reference to what the world can produce (raw materials) and cope with (waste). Also the underlying myth that power and violence solve anything and that at the heart of some understandings of Christianity there is a powerful myth of redemptive violence, ie. God needed Jesus to die for our sins.
To finish he calls for action in four areas:
* personal: everything from how we pray to how we spend our money etc.
* community: new kinds of community, eg. emerging church etc.
* public: social movements that to educate and demand change.
* global: NGO's, governments etc.
This is a long a detailed book trying to get a handle on the crises that faces the world and what our understanding of Jesus' teaching/message might be able to say about that. It very clearly gets the issues that face us and in particular looks at things in terms of "framing stories" - the idea that our current framing story is leading to the suicide of our world. Mclaren offers an alternative framing story which is a particular reading/understanding of Jesus' message/kingdom. He is very critical both of the existing story and also the existing understanding of Christianity. Part of the existing story is about growth (for its own sake) and consumption, without reference to what the world can produce (raw materials) and cope with (waste). Also the underlying myth that power and violence solve anything and that at the heart of some understandings of Christianity there is a powerful myth of redemptive violence, ie. God needed Jesus to die for our sins.
To finish he calls for action in four areas:
* personal: everything from how we pray to how we spend our money etc.
* community: new kinds of community, eg. emerging church etc.
* public: social movements that to educate and demand change.
* global: NGO's, governments etc.
fresh expresions
meet yesterday and looked fresh expressions of church, the examples we looked at were from the sacramental/Eucharistic tradition. we talked about what church might/could be and about the relationship between believing, belonging and behaving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)