In today’s Sydney Morning Herald (October 30,2007) there is an article by the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell.

It is an edited extract from an address given at the Sydney Institute last night to mark the launch of his book God and Caesar: Selected Essays on Religion, Politics and Society

I think that whoever edited the address and extracted what was printed, either had a profound sense of humour or in a great hurry – perhaps both. (Please note: I’m not anti-Catholic, but some things are too important to be presented to the public in such an odd way.)

The strangest part of this story is perhaps its heading “Christianity vital to democracy’s future”, well Cardinal Pell I don’t think God worries a lot about whether a government is democratic or a roman republic or a theocracy – can you correct me, and demonstrate from Scripture the error of my thinking?

First Cardinal Pell talks about the enduring nature of Christian belief – and, the anger of some well-known atheists because belief in God has lasted so long. In this introductory part of the discussion, while he dwells on these atheists – he says: “It is, after all, not unheard of for children to grow up angry at a father who is remote, absent, or unknown.” I though, was that a large, red herring that just swam past?

He then jumps into the fire of ‘how did we get here’: He goes on to say: “And the alternatives are creative intelligence – that is, God – or blind chance. It would be infuriating to concede that Christ, the Buddha, Aristotle, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Newton, Beethoven and Einstein are pointless froth in a heartless universe.” Well, Cardinal Pell, colourful language but what are you trying to say? Is it, that atheists find it infuriating to concede that various creative minds are pointless froth in a heartless universe? Perhaps they would have used different words to your frothy universe but in essence – yes, they do say intelligent people are the result of specific evolutionary processes! I don’t agree with their view but perhaps you meant something else; and, as I’m not in the same ball-bark as Shakespeare or Einstein. I’m really not sure what the point is, that you are trying to make, which will eventually tie in democracy and Christianity. One additional issue that I have with this last statement – is that including Christ in that list was, in one sense, a very poor inclusion – was it not?

So, I’m reading along holding the three key words; ‘Christianity’, ‘vital’, ‘democracy’; and waiting patiently for the various threads of the article to be drawn together so that I can go onto the next news item – and perhaps, being all the better – having learned something.

Cardinal Pell then launches out with the key statement: “Catholics remain the largest religious minority in the country.” Does that mean the Cardinal is really saying that Catholics are vital to democracy’s future?

He makes a number of statements which have no supporting evidence: one, ‘that Australians are pragmatic rather than ideological about the relationship between religion and democracy’; two, ‘the idea that religion is irrational and must be excluded from public affairs is not a native Australian plant’; and three, ‘it is important to have a critical mass of active religious believers in the community, partly because of the so-called social usefulness of religion, particularly in picking up the pieces of social and personal dysfunction.’

I’m starting to approach the end of the article but where’s the case for Catholics being vital for our future democracy.

Well here’s the start of it: “But more deeply than this, I also think many Australians appreciate that having a goodly number of active believers is essential to ensure that the values of a fair go and respect for others are promoted and passed on to the next generation. ” and ; “most Australians expect the churches to help pass on to young people the (essential) values.”

The core case for this view presented by the Cardinal is that most Australians expect the Catholic Church to help pass on our essential values to the next generation.

The problem is: “the fertility rates of every Western country are below replacement level“; and the solution is “Catholicism’s role in (democratic) Australia, is to help turn this situation around.” but the extracts in this article do not explicitly say what is meant here, which is, Catholics should have more kids, and that aligns well with Catholic tradition!

Now, don’t you feel enlightened – Christianity is vital to democracy’s future because of our higher birth rate. Which may mean that those atheist will soon become extinct because they don’t breed as much – this has its humous side, don’t you think?

Hidden in the last part of the article is this dangerous statement: “The key public task facing all Christians today is to make the case for Western civilisation and to replenish the sources from which it takes life and strength.”

Cardinal Pell – there is a whole lot wrong with our current Western civilisation – and I, for one, will not be making a case for it! There is nothing inherently Christian about any particular brand of civilisation – what makes any government entity, Christian, is the way they follow Jesus!

I’ve been busy for a few months and was wondering what sort of topic I should start with, once I had more time to write for this blog. Let me state from the start – I don’t have any more of an interest in homosexuality than any other sin. I’m equally at odds with those who promote: any form of idolatry or misdirected worship; misuse of God’s name; that no day of the week should be set aside for God and us; not honouring our mother or father; murder (and that includes those who do not control their anger, and war); adultery (likewise, anyone who looks at another lustfully); theft; false testimony; or the idea, that it’s okay to want, what is not ours. Does this list sound remotely familiar?

I do understand, and have some empathy for, the theories that homosexuality may have a genetic and/or environmental background. In a similar way, I understand that anger, theft and other forms of sexual or antisocial behaviour may be influenced by genetics or environmental factors.

None, of any existing predispositions, change the sinful nature of the human condition regarding our response to any actions arising out of the way we live and relate to others, The factors which make us ‘who we are’, are taken into account, but do not change the need to test our actions against what God wants, as defined by what has been clearly articulated in Scripture! God knows our heart, our background and our genetics; consequently – our culpability regarding our sinful acts will be perfectly judged by Him.

We live with the characteristics which God has allowed us to inherit or develop. That’s a good starting point, don’t you agree?

Background

Scripture (Old Testament and Paul’s letters) clearly tells us that active homosexuality is wrong – can there be there any debate on this statement? I answer: Yes, but only by those who deny that the spiritual truths of Scripture apply to all generations (past and present). As if God was ignorant of how the human race would ‘evolve’, and we would end up to be totally different to what He expected – you may live in hope that God is indeed, so powerless and lacking in foresight! I prefer to live my life knowing that He is all powerful and all knowing – He exists outside of time (Jesus created time.) and knows exactly how, where and when all things start and end.

Another plea, in support of active homosexual relationships, is that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. Let’s look at the context: at the time of Jesus. Israel was an ‘island’ of a nationalistic culture which was very religious and strongly anti-homosexual. We know this from the writings of Joseph ben Matthias (better known as Flavius Josephus (AD 37-c.100), and other Roman historians of the time – these historians recorded the strict religious views of this State. Josephus records; that even, the self-centred and murderous ruler, Herrod the Great, was well aware of the anti-homosexual views of the religious rulers of this time. In addition, there was a national response, after the Maccobean rebellion, which increased the anti-Greek and anti-hedonistic rhetoric of the Jewish Rabbinic teaching of the time; which included their strong condemnation, in general, of all types of sexual sin. Did Jesus say, at any time, that this strong anti-homosexual response was wrong? Did he add anything to His criticism of their teaching; on purity, wealth, and religious traditions regarding their ‘extreme’ position on homosexuality – the resounding answer is: No! In summary, the fact that Jesus did not condemn their stance on homosexuality is more of a problem for the pro-gay group then it is for people who hold similar views to me.

In a way – the attack on the view that homosexuality is wrong – is an attack on God. My reasoning for saying this is because the ‘liberal’ church’s position on homosexuality can only be sustained if the relevance of Scripture is questioned. Once we question this aspect of scriptural teaching then any part of what we call the essential elements of Christian creed can also be questioned – and, if we use the Jesus Seminar reports or John Spong’s writings as an example, this is certainly the case. Taking the current line of testing Scripture’s alignment to cultural relevance where does the logical extreme of this argument take us to – again, if current literature is a guide, to the conclusion that Jesus was human and did not die to save us – and; who benefits from that false conclusion – our old enemy – the prowling lion.

Current Issue

What initiated my thoughts on this topic was the report that “Archbishop Fred Hiltz, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, paid a traditional call on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on Oct. 16. … (you can read more about it at this site. During their two-hour meeting, Archbishop Hiltz described the current state of the Anglican Church of Canada, particularly after the national meeting, General Synod, this past June. He spoke about the issue of human sexuality, and explained the diocese of Ottawa’s decision to approve blessings of same-sex unions. (The diocese of Montreal, which later passed a similar motion, had not yet met). Archbishop Williams appeared receptive to the Canadian church’s actions. “He described our approach to handling the whole matter as ‘coherent,’” said Archbishop Hiltz. “We also, in that conversation, focused on the pastoral statement of the bishops and the kind of value that has for the church.” In another report on their Synod meeting, I read this: “ … many people want more opportunity to study and listen to determine whether this change (blessing of same-sex unions) is a theologically appropriate and Spirit-led development of doctrine. … “

My view is that it is NOT theological appropriate and it is NOT led by God. God, is the same God, of the Old and New Testaments – He has not changed – He has always known about our cultural changes over the centuries. The Bible was written with us in mind.

So, Archbishop Hiltz, remember this (Luke 17:1-3a): “Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourself.”

In conclusion, I’m more than happy to sit down with any homosexual, murderer, or thief and discuss what Scripture has to say about sin. I’m also more than prepared to talk about the love of Jesus for them and His death which paid the penalty for all our sins, for which I’m especially, eternally grateful. Keep in mind that while Jesus loves you with all His life – He is not always nice – sometimes if you want to go against God’s will, He will turn around and say: “Get behind me, Satan.” – He only says such harsh words, to shock you into the reality of your sin, with the view of saving your life. Such is His love!

John Shelby Spong retired as Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, in February 2000. John Spong is the author of several bestselling books, including Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Born of a Woman, Living in Sin, and Resurrection: Myth or Reality. He is a Fellow of the Westar Institute which is a member-supported, non-profit research and educational institute dedicated to the advancement of a narrow form of religious literacy. Their major works come under the heading – Jesus Seminar. The methodology employed, a historical centric approach which excludes anything remotely supernatural, including any references made by Jesus about himself, together with a number of other criteria. This approach leaves about 20% of the four Gospels intact, the remaining material reads like a handbook for Zen Buddhism. Yet, they as a group like a bit more of the Gospel of Thomas – which is understandable.

There are a lot of questions I would like to explore about their justification for such a methodology – it leaves almost every study of ancient history, in any field of human endeavour, with nowhere to go but to be consigned to the bin, labelled ‘myths’.

And now John Spong is in Australia promoting his new book, Jesus for the Non-Christians, sorry Non-Religious.

There is an interesting article by Mark Hadley on Spong, to be found on the Sydney Anglican website. In addition, Mark Thompson in the August 2007 edition of the Southern Cross wrote that despite all his ‘grandiose’ claims in the book, “(It) is really little more than the rehash of long-discarded critical theories and doubts which scholars resolved years ago.”

John Spong on Margaret Throsby’s Morning Interview ((20/08/2007), ABC, Classic FM – said a number of interesting things: one is that the traditional view of God, as an old man in the sky, who keeps records of our actions and who occasionally intervenes in human affairs by miraculous means, is fiction. Well, I agree with the overall view that this simplistic representation of God is nonsense . I don’t think many Christians actually hold the sort of view Spong has attributed to the general Christian community. He even tried to make his remarks more acceptable by saying that since Galileo/Newton had demonstrated that Hebrew cosmology had been superseded by a better scientific understanding of what was the ‘sky’ – because of this new knowledge – the supernatural, as represented by miracles should be cast out into the darkness where religious delusions abide.

He sees mankind as being different from animals because of our self-consciousness, awareness of mortality, and a sense that we stand alone. To him, God is an experience, God is love – a life-force which motivates the universe. Love is a power which make us more than we can be, without it. God’s presence is permeated throughout the world, and it is possible to explain God by our experience of him. Man cannot describe God, he is beyond imagination.

John Spong’s god is found in a form of timelessness, the eternal ‘now’; and we can aspire to ‘otherness’, transcendence and holiness. This means that we have the ability to chart our own destiny. On the other hand, the traditional Christian God, Spong sees as being born out of tribalism, a defensive mechanism created by insecure people.

Spong sees Jesus as the quintessential human that did experience the presence of God; people on the Christ ‘path’ can experience God through Jesus. In addition, hoisting his universalistic colours to the mast – he says that God is not a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu or a Moslem – there could be many paths to his description of God. I think he was saying that if God did not exist then because of our desperate needs, I guess referring to our need to know life’s meaning, we would have created the concept of a God.

You can see there is a thin syrupy layer of sweet truth spread over a pile of fine sounding falsehoods. His views (as expressed in the radio interview) are dated and flawed – his basic arguments are shallow and simplistic. Perhaps, his book gives a better presentation of his ideas. No one can be threatened by a life-force of love. Plus, it’s true, the apostle John did say that ‘God is love.’ Yet, it’s clear that Spong has never been able to understand the Gospel message – it’s a complete mystery to him. As the apostle to the gentiles, once expressed: ‘To intellectuals, those who try to rationalise all things including God, find the good news about Jesus to be meaningless.’

John Spong, has no answer for people like me who have had a ‘road to Damascus’ conversion. I feel sorry that John Spong will soon die and he will meet an amazing and divine Jesus who actually is beyond imagination but who can be found throughout all of Scripture.

The following is what prompted me to comment on this story: “The Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, told the Australian it was a mistake for the Australian Anglican Primate to invite Bishop Spong here to promote his book. ”

Is this true? Surely, the Primate understands that John Spong is NOT a Christian! Anyone listening to his interview with Margaret Throsby this morning, would be able to discern that he is not a Christian. The retired Bishop might have called himself, at some earlier time, a liberal Christian, but there comes a point that you are so far liberal that you have left the ball-park!  Religious definitions can be twisted but if you don’t believe in the resurrection; and, in one very real sense – if you don’t believe Jesus is God, then you are not one of God’s children! I probably should not put in the scriptural references because I’m sure the verses I’m thinking of, are not in Spong’s intellectually accepted version.

Surely, dear Bishop Forsyth has been ill-advised about the Primate’s invitation to John Spong – I could believe that Spong might be sponsored by groups such as the Progressive Christianity Network but the Primate of the Australian Anglican Church – this I can’t believe – because it would call into question his beliefs about Jesus!

What’s your view?