Jim Forest of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship delivered the Fr Sergei Hackel Memorial lecture on Reconciliation, peace, and the radical outsider in Orthodox spirituality
As Jim shows, Fr Sergei was one of the radical outsiders, but he mentions several more.
11 May 2006
The Eagle's Nest: Following Jesus - 2
Here is some more information about the Following Jesus document from Australia.
The Eagle's Nest: Following Jesus - 2
It was nearly called "The Barton Declaration", and was similar in ethos to A Message to the People of South Africa published by the South African Council of Churches in 1968.
This has led to some discussion in the Christianity and Society forum about compiling a collection of such documents, which might be useful to church historians, and also to Christians facing conditions in society that call for a Christian response. We already have The Belhar Confession, and are looking for an English translation of The Barmen Declaration pf the Confessing Church in Germany.
The Eagle's Nest: Following Jesus - 2
It was nearly called "The Barton Declaration", and was similar in ethos to A Message to the People of South Africa published by the South African Council of Churches in 1968.
This has led to some discussion in the Christianity and Society forum about compiling a collection of such documents, which might be useful to church historians, and also to Christians facing conditions in society that call for a Christian response. We already have The Belhar Confession, and are looking for an English translation of The Barmen Declaration pf the Confessing Church in Germany.
10 May 2006
Worldviews
 | You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.
What is Your World View? (updated) created with QuizFarm.com |
Jacob Zuma found not guilty of rape
Jacob Zuma has been found not guilty of rape.
And the editorial and op-ed pages:
I've skipped reading most of the press reporting of the trial, which has often meant starting the newspaper on page 5. The bits I did see didn't seem very edifying. When the accusation first appeared, it seemed like a put-up job, coming soon after the decision to prosecute him as a spin-off of the Shaik trial.
So he wasn't guilty of rape. But neither was Profumo, who died recently. Neither was John Prescott, whose behaviour was similar, and led to similar consequences. Should Prescott and Profumo have been reinstated since they were not found guilty of rape?
Zuma was guilty of adultery, but Jesus said of a woman caught in adultery, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Many still condemn Zuma, even though he was found not guilty of rape. But how many people can truthfully claim to be absolutely blameless of any sexual misconduct?
Judge Willem van der Merwe confined his moralising to a Kiplingesque comment, "If you can control your body and your sexual urges, then you're a man, my son."
But it might be worth going back a bit earlier in Kipling's poem, "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you..."
The fact is that we live in a society in which controlling sexual urges is, with a few exceptions, seen as unfashionable, and many seem to argue that it is cruel even to think such a thing. Among the exceptions are those who say that the outcome is a "setback for women". This seems tantamount to saying that any woman who makes false accusations should be believed.
We live in a society in which sexual morality has become increasingly contradictory, with increasinly harsh penalties demanded for an ever-narrowing range of offences. If you can control your sexual urges when all about you are losing all control, and urge that you do too... you'll be a freak.
And Jacob Zuma headed up the Moral Regeneration Movement. So what is moral regeneration? Committing adultery and saying that that's cool, as long as it's consensual and you have a shower afterwards to prevent Aids?
We may not all be able to control our sexual urges all the time. But the biggest failure is not having a sense of failure when we do fail to control them. Moral regeneration surely starts with repentance -- confessing our failure and recognising that it is a failure.
- Zuma poised for a comeback
- Outcome a setback for women, say activists
- Daughter's testimony saves the day
- President Mbeki, political parties accept verdict
- Supporters celebrate as Zuma is acquitted
- 1000 celebrate with him at his Forest Town home
- Acquittal doesn't mean the battle is over yet
- Drama of the Zuma camp versus the Mbeki camp has not been fully played out
And the editorial and op-ed pages:
- Judge did a fine job in Zuma trial
- Not guilty, but not fit to lead
I've skipped reading most of the press reporting of the trial, which has often meant starting the newspaper on page 5. The bits I did see didn't seem very edifying. When the accusation first appeared, it seemed like a put-up job, coming soon after the decision to prosecute him as a spin-off of the Shaik trial.
So he wasn't guilty of rape. But neither was Profumo, who died recently. Neither was John Prescott, whose behaviour was similar, and led to similar consequences. Should Prescott and Profumo have been reinstated since they were not found guilty of rape?
Zuma was guilty of adultery, but Jesus said of a woman caught in adultery, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Many still condemn Zuma, even though he was found not guilty of rape. But how many people can truthfully claim to be absolutely blameless of any sexual misconduct?
Judge Willem van der Merwe confined his moralising to a Kiplingesque comment, "If you can control your body and your sexual urges, then you're a man, my son."
But it might be worth going back a bit earlier in Kipling's poem, "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you..."
The fact is that we live in a society in which controlling sexual urges is, with a few exceptions, seen as unfashionable, and many seem to argue that it is cruel even to think such a thing. Among the exceptions are those who say that the outcome is a "setback for women". This seems tantamount to saying that any woman who makes false accusations should be believed.
We live in a society in which sexual morality has become increasingly contradictory, with increasinly harsh penalties demanded for an ever-narrowing range of offences. If you can control your sexual urges when all about you are losing all control, and urge that you do too... you'll be a freak.
And Jacob Zuma headed up the Moral Regeneration Movement. So what is moral regeneration? Committing adultery and saying that that's cool, as long as it's consensual and you have a shower afterwards to prevent Aids?
We may not all be able to control our sexual urges all the time. But the biggest failure is not having a sense of failure when we do fail to control them. Moral regeneration surely starts with repentance -- confessing our failure and recognising that it is a failure.
08 May 2006
The Eagle's Nest: Following Jesus
This reminds me of the Message to the people of South Africa, published in 1968.
The Eagle's Nest: Following Jesus
It's worth reading, and perhaps disseminating. I would also be interested in a source.
The Eagle's Nest: Following Jesus
It's worth reading, and perhaps disseminating. I would also be interested in a source.
07 May 2006
British foreign ministers appointed by the White House?
Tony Grist writes in his LiveJournal:
I hadn't seen anything about this in the media, but wondered it it had anything to do with this piece in The Scotsman where fellow MP George Pope said:
That would seem calculated to annoy the belligerent pair, Bush and Blair.
Jack Straw got bumped from the Foreign Office because he believes it would be "nuts" to go to war with Iran.
Bush rang Blair and asked him (queruously) what his boy Jack was on.
British Foreign Secretaries are appointed in the White House.
I hadn't seen anything about this in the media, but wondered it it had anything to do with this piece in The Scotsman where fellow MP George Pope said:
He has shown Miss Rice at first hand the strength of opinion against the war in Iraq and the division it has caused in his own back yard. When she goes back to Washington to discuss what happened about Iran, she can tell President Bush there is no way that the British can be expected to take part in view of domestic public opinion.
It has also very clearly shown Jack as a world statesman in his own right. Here was Condoleezza Rice coming to his constituency and then flying out to Baghdad with him to try to persuade the parties there to form a government. This was Jack Straw as a player on the world stage on his own, not in the shadow of Tony Blair as the Prime Minister's gopher.
That would seem calculated to annoy the belligerent pair, Bush and Blair.
06 May 2006
Disruptive Theology: Easter thoughts 2006
I found some interesting comments on the difficulty of communicating across cultures here:
Disruptive Theology: Easter thoughts 2006
It puts me in mind of two things: first, the difficulty of communicating with people who see the world from the framework of a modern economic ideology and believe that it takes precedence over Christian values (see previous post).
And secondly, the rise of African Independent Churches, where missionaries, particularly Protestant ones, from the West translated the Bible into many African languages, but their own theology was contextualised for post-Englishtenment modernity. The Africans understood the Bible much better than they did, because the Bible is a premodern book.
Disruptive Theology: Easter thoughts 2006
It puts me in mind of two things: first, the difficulty of communicating with people who see the world from the framework of a modern economic ideology and believe that it takes precedence over Christian values (see previous post).
And secondly, the rise of African Independent Churches, where missionaries, particularly Protestant ones, from the West translated the Bible into many African languages, but their own theology was contextualised for post-Englishtenment modernity. The Africans understood the Bible much better than they did, because the Bible is a premodern book.
04 May 2006
Paying a living wage is "anti-Christian"?
Over the last couple of days I've been engaged in an extraordinary discussion on the alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox newsgroup. Someone had posted an article about a living wage being anti-Christian. It struck me as extremely odd that any Christian could say that, much less Orthodox ones, who have the teachings of the Fathers.
Part of the article was about some proposed US legislation, and as I don't live in the US, I did not discuss the merits of the proposed legislation, but rather the title of the article, which was simply a blanket statement that a living wage was anti-Christian. Whatever the policies or their implementation, the title, which seemed to be the conclusion, was a lie.
But three Americans on the newsgroup vehemently defended the the proposition that a living wage is "anti-Christian", using secular economic theories, and no theological arguments at all.
They said that a living wage was wrong because it was "artificial", but that did not explain why they thought it was anti-Christian, and anyway their economic theories seemed far more artificial. At first I thought we could discuss it from the common ground of the Orthodox faith, but they seemed to shy away from that, and would not come near, clinging rather to the security of their economic thories.
At first I thought they were just being obtuse, and perhaps wilfully ignorant, in a sort of ironic way, that their arguments were tongue in cheek
Then as the discussion went on, it appeared that they were deadly serious. They really believed the sort of things that they were saying. Perhaps it was a cultural difference: growing up in American culture they just absorbed these values with their mother's milk, and could not communicate with people from a different culture. But not all Americans are like that. I've met plenty of Americans that I've had no difficulty in communicating with, so perhaps it is some sort of sub-culture there.
But then it began to look more and more like idolatry. They really did think that their secular economic theories trumped Christian ethics. Though the economic theories themselves may be secular, these people were turning them into a religion. It seemed a bit like what the Russians called dvoeverie, double-mindedness -- trying to worship both God and Mammon, but as they wnt on, it seemed that God didn't get a look in -- it was Mammon all the way.
The latest phase, however, seems to have degenerated into raving lunacy. Two of them accused me of committing armed robbery. They seemed to imagine that I had accused them of all sorts of crimes: I hadn't. I simply questioned the idea that paying a living wage was anti-Christian. And this seems to have sparked off these bizarre fantasies that I had committed armed robbery.
Part of the article was about some proposed US legislation, and as I don't live in the US, I did not discuss the merits of the proposed legislation, but rather the title of the article, which was simply a blanket statement that a living wage was anti-Christian. Whatever the policies or their implementation, the title, which seemed to be the conclusion, was a lie.
But three Americans on the newsgroup vehemently defended the the proposition that a living wage is "anti-Christian", using secular economic theories, and no theological arguments at all.
They said that a living wage was wrong because it was "artificial", but that did not explain why they thought it was anti-Christian, and anyway their economic theories seemed far more artificial. At first I thought we could discuss it from the common ground of the Orthodox faith, but they seemed to shy away from that, and would not come near, clinging rather to the security of their economic thories.
At first I thought they were just being obtuse, and perhaps wilfully ignorant, in a sort of ironic way, that their arguments were tongue in cheek
Then as the discussion went on, it appeared that they were deadly serious. They really believed the sort of things that they were saying. Perhaps it was a cultural difference: growing up in American culture they just absorbed these values with their mother's milk, and could not communicate with people from a different culture. But not all Americans are like that. I've met plenty of Americans that I've had no difficulty in communicating with, so perhaps it is some sort of sub-culture there.
But then it began to look more and more like idolatry. They really did think that their secular economic theories trumped Christian ethics. Though the economic theories themselves may be secular, these people were turning them into a religion. It seemed a bit like what the Russians called dvoeverie, double-mindedness -- trying to worship both God and Mammon, but as they wnt on, it seemed that God didn't get a look in -- it was Mammon all the way.
The latest phase, however, seems to have degenerated into raving lunacy. Two of them accused me of committing armed robbery. They seemed to imagine that I had accused them of all sorts of crimes: I hadn't. I simply questioned the idea that paying a living wage was anti-Christian. And this seems to have sparked off these bizarre fantasies that I had committed armed robbery.
13 April 2006
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: The Passion Of The Christ
Those who are observing Good Friday tomorrow might find food for thought and meditation in this account of the Passion:
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: The Passion Of The Christ
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: The Passion Of The Christ
12 April 2006
Modernity sweeps Africa
According to this article
But what is wrong with the assumption is not just that it is out of date; it may be seriously questioned whether it was ever valid.
Modernity has been around in Africa for a long time, if by "modernity" we mean the worldview that developed in Europe as a result of the influence of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment. It took about four centuries for modernity to become established in the West, and it came to Africa in its Christian guise. It was Christian missionaries imbued with the spirit of modernity who brought Christianity and modernity in Africa (though in the 19th century they didn't call it "modernity", but "civilisation").
Much of Africa, however, preferred the premodern worldview. But was the premodern worldview "animistic"? The concept of "animism" was an attempt by people with a modern culture to understand premodern culture, and failing to do so. The cultural gap between modern Europe and premodern Africa is probably very similar to that between modern and premodern Europe.
And the effect of the encounter between modernity and premodernity in Europe is similar in some ways to that in Africa. Early modern Europe was swept by the witch craze, and as modernity sweeps Africa, so does witch hunting. The increasing intensity and frequency of witchhunts in many parts of Africa is perhaps a sign that modernity is sweeping Africa. But maybe Africa has an opportunity to learn from what happened when modernity swept Europe, and avoid making some of the same mistakes.
The typical assumption is that Africa is primarily animistic. This judgment is based on our vision of Africa: ritual drums being beaten, diviners casting cowrie shells, a dervish possessed, and ceremonies to appease angry ancestors. However, Africans, especially those in East and Southern Africa, are steadily moving away from animism.
But what is wrong with the assumption is not just that it is out of date; it may be seriously questioned whether it was ever valid.
Modernity has been around in Africa for a long time, if by "modernity" we mean the worldview that developed in Europe as a result of the influence of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment. It took about four centuries for modernity to become established in the West, and it came to Africa in its Christian guise. It was Christian missionaries imbued with the spirit of modernity who brought Christianity and modernity in Africa (though in the 19th century they didn't call it "modernity", but "civilisation").
Much of Africa, however, preferred the premodern worldview. But was the premodern worldview "animistic"? The concept of "animism" was an attempt by people with a modern culture to understand premodern culture, and failing to do so. The cultural gap between modern Europe and premodern Africa is probably very similar to that between modern and premodern Europe.
And the effect of the encounter between modernity and premodernity in Europe is similar in some ways to that in Africa. Early modern Europe was swept by the witch craze, and as modernity sweeps Africa, so does witch hunting. The increasing intensity and frequency of witchhunts in many parts of Africa is perhaps a sign that modernity is sweeping Africa. But maybe Africa has an opportunity to learn from what happened when modernity swept Europe, and avoid making some of the same mistakes.
11 April 2006
American civil religion
Our President which art in Washington,
May the U.S. empire be called after thy name.
Thy military come. Thy war be done in Iran, as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Give us this day our daily battle.
And forgive us our pacifism, as we ridicule the critics of your wars.
And lead us into combat, but deliver us from Muslims:
For thine is the army, and the navy, and the air force, until your term is up. Amen.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist nut, I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether George Bush is not the most convincing contender for "the Antichrist" that we've seen for a long time.
Anyway, check The Predident's Prayer to see who wrote it and why.
May the U.S. empire be called after thy name.
Thy military come. Thy war be done in Iran, as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Give us this day our daily battle.
And forgive us our pacifism, as we ridicule the critics of your wars.
And lead us into combat, but deliver us from Muslims:
For thine is the army, and the navy, and the air force, until your term is up. Amen.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist nut, I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether George Bush is not the most convincing contender for "the Antichrist" that we've seen for a long time.
Anyway, check The Predident's Prayer to see who wrote it and why.
08 April 2006
Litterae: Henning Mankell and street children
Something I didn't know... Henning Mankell, author of the crime novels featuring depressed detective Kurt Wallander, has also been director of a theatre in Mocambique.
Litterae
And he makes come comments about the street children of Maputo that reminds me of the street children that used to come to our services in Mamelodi.
Litterae
And he makes come comments about the street children of Maputo that reminds me of the street children that used to come to our services in Mamelodi.
Deus Creator Omnium
There's been a great deal of hype about the Gospel of Judas in the news media recently.
A friend, John Davies (who is a retired Anglican bishop), writes
Anyway, this blog has some more on it, and a link to a translation of the text.
Deus Creator Omnium
A friend, John Davies (who is a retired Anglican bishop), writes
I find myself often thinking of texts and statements as 'windows' into situations; most obviously true of the NT Letters and the various episodes in Acts. Incomplete, but, we affirm, sufficient (today's BBC news is making quite a thing of the 'Gospel of Judas', as if this would cause us to revise the creeds. The funny thing is that, to be an orthodox (in the general sense) Christian, you dont have to believe anything much about Judas. The Arrest would have easily happened without him. He is important, not because he is essential to the story but because his presence in the story re-assures us that betrayal is part of the normal environment of the Christ-presence and therefore we shouldn't be surprised when it happens to us, through us, or by us. Every priest is a betraying priest, and I find that I still catch my breath at the point in the Canon where I have to say 'in the same night in which he was betrayed)
Anyway, this blog has some more on it, and a link to a translation of the text.
Deus Creator Omnium
Onward leftist Christian soldiers
As a longtime member of the religious left, I've found all this talk about the "religious right" emerging from the USA somewhat confusing. Back in the 1970s I got a directory of the religious left in America, where it was all happening. Jesus freaks, the "Win with love" collective, the Christian World Liberation Front and all the rest.
Where did it all go wrong? Who made the sudden right turn, so that by the end of the 1970s no one talked about the religious left any more, and there was only the "religious right"?
Was it for real, or was it just media spin, or was it both?
Anyway, this blog...
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: Onward, Leftist Christian Soldiers ...
refers to an article about the revival of the religious left in the USA.
Is it a revival, or is it just that the submarine church has been taking a long time surfacing?
As for me, i don't know where I'd fit into the scenario. Bible-thumping peacenik, perhaps. The Americans, however, can't seem to get around their identification of everything with their two main political parties, which are just like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The belligerent Mr Blair supported both with no discrimination. He supported the Clinton-Albright war on Yugoslavia, and the Bush-Rumsfeld ones against Afghanistan and Iraq, with no distinction.
Where did it all go wrong? Who made the sudden right turn, so that by the end of the 1970s no one talked about the religious left any more, and there was only the "religious right"?
Was it for real, or was it just media spin, or was it both?
Anyway, this blog...
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: Onward, Leftist Christian Soldiers ...
refers to an article about the revival of the religious left in the USA.
Is it a revival, or is it just that the submarine church has been taking a long time surfacing?
As for me, i don't know where I'd fit into the scenario. Bible-thumping peacenik, perhaps. The Americans, however, can't seem to get around their identification of everything with their two main political parties, which are just like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The belligerent Mr Blair supported both with no discrimination. He supported the Clinton-Albright war on Yugoslavia, and the Bush-Rumsfeld ones against Afghanistan and Iraq, with no distinction.
02 April 2006
Tolerance
Fr Thomas Hopko said the following about tolerance, in a paper read to an Orthodox mission conference ten years ago. I think it's very good and worth repeating:
A bloke called Harry Blamires wrote a book The will and the way more than 40 years ago, and among other things he said (I quote from memory, having lent the book to someone who didn't return it) that we should be clear about which God we prayed to this morning; was it the Christian God, or was it the God of twentieth-century sentimental theology, who grants us the dubious capacity to face all comers, friend or foe, with the same inscrutably acquiescent grin?
But that dubious capacity is what many people seem to mean by "tolerance" nowadays. Not only should we be tolerant, but we should also be reconcilers, seeking on every possible occasion to reconcile good with evil, justice with injustice, freedom with oppression. We should respect human rights, including the right that some people arrogate to themselves of killing and ethnic cleansing and oppressing others.
And this was the argument that conservatives used against liberals who opposed apartheid. "You call yourself a liberal, by why are you so intolerant of the Nationalists who want apartheid? Don't they have a right to their opinion too?"
And so when Fr Tom says: "Tolerance is never in order when it means that we remain idle before wickedness which harms human beings and destroys God's creation" I think he hits the nail on the head.
(Also posted on my LiveJournal
Tolerance is always in order when it means that we coexist peacefully with people whose ideas and manners differ from our own, even when to do so is to risk the impression that truth is relative and all customs and mores are equally acceptable (as happens in North America).
Tolerance is never in order when it means that we remain idle before wickedness which harms human beings and destroys God's creation.
To be tolerant is to be neither indifferent nor relativistic. Neither is it to sanction injustice or to be permissive of evil. Injustice is intolerable and evil has no rights. But the only weapons which Christians may use against injustice and evil are personal persuasion and political legislation, both of which are to be enacted in an atmosphere of respect. While Christians are permitted under certain conditions to participate in police and military actions to enforce civil laws and to oppose criminality, we may not obey evil laws nor resort to evil actions in defence of the good. This means that Christians are inevitably called to suffer in this age, and perhaps even to die. This is our gospel, our witness and our defence
A bloke called Harry Blamires wrote a book The will and the way more than 40 years ago, and among other things he said (I quote from memory, having lent the book to someone who didn't return it) that we should be clear about which God we prayed to this morning; was it the Christian God, or was it the God of twentieth-century sentimental theology, who grants us the dubious capacity to face all comers, friend or foe, with the same inscrutably acquiescent grin?
But that dubious capacity is what many people seem to mean by "tolerance" nowadays. Not only should we be tolerant, but we should also be reconcilers, seeking on every possible occasion to reconcile good with evil, justice with injustice, freedom with oppression. We should respect human rights, including the right that some people arrogate to themselves of killing and ethnic cleansing and oppressing others.
And this was the argument that conservatives used against liberals who opposed apartheid. "You call yourself a liberal, by why are you so intolerant of the Nationalists who want apartheid? Don't they have a right to their opinion too?"
And so when Fr Tom says: "Tolerance is never in order when it means that we remain idle before wickedness which harms human beings and destroys God's creation" I think he hits the nail on the head.
(Also posted on my LiveJournal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
