A couple of weeks back at the annual conference of the Christian Broadcasting Council, Michael Nazir-Ali issued a warning regarding totalitarianism and the threat it represented with regard to conscience. The reality is that it is neither threat, nor 'encroaching' danger, but a clear and present reality as we see both private and public life legislated, regulated and generally controlled.
People of no faith make decisions regarding faith and the part it plays, or more accurately doesn't play. People with little, skewed or no obvious moral standards make rules and decide what is right. What we have is the blind and insane driving the bus and ruling the asylum respectively!
The outworking of this is, as Nazir-Ali rightly says, that we are no longer in a free society but in "An ideology that is seeking to impose its views on us.” Were we in a free society we might have a hope, but this hope is gone as we lose the moral and spiritual values that once valued what was good and right for the hedonistic, self-serving secular society that many crave.
We no longer value that which is good. We no longer have a respect for the sanctity of human life. We know the price of everything and the value of nothing and thus have become shallow and cynical (Thank you Mr. Wilde, just as you rightly identified it!).
We are driven by fear and the desire for a 'quiet life', hence the fact that none will challenge the more aggressive forms of religious group and yet will stand tall at the weak and meek groups, like the Christians. Our society picks its fights and denies that which might make it stop and look in the mirror.
Failing families? The answer is to give the family a place of pride and to offer it support. The traditional parents (married and working at a life-long bond), children brought up in a stable and loving environment (which is about relationships, not income, educational standards and possessions. Oddly, from within this comes a nurturing that encourages aspirations and a culture of self-development and attainment.
Criminal Activity? As unpopular as it seems, there is an answer to this. 'STOP IT!' So many of those I meet today have a morality that supports and defends 'dodgy' ways. The ends justify the means and who cares if the rules are just a little broken as long as we get what we want?
Life? I listened with interest and despair at a broadcast where families spoke of the 'kindness' of euthanasia. It was kind on them because they didn't want to keep visiting. It was kind on them because it was costing a great deal to keep the focus of the care being cared for. It was kind on the aged relative, because their 'useful' life had come to an end and they were no longer in possession of a 'quality of life'.
Faith brings a commonality of purpose and a value for life. Christian faith has done that in the UK for a very long time and I have come to the conclusion that the erosion of Christian values and the decline in our society with regards to family, vales, standards and morality appear to me to be the result of the other.
Faith brings a tolerance (it's people looking for an excuse for their greed who use 'religion' as the reason for war). Faith isn't about being religion but is, in the Christian context, about having a relationship with the Maker and a respect (and tolerance - that word again) for others.
This is why people can burn Korans. This is why people murder and plot evil. They don't know the Maker - they just want things as they, and the god of their making, want them - and this is death.
Pax
Showing posts with label multifaith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label multifaith. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 April 2011
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
A bit of a hop
Having taken the 'first step' we find ourselves having to 'hop' in that, as was pointed out extremely well (and with some good examples), the society in which we find ourselves leans towards some people being, "More equal than others!"
I was given examples of some groups being afforded more concessions than others through fear of appearing, or worse still being labelled, 'racist' or 'anti-Islamic, had they said 'No' to something. The other side of this coin is that to say 'No' to members of our 'own' society (or to member of the national faith i.e. Christian) would just be being honest and 'normal'.
And so it transpires that when concessions are made to (as a 'for instance') Islamic groups, those who make the concessions are being racist (a situation which in today's society needs to be addressed), those who make the decisions are acting against the natural sense of justice and fair play. The antonym of Xenophobia is, of course, tolerance and this is what freedom of speech and choosing how we live is all about.
Being a member of a faith, gender, orientation or any of people group often leads the members of it to assume that they have some 'god-given' right to be treated differently and this is no the case. The fact that any of us might have a faith, or no faith, does not confer upon us the right to become a 'special case'. The problem is two-fold in that where a religious group is also considered to be 'ethnic' (whether this be because of country of origin or because of the observance practices) we find the ghetto mentality (and reality) becoming established and because of the concentrations of one people groups (ethnic, religious or whatever) we find temples, mosques and the like peppering the area and establishing 'no go zones'.
As a Cockney I have experienced this on a number of occasions and in a number of places, here's just a few:
The Jewish community in Stamford Hill (and the more well off cousins in Hendon and Ilford)
The Bangladeshi community around the Bethnal Green area
Brick Lane, Slough, Southall and the like.
I have been in places where caste wars were to be found, where a Sikh speaker was shot dead over the Punjab issue, where various sects within Islam were often to be found fighting and more besides.
Why, because people didn't want 'them' living next door and so supported the establishment of the very communities they now fear as being ghettos.
People are free to take a pop at what I believe. They are free to put banners denying what I consider to be true and labelling it as cobblers! This is what freedom of speech is about. When Jesus was portrayed in a way that upset many Christians, it was 'art'. When the same thing happened with the religion being Sikh, the theatre pulled the performance immediately because of the (much smaller) demonstration and complaints form 'community' leaders.
I happen across books that proclaim Christ and Christianity to be a load of BS every day. Do the writers have to go into hiding? Do the Christians pronounce death threats? No, of course not. But when other religions do so, we tut and make excuses for them. Why, because we're being racist! "They' don't know any better! "They're' just a bunch of ignorant savages with an ignorant and primitive, uncultured faith.
I have a right to be Christian. Another has a right to be Islamic. Still another has a right to be a humanist, or secularist or whatever they so wish. I have a right to practice my faith, other have a right to practice their lack of it. How we work this out, how we debate, dialogue and challenge the attitudes and belief (or non-belief) of others is part of the journey and the hallmark of a balanced and tolerant society.
The fear shown by some in challenging something because it's 'Islamic' or 'ethnic' or 'Gay' or 'Christian' (well actually there's no fear in challenging Christians, they appear to be an easy target and fair game for all) is actually destroying our nation's balance, culture, tolerance and exhibiting injustice and prejudice.
Prejudice is wrong, whether it is positive or negative. It is wrong!
making decisions through fear of reprisal is wrong, this is capitulation and we have seen too much of it in our nation. Equal values, level playing fields, respect for all and accountability and tolerant, honest challenging, and decision making is the only way this nation will be saved from slipping into the mire.
Oddly, this is the message of the God of the Christians and the Jews.
Pax
I was given examples of some groups being afforded more concessions than others through fear of appearing, or worse still being labelled, 'racist' or 'anti-Islamic, had they said 'No' to something. The other side of this coin is that to say 'No' to members of our 'own' society (or to member of the national faith i.e. Christian) would just be being honest and 'normal'.
And so it transpires that when concessions are made to (as a 'for instance') Islamic groups, those who make the concessions are being racist (a situation which in today's society needs to be addressed), those who make the decisions are acting against the natural sense of justice and fair play. The antonym of Xenophobia is, of course, tolerance and this is what freedom of speech and choosing how we live is all about.
Being a member of a faith, gender, orientation or any of people group often leads the members of it to assume that they have some 'god-given' right to be treated differently and this is no the case. The fact that any of us might have a faith, or no faith, does not confer upon us the right to become a 'special case'. The problem is two-fold in that where a religious group is also considered to be 'ethnic' (whether this be because of country of origin or because of the observance practices) we find the ghetto mentality (and reality) becoming established and because of the concentrations of one people groups (ethnic, religious or whatever) we find temples, mosques and the like peppering the area and establishing 'no go zones'.
As a Cockney I have experienced this on a number of occasions and in a number of places, here's just a few:
The Jewish community in Stamford Hill (and the more well off cousins in Hendon and Ilford)
The Bangladeshi community around the Bethnal Green area
Brick Lane, Slough, Southall and the like.
I have been in places where caste wars were to be found, where a Sikh speaker was shot dead over the Punjab issue, where various sects within Islam were often to be found fighting and more besides.
Why, because people didn't want 'them' living next door and so supported the establishment of the very communities they now fear as being ghettos.
People are free to take a pop at what I believe. They are free to put banners denying what I consider to be true and labelling it as cobblers! This is what freedom of speech is about. When Jesus was portrayed in a way that upset many Christians, it was 'art'. When the same thing happened with the religion being Sikh, the theatre pulled the performance immediately because of the (much smaller) demonstration and complaints form 'community' leaders.
I happen across books that proclaim Christ and Christianity to be a load of BS every day. Do the writers have to go into hiding? Do the Christians pronounce death threats? No, of course not. But when other religions do so, we tut and make excuses for them. Why, because we're being racist! "They' don't know any better! "They're' just a bunch of ignorant savages with an ignorant and primitive, uncultured faith.
I have a right to be Christian. Another has a right to be Islamic. Still another has a right to be a humanist, or secularist or whatever they so wish. I have a right to practice my faith, other have a right to practice their lack of it. How we work this out, how we debate, dialogue and challenge the attitudes and belief (or non-belief) of others is part of the journey and the hallmark of a balanced and tolerant society.
The fear shown by some in challenging something because it's 'Islamic' or 'ethnic' or 'Gay' or 'Christian' (well actually there's no fear in challenging Christians, they appear to be an easy target and fair game for all) is actually destroying our nation's balance, culture, tolerance and exhibiting injustice and prejudice.
Prejudice is wrong, whether it is positive or negative. It is wrong!
making decisions through fear of reprisal is wrong, this is capitulation and we have seen too much of it in our nation. Equal values, level playing fields, respect for all and accountability and tolerant, honest challenging, and decision making is the only way this nation will be saved from slipping into the mire.
Oddly, this is the message of the God of the Christians and the Jews.
Pax
Monday, 4 April 2011
First step
One of the biggest shocks to shape the ministry in the place I find myself today is the realisation that I am not called by God to drag people into the church building but to get the Church out of it. I am not called to 'bring people back' to church, because they've never been there and so return is impossible. I am called to bring God's blessing where it is already to be found, merely pointing the recipients to what is already there and effecting an introduction between the two parties.
What I, and those with whom I stand, am called to is to be light in the darkness of everyday reality and salt which brings flavour to be bland and bleak consumer society. I do this in the privileged surroundings of a nation whose Christian history has made it tolerant, and welcoming, of people from other nations and faiths. It is good and right that we have always, in the main, exercised religious tolerance, save a 'bit of a problem' with Rome exacerbated by some of our bloodier monarchs and will hopefully continue in this trend.
What would be a great sadness is for us to lose our birthright, nationally and as Christians, through the abuse of our welcome or the fear of legislators and those in authority. The guide is that all who inhabit our land, do so within the laws of this land and whilst there is warrant for people to have their own legal bodies for such issues as divorce (as an arbitration body ie. sharia and beth din), the law of this land is supreme and has absolute authority.
The means by which this is enabled is for those who are Christians to make proper, balanced and informed stands.
When I lived in West London, it wasn't the 'ethnics' who called for Christmas to be cancelled and the money that would have been used for decorations to be sent to a women's cooperative in South Africa. It was the council who wanted to promote their own agenda (non-Christian) and used to support this, the misinformation that the reason was the 'other faiths'.
Oddly, it was the Sikhs, Hindus and other non-Christian faith groups who pushed the council into funding the lights and saved Christmas. It was other faiths who spoke out about the importance of Christ and Christmas. The Christians were silent. Christians (weak, nominal or dechurched) showed themselves to be weak and impotent and to generally be people of 'no faith'.
When, as a member of a SACRE (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education) we were asked to approve the dropping of formal religious assemblies within the borough's schools, the CofE (having the casting block vote) supported this every time. The voices of dissent for such action came from, yes - you have guessed - the member of the 'other faith' groups but of course, their voices went unheeded.
Where we find ourselves today is the heritage from such realities as this. From the legacy of people who were willing to have a 'meek shall inherit the earth approach' that was modelled on the doormat!
There is still time to embrace people of other faiths as just that. People who have other beliefs. We don't have to do services together (for as I understand it, all gods do not lead to the one same God) and we don't have to agree (another of the curses of multifaith and ecumenical gatherings). We are different faiths and so, although we will find areas of ethical behaviour that coalesce the reality remains that we are very different - and this is right!
When a church wanted to build a new building to accomodate them and their community work, restrictions were placed by the council on parking, noise from the building, light polution and a host of other issues. When the same council was asked to approve the building of a mosque in the very same area, no such restrictions were applied. It is this obvious bias and lack of equality which causes some to claim that other faiths and other tongues are afforded more rights that our native tongue and faith.
The reason for the decisions? The council didn't want to appear as if they were 'prejudiced' and so exhibited to all the fact that they were.
Lesson the first - open-handed, open-hearted, seeking equality and equity for all, regardless. Jew or Gentile, Muslim or Sikh, Secular Humanist or Theist. This is living biblically and is the way by which the kingdom (of God) will be won and the state of our country maintained.
Ex 22: 21 "You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt."
Lev 19:33 "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him."
Zec 7: 10 "Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other."
God's words, not mine. If you don't agree, take it up with Him!
Pax
What I, and those with whom I stand, am called to is to be light in the darkness of everyday reality and salt which brings flavour to be bland and bleak consumer society. I do this in the privileged surroundings of a nation whose Christian history has made it tolerant, and welcoming, of people from other nations and faiths. It is good and right that we have always, in the main, exercised religious tolerance, save a 'bit of a problem' with Rome exacerbated by some of our bloodier monarchs and will hopefully continue in this trend.
What would be a great sadness is for us to lose our birthright, nationally and as Christians, through the abuse of our welcome or the fear of legislators and those in authority. The guide is that all who inhabit our land, do so within the laws of this land and whilst there is warrant for people to have their own legal bodies for such issues as divorce (as an arbitration body ie. sharia and beth din), the law of this land is supreme and has absolute authority.
The means by which this is enabled is for those who are Christians to make proper, balanced and informed stands.
When I lived in West London, it wasn't the 'ethnics' who called for Christmas to be cancelled and the money that would have been used for decorations to be sent to a women's cooperative in South Africa. It was the council who wanted to promote their own agenda (non-Christian) and used to support this, the misinformation that the reason was the 'other faiths'.
Oddly, it was the Sikhs, Hindus and other non-Christian faith groups who pushed the council into funding the lights and saved Christmas. It was other faiths who spoke out about the importance of Christ and Christmas. The Christians were silent. Christians (weak, nominal or dechurched) showed themselves to be weak and impotent and to generally be people of 'no faith'.
When, as a member of a SACRE (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education) we were asked to approve the dropping of formal religious assemblies within the borough's schools, the CofE (having the casting block vote) supported this every time. The voices of dissent for such action came from, yes - you have guessed - the member of the 'other faith' groups but of course, their voices went unheeded.
Where we find ourselves today is the heritage from such realities as this. From the legacy of people who were willing to have a 'meek shall inherit the earth approach' that was modelled on the doormat!
There is still time to embrace people of other faiths as just that. People who have other beliefs. We don't have to do services together (for as I understand it, all gods do not lead to the one same God) and we don't have to agree (another of the curses of multifaith and ecumenical gatherings). We are different faiths and so, although we will find areas of ethical behaviour that coalesce the reality remains that we are very different - and this is right!
When a church wanted to build a new building to accomodate them and their community work, restrictions were placed by the council on parking, noise from the building, light polution and a host of other issues. When the same council was asked to approve the building of a mosque in the very same area, no such restrictions were applied. It is this obvious bias and lack of equality which causes some to claim that other faiths and other tongues are afforded more rights that our native tongue and faith.
The reason for the decisions? The council didn't want to appear as if they were 'prejudiced' and so exhibited to all the fact that they were.
Lesson the first - open-handed, open-hearted, seeking equality and equity for all, regardless. Jew or Gentile, Muslim or Sikh, Secular Humanist or Theist. This is living biblically and is the way by which the kingdom (of God) will be won and the state of our country maintained.
Ex 22: 21 "You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt."
Lev 19:33 "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him."
Zec 7: 10 "Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other."
God's words, not mine. If you don't agree, take it up with Him!
Pax
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Religious Education - Observations and potential solutions
It wasn't that long ago that Ofsted were telling us that the quality of religious education in schools was declining and that something like 20% of schools were failing and providing inadequate religious education.
If we ignore the inane mutterings and protestations of humanists and secularists who drone on, respectively and, endlessly about their belief (or rather lack of it) being included in the RE curriculum or made optional we can see their are some obvious issues and some equally obvious solutions.
Religious education is all about educating schoolchildren about matters religious! It is supposed to do what it says on the tin, couldn't be simpler. Now the first problem is that many of the RE teachers I have met at various functions, conferences and the like are people of no, or perhaps limited, faith. I have yet to meet any language teachers who are unable to converse in the languages they teach or dialogue about the finer grammatical points and the the culture of the nations what speak their lingo! I have rarely met anyone who, unlike the teachers when I was a child, was a practising member of any of the mainline faith groups and could dialogue regarding their faith or any faith with any degree of confidence.
Solution the first
Religious education teachers need to be people of faith and need to be specialists in their chosen subject. Religion is not merely a matter of geography - we're in England and so we're Christian, Anil is from India and so has to be a Hindu, etc. I don't expect theological degrees, but I do expect understanding of the core values, practices and outworking.
----------------------------------------------------
The next problem is one which if I understand the baccalaureate (B) correctly is set to increase. Religious Education might still be a 'core' subject, but it's points what wins prizes and there don't seem to be any attached to RE with regard to the IB. It might be a core subject but it, like assemblies which are now non-religious mumblings before the first lesson in many places, is is an observance rather than engagement role these days, and this appears to be likely to descend further rather than pick up.
Solution the second
Secularism is taught in every subject outside of the religious Education classroom. Everything is secular and this is naive and rather than supporting choice (which secularists claim to want but really mean 'their choice') secularists lay the seeds of dissent, conflict, misunderstanding and sectarian differences.
Regardless of the point-winning examination subjects, there is a need within a balanced society for people to have some understanding of the beliefs, attitudes and actions of others because of their faith. This is what brings peaceful co-existence. What point is there in having an intellectually equipped people who can't live alongside others (the secularist problem in a nutshell). So the solution is that we must teach faith issues - simple isn't it!
----------------------------------------------------
Humanists drone on about not being included in the RE syllabus, but in case they haven't realised it, they are actually a 'non-religious' bunch of often confused and fatalistic people who come under the classification of 'philosophy' (flawed or skewed philosophy more often than not, but hey ho - it's an 'ology'!).
One school I engaged with a few years back had an anti-Christian, alternative faith, head of RE. This person used the lessons to proselytise (unsuccessfully) and to attack and ridicule the beliefs of the faiths they were supposed to be teaching about. With this talk of 'Big Society' the reality is that 'Big Society' is what Christians are, and have been since we first set up shop - it who Jesus is!
Solution the third
Those of us who are trained in matters theological and are able to dialogue and discuss regarding other faiths, the differences and the similarities, who are equipped to explain the philosophy of religion and the realities of faith need to get off of our fat backsides and offer ourselves to the schools. I visit schools and do issues like the 'shoah' and genocide, other faiths, ethical issues, moral choices and whatever else they ask me to bring in. I do this from infant through to 'A' level and find that open and honest engagement is always well received, even when agreement might not be forthcoming.
----------------------------------------------------
So, if you are someone who complains about the falling standards of Religious Education in our schools here's the bottom-line (honestly it is):
Stop complaining and get out there and be the difference!
If we ignore the inane mutterings and protestations of humanists and secularists who drone on, respectively and, endlessly about their belief (or rather lack of it) being included in the RE curriculum or made optional we can see their are some obvious issues and some equally obvious solutions.
Religious education is all about educating schoolchildren about matters religious! It is supposed to do what it says on the tin, couldn't be simpler. Now the first problem is that many of the RE teachers I have met at various functions, conferences and the like are people of no, or perhaps limited, faith. I have yet to meet any language teachers who are unable to converse in the languages they teach or dialogue about the finer grammatical points and the the culture of the nations what speak their lingo! I have rarely met anyone who, unlike the teachers when I was a child, was a practising member of any of the mainline faith groups and could dialogue regarding their faith or any faith with any degree of confidence.
Solution the first
Religious education teachers need to be people of faith and need to be specialists in their chosen subject. Religion is not merely a matter of geography - we're in England and so we're Christian, Anil is from India and so has to be a Hindu, etc. I don't expect theological degrees, but I do expect understanding of the core values, practices and outworking.
----------------------------------------------------
The next problem is one which if I understand the baccalaureate (B) correctly is set to increase. Religious Education might still be a 'core' subject, but it's points what wins prizes and there don't seem to be any attached to RE with regard to the IB. It might be a core subject but it, like assemblies which are now non-religious mumblings before the first lesson in many places, is is an observance rather than engagement role these days, and this appears to be likely to descend further rather than pick up.
Solution the second
Secularism is taught in every subject outside of the religious Education classroom. Everything is secular and this is naive and rather than supporting choice (which secularists claim to want but really mean 'their choice') secularists lay the seeds of dissent, conflict, misunderstanding and sectarian differences.
Regardless of the point-winning examination subjects, there is a need within a balanced society for people to have some understanding of the beliefs, attitudes and actions of others because of their faith. This is what brings peaceful co-existence. What point is there in having an intellectually equipped people who can't live alongside others (the secularist problem in a nutshell). So the solution is that we must teach faith issues - simple isn't it!
----------------------------------------------------
Humanists drone on about not being included in the RE syllabus, but in case they haven't realised it, they are actually a 'non-religious' bunch of often confused and fatalistic people who come under the classification of 'philosophy' (flawed or skewed philosophy more often than not, but hey ho - it's an 'ology'!).
One school I engaged with a few years back had an anti-Christian, alternative faith, head of RE. This person used the lessons to proselytise (unsuccessfully) and to attack and ridicule the beliefs of the faiths they were supposed to be teaching about. With this talk of 'Big Society' the reality is that 'Big Society' is what Christians are, and have been since we first set up shop - it who Jesus is!
Solution the third
Those of us who are trained in matters theological and are able to dialogue and discuss regarding other faiths, the differences and the similarities, who are equipped to explain the philosophy of religion and the realities of faith need to get off of our fat backsides and offer ourselves to the schools. I visit schools and do issues like the 'shoah' and genocide, other faiths, ethical issues, moral choices and whatever else they ask me to bring in. I do this from infant through to 'A' level and find that open and honest engagement is always well received, even when agreement might not be forthcoming.
----------------------------------------------------
So, if you are someone who complains about the falling standards of Religious Education in our schools here's the bottom-line (honestly it is):
Stop complaining and get out there and be the difference!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)