I'm afraid I'm going to be off air for a short interlude.
Last weekend, the retina in my left eye decided it would be a good time to detach itself from the rest of the eye, necessitating my having to undergo surgery tomorrow. Mildly inconvenient, given my Dearly Beloved and I are scheduled to attend the Selection Conference of the Victorian-Tasmanian Synod of the Uniting Church in Australia the weekend after next - the final stage of our applications to candidate to the ordained ministry!
Who says the universe doesn't have a sense of humour?
While the operation itself is only a day procedure, I'll not only end up looking like I've gone ten rounds with Muhammad Ali, the restricted vision will militate against me being able to put up any posts for a while.
But fear not - normal service shall be resumed shortly. So I'll see you on the flip side once my own personal approximation of 20:20 vision has been restored.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. (Erasmus)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Language, please!
This weekend just gone, my Dearly Beloved and I played host to Jason, a Chinese teacher presently in Australia on an exchange visit.
Jason teaches English at a school in central China; most young Chinese are keen to get ahead in life and live a more "luxurious" Western lifestyle, so having good English skills is seen as vital to getting the kind of employment that can facilitate this ambition. My Dearly Beloved, being amongst other things, an Australian who teaches Chinese to young Australians wanting to learn a second language, has taken a number of student groups over to China to provide some cultural context to the language. The school at which Jason teaches and my Dearly Beloved's school have a sister school relationship; and so, this weekend, we showed Jason some of the sights of Melbourne.
It has been an interesting experience meeting Jason. He English skills are very good, and he displays a quick-wittedness and sense of humour in English that can take you unawares because of his normally gentle and disarming manner. For example, Jason very kindly offered to cook us dinner on Saturday night, and whipped up a beautiful dish of stir-fried noodles, vegetables, and lamb. As I was watching him expertly stir the food in the wok with a pair of chopsticks, I decided to be a smart-arse and said:
"What is it with Chinese civilisation? You guys invented paper, and gunpowder, and government, and a whole heap of other stuff. How come you never invented the knife and fork?"
A slow smile spread across Jason's face, and without taking his eyes off the wok, he said quietly: "I don't know. How come you guys never learned to use chopsticks?"
I had to laugh. Not only was it a great comeback, it also made a cogent point: us Westerners have learned lot of things from Chinese civilisation, yet those aspects which we've never managed to make our own we have tended to adopt a rather superior attitude towards. Jason's riposte was a lovely little lesson in humility.
Mind you, it appears that the Australian idiom has been causing Jason some head-scratching moments. As we were eating the meal Jason had prepared, and were engaging in general conversation, he asked in his usual unassuming manner: "Can you tell me what wanker means?"
I nearly chocked on my noodles. Oh dear, I thought, some of the kids at school have been introducing Jason to the local colloquialisms...
Fortunately, my Dearly Beloved was able to explain the meaning using a compound Chinese term that meant "to use by hand" and "the airplane" (I'm sure you'll be able to work it out!). Don't ask me how she knew; I don't want to know! Jason considered my Dearly Beloved's explanation for a moment, then enquired: "So if we're driving somewhere, and someone in another car does something stupid, I should call him a wanker?"
We hastily assured him that he should not do so - not unless he wants to risk getting into trouble!
Jason has dubbed me Wenlong, which (very roughly) means "wise dragon". My Dearly Beloved is Li Shan, or "beautiful mountain". Jason is "Golden Monkey" - I'm still trying to get my head (and tongue) around the Chinese for that! But it was very pleasant hosting him for the weekend, and as he'll be here for a few more weeks, I'm sure there will be further opportunities to help each other around the traps and pitfalls of our respective languages!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: The instant a wise man understands that he is wise, he becomes a fool. (Confucius)
Jason teaches English at a school in central China; most young Chinese are keen to get ahead in life and live a more "luxurious" Western lifestyle, so having good English skills is seen as vital to getting the kind of employment that can facilitate this ambition. My Dearly Beloved, being amongst other things, an Australian who teaches Chinese to young Australians wanting to learn a second language, has taken a number of student groups over to China to provide some cultural context to the language. The school at which Jason teaches and my Dearly Beloved's school have a sister school relationship; and so, this weekend, we showed Jason some of the sights of Melbourne.
It has been an interesting experience meeting Jason. He English skills are very good, and he displays a quick-wittedness and sense of humour in English that can take you unawares because of his normally gentle and disarming manner. For example, Jason very kindly offered to cook us dinner on Saturday night, and whipped up a beautiful dish of stir-fried noodles, vegetables, and lamb. As I was watching him expertly stir the food in the wok with a pair of chopsticks, I decided to be a smart-arse and said:
"What is it with Chinese civilisation? You guys invented paper, and gunpowder, and government, and a whole heap of other stuff. How come you never invented the knife and fork?"
A slow smile spread across Jason's face, and without taking his eyes off the wok, he said quietly: "I don't know. How come you guys never learned to use chopsticks?"
I had to laugh. Not only was it a great comeback, it also made a cogent point: us Westerners have learned lot of things from Chinese civilisation, yet those aspects which we've never managed to make our own we have tended to adopt a rather superior attitude towards. Jason's riposte was a lovely little lesson in humility.
Mind you, it appears that the Australian idiom has been causing Jason some head-scratching moments. As we were eating the meal Jason had prepared, and were engaging in general conversation, he asked in his usual unassuming manner: "Can you tell me what wanker means?"
I nearly chocked on my noodles. Oh dear, I thought, some of the kids at school have been introducing Jason to the local colloquialisms...
Fortunately, my Dearly Beloved was able to explain the meaning using a compound Chinese term that meant "to use by hand" and "the airplane" (I'm sure you'll be able to work it out!). Don't ask me how she knew; I don't want to know! Jason considered my Dearly Beloved's explanation for a moment, then enquired: "So if we're driving somewhere, and someone in another car does something stupid, I should call him a wanker?"
We hastily assured him that he should not do so - not unless he wants to risk getting into trouble!
Jason has dubbed me Wenlong, which (very roughly) means "wise dragon". My Dearly Beloved is Li Shan, or "beautiful mountain". Jason is "Golden Monkey" - I'm still trying to get my head (and tongue) around the Chinese for that! But it was very pleasant hosting him for the weekend, and as he'll be here for a few more weeks, I'm sure there will be further opportunities to help each other around the traps and pitfalls of our respective languages!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: The instant a wise man understands that he is wise, he becomes a fool. (Confucius)
Monday, August 20, 2007
Agape Service
Last night, my Dearly Beloved and I (aided and abetted by our trusty band of liturgical co-conspirators at Ringwood North Uniting Church) led an Agape Service. This service was part of a series of monthly services which we've titled "Pilgrimage Services" - both to reflect our individual and communal journey of faith, and to highlight the fact that these services have been a deliberate exploration of the rich tradition of Christian prayer and worship styles.
The agape (pronounced a-gah-pay, from the Koine Greek meaning love) is one of the most ancient traditions in Christianity, stretching back to the period of the early church community when there was no institutional church. Instead, Christians would gather at someone's home and celebrate their faith through a communal meal that commemorated both the Last Supper and the fellowship of their faith community.
For the purposes of this service, we borrowed heavily from the wonderful Iona Abbey Worship Book, which itself is a product of the Iona Community in Scotland. The Worship Book had lots of resources for Agape Services, including prayers and service structure, and we both drew on these and constructed the service in our own way with PowerPoint presentations, music, recordings, and periods of meditative silence. We also included a simple meal of soup (my Dearly Beloved made pumpkin, while Murray, one of our number, provided minestrone) and bread and water. We then followed with a communion that, instead of containing a formal liturgy, simply involved the group sharing delicious oatmeal cookies (thanks Nicola!) and grape juice; our minister, Ian, spoke a simple but powerful blessing, and we partook of the elements.
The group ate and drank in a deep, contemplative silence in which the bond of unity and sense of community were almost physical. There was a truly wonderful sense of spiritual presence, of the love and grace of God. I have always believed in the KISS principle, and last night helped reinforce my sense that the simple is so often the most profound and moving.
In lots of ways, it was an appropriate occasion. Earlier that day, my Dearly Beloved and I attended the wedding of our friends Bron and Fletch. It was a lovely service, elegant but uncomplicated, achieved with a real depth of emotion and occasion. And during the regular service that morning, my Dearly Beloved had cleverly used the classic Dr Seuss story, Horton Hatches an Egg, during the Children's Service to illustrate the themes of faith and commitment. So to finish off the day with an Agape Service felt like a more than germane bookend to the events of the day.
And it's always instructive what you can learn from others. One of the participants jokingly quipped that it was disappointing that we weren't reclining - a reminder of the fact that, during the early Christian period, such meals as the Agape would have been eaten while reclining, not sitting. And during a conversation with another participant, I learned that the Lindisfarne Community in northern England have also produced a Worship Book that contains lots of resources for community worship. I reckon the odds are pretty good my Dearly Beloved and I will be checking out - and making use of - this book in the near future!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: The greatest truths are the simplest; and so are the greatest men. (Julius & Augustus Hare)
The agape (pronounced a-gah-pay, from the Koine Greek meaning love) is one of the most ancient traditions in Christianity, stretching back to the period of the early church community when there was no institutional church. Instead, Christians would gather at someone's home and celebrate their faith through a communal meal that commemorated both the Last Supper and the fellowship of their faith community.
For the purposes of this service, we borrowed heavily from the wonderful Iona Abbey Worship Book, which itself is a product of the Iona Community in Scotland. The Worship Book had lots of resources for Agape Services, including prayers and service structure, and we both drew on these and constructed the service in our own way with PowerPoint presentations, music, recordings, and periods of meditative silence. We also included a simple meal of soup (my Dearly Beloved made pumpkin, while Murray, one of our number, provided minestrone) and bread and water. We then followed with a communion that, instead of containing a formal liturgy, simply involved the group sharing delicious oatmeal cookies (thanks Nicola!) and grape juice; our minister, Ian, spoke a simple but powerful blessing, and we partook of the elements.
The group ate and drank in a deep, contemplative silence in which the bond of unity and sense of community were almost physical. There was a truly wonderful sense of spiritual presence, of the love and grace of God. I have always believed in the KISS principle, and last night helped reinforce my sense that the simple is so often the most profound and moving.
In lots of ways, it was an appropriate occasion. Earlier that day, my Dearly Beloved and I attended the wedding of our friends Bron and Fletch. It was a lovely service, elegant but uncomplicated, achieved with a real depth of emotion and occasion. And during the regular service that morning, my Dearly Beloved had cleverly used the classic Dr Seuss story, Horton Hatches an Egg, during the Children's Service to illustrate the themes of faith and commitment. So to finish off the day with an Agape Service felt like a more than germane bookend to the events of the day.
And it's always instructive what you can learn from others. One of the participants jokingly quipped that it was disappointing that we weren't reclining - a reminder of the fact that, during the early Christian period, such meals as the Agape would have been eaten while reclining, not sitting. And during a conversation with another participant, I learned that the Lindisfarne Community in northern England have also produced a Worship Book that contains lots of resources for community worship. I reckon the odds are pretty good my Dearly Beloved and I will be checking out - and making use of - this book in the near future!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: The greatest truths are the simplest; and so are the greatest men. (Julius & Augustus Hare)
Thursday, August 16, 2007
By Any Other Name....
I don't really pay much attention to these blog quiz thingies (you may have noticed!) but sometimes you have to wonder whether they're not actually on to something afterall...
And this...
Or this...
And finally....
I know, I know...it's hard being this good all the time! Thanks to Avril for most of these...
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Behind every successful man stands a surprised woman. (Maryon Pearson)
| You are a Lavender Rose |
 You represent love at first sight and enchantment. Your vibe: intense and intriguing Falling in love with you is: deep and meaningful |
And this...
| You Are 85% Grown Up, 15% Kid |
 Your emotional maturity is fully developed, and you have an excellent grasp on your emotions. In fact, you are so emotionally mature - you should consider being a therapist! |
Or this...
| What Your Favorite Color Purple Says About You: |
 Intuitive --- Seeking --- Creative Kind --- Self-Sacrificing --- Growth Oriented Strong --- Very Wise --- Rare |
And finally....
| You Are Strawberries with Cream |
 Fresh and uncomplicated, you are always enjoyed but often overlooked. You're confident in who you are. You don't need a facade to feel better about yourself. |
I know, I know...it's hard being this good all the time! Thanks to Avril for most of these...
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Behind every successful man stands a surprised woman. (Maryon Pearson)
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Orthodoxy and Freedom
Way back in July, when my Dearly Beloved and I appeared before the Maroondah Presbytery as part of our ongoing application to candidate to the ordained ministry of the Uniting Church, I was asked by one Presbytery member how I would deal with the issue of orthodoxy and the requirement to uphold the doctrinal teaching of the church.
I was asked this question because, in the course of my presentation to the Presbytery, I had articulated my conviction that Christianity was essentially a faith of freedom. In this respect, I had described the received tradition of the Church not as the be-all-and-end-all of faith, but as its starting point, the basis from which, in the light of new information and new understanding, Christians could make their faith relevant to the present and enable it to be open to the future. In my view, tradition is not - and cannot be - that which ties us to the past; rather, it is the foundation for the future, that which enables us to take new directions and move toward new horizons.
Thus, it seemed to me that the unasked question behind the question was, given my views about Christianity as a faith of freedom, how would I accept the authority of the Church and articulate its doctrinal position?
As far as I am concerned, this is a perfectly legitimate - indeed, a necessary - question, because it asks for a clarification of what is meant by "freedom". Is the "freedom" which I believe is the core of Christian faith an anarchic liberality, a free-for-all that gives permission to individuals to believe what they choose, and act accordingly? Or is this "freedom" one that exists within a context of a particular understanding of the nature of faith, and the nature of the relation between humankind and God?
And my answer, emphatically, is the latter. Christianity is a faith that embodies a particular understanding of freedom grounded in the ministry of Christ, and of Christ as God's self-revelation in the world. But what is this particularity?
Firstly, I think the freedom of Christian faith arises from the fact that Christ came to bring humanity life, and life in abundance. Not, however, the "abundance" of so-called prosperity theology, which is the mere subordination of Christianity to free-market capitalism; nor is it the "abundance" of leading a life of ease or unending happiness, which is the yoking of faith to our wish-fulfilment. On the contrary, the abundance which Christ offers is a life lived fully, a life in which we enter into the fullness of our human nature. Moreover, it is a life in which we engage with every dimension of experience - the good, the bad, the indifferent - on the basis of faith, instead of simply using faith as a consolation for hardship or suffering. It is, in short, the experience of life in which faith is a philosophy for being, and not merely the expressed assent to doctrinal statements.
Secondly, I believe this freedom exists in a context in which doctrine and credal statements form the framework that enables the expression of freedom, instead of restricting or curtailing its expression. Thus, doctrine becomes not a cage but a launching place for the freedom of Christian faith, the basis upon which people - both individually, and as members of a faith community - can explore, question, examine, debate, and enter into the depths of faith as a lived, interior experience, instead of a mere ritualistic or formulaic process. In other words, it is a context in which freedom arises from doctrine and credal statements liberating the individual rather than confine them to a particular viewpoint or understanding.
Thirdly, I believe that the combination of the first two points - faith as a philosophy of being, and as a context in which doctrine enables the expression of freedom - combine to produce a third context: the freedom to reinterpret the past in light of new knowledge and new understanding in order to attain a deeper and richer understanding. This is innovation not as breaking with the past - which is not really innovation at all - but as drawing on the past in collaboration with new insights in order to be relevant in present contexts and open to new futures. This is the freedom to engage in innovation that honours the past and reaches toward new horizons.
Thus it is that I answered the question that was put to me by saying that the issue of orthodoxy and authority and tradition was dependent on how one viewed these aspects of the faith experience: were they chains that tied us to a dead past, or were they the foundations that enabled us to have a living present reality and also entertain prospects for future development. If the former, then orthodoxy was an oppressive weight; if the latter, then it was a liberating, life-giving force.
My view is definitely the latter.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often. (Cardinal Newman)
I was asked this question because, in the course of my presentation to the Presbytery, I had articulated my conviction that Christianity was essentially a faith of freedom. In this respect, I had described the received tradition of the Church not as the be-all-and-end-all of faith, but as its starting point, the basis from which, in the light of new information and new understanding, Christians could make their faith relevant to the present and enable it to be open to the future. In my view, tradition is not - and cannot be - that which ties us to the past; rather, it is the foundation for the future, that which enables us to take new directions and move toward new horizons.
Thus, it seemed to me that the unasked question behind the question was, given my views about Christianity as a faith of freedom, how would I accept the authority of the Church and articulate its doctrinal position?
As far as I am concerned, this is a perfectly legitimate - indeed, a necessary - question, because it asks for a clarification of what is meant by "freedom". Is the "freedom" which I believe is the core of Christian faith an anarchic liberality, a free-for-all that gives permission to individuals to believe what they choose, and act accordingly? Or is this "freedom" one that exists within a context of a particular understanding of the nature of faith, and the nature of the relation between humankind and God?
And my answer, emphatically, is the latter. Christianity is a faith that embodies a particular understanding of freedom grounded in the ministry of Christ, and of Christ as God's self-revelation in the world. But what is this particularity?
Firstly, I think the freedom of Christian faith arises from the fact that Christ came to bring humanity life, and life in abundance. Not, however, the "abundance" of so-called prosperity theology, which is the mere subordination of Christianity to free-market capitalism; nor is it the "abundance" of leading a life of ease or unending happiness, which is the yoking of faith to our wish-fulfilment. On the contrary, the abundance which Christ offers is a life lived fully, a life in which we enter into the fullness of our human nature. Moreover, it is a life in which we engage with every dimension of experience - the good, the bad, the indifferent - on the basis of faith, instead of simply using faith as a consolation for hardship or suffering. It is, in short, the experience of life in which faith is a philosophy for being, and not merely the expressed assent to doctrinal statements.
Secondly, I believe this freedom exists in a context in which doctrine and credal statements form the framework that enables the expression of freedom, instead of restricting or curtailing its expression. Thus, doctrine becomes not a cage but a launching place for the freedom of Christian faith, the basis upon which people - both individually, and as members of a faith community - can explore, question, examine, debate, and enter into the depths of faith as a lived, interior experience, instead of a mere ritualistic or formulaic process. In other words, it is a context in which freedom arises from doctrine and credal statements liberating the individual rather than confine them to a particular viewpoint or understanding.
Thirdly, I believe that the combination of the first two points - faith as a philosophy of being, and as a context in which doctrine enables the expression of freedom - combine to produce a third context: the freedom to reinterpret the past in light of new knowledge and new understanding in order to attain a deeper and richer understanding. This is innovation not as breaking with the past - which is not really innovation at all - but as drawing on the past in collaboration with new insights in order to be relevant in present contexts and open to new futures. This is the freedom to engage in innovation that honours the past and reaches toward new horizons.
Thus it is that I answered the question that was put to me by saying that the issue of orthodoxy and authority and tradition was dependent on how one viewed these aspects of the faith experience: were they chains that tied us to a dead past, or were they the foundations that enabled us to have a living present reality and also entertain prospects for future development. If the former, then orthodoxy was an oppressive weight; if the latter, then it was a liberating, life-giving force.
My view is definitely the latter.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often. (Cardinal Newman)
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Idle MInds...
Well, you know what they say about people with too much time on their hands! These are courtesy of Caro (she's not a good influence on me)!
Now that's seriously spooky, because I came up as Rolf (why have they spelled it Rowlf?) the Dog on another, similar Muppet Personality Test a few years ago...oh, well, onwards and downwards...
You only scored an "A" Caro...what a shame! (Sorry, my evil slip is showing, isn't it!)
This one is frankly confusing...it seems to me the "analysis" is a tad contradictory at points...And, finally, to prove I'm different (and not completely vain!)...
The meaning of all this - who knows? Or is he on first...?
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Vanity is merely other people's pride. (Sacha Guitry)
| You Are Rowlf the Dog |
 Mellow and serious, you enjoy time alone cultivating your talents. You're a cool dog, and you always present a relaxed vibe. A talented pianist, you can play almost anything - especially songs by Beethoven. "My bark is worse than my bite, and my piano playing beats 'em both." |
Now that's seriously spooky, because I came up as Rolf (why have they spelled it Rowlf?) the Dog on another, similar Muppet Personality Test a few years ago...oh, well, onwards and downwards...
| Your Vocabulary Score: A+ |
 Congratulations on your multifarious vocabulary! You must be quite an erudite person. |
You only scored an "A" Caro...what a shame! (Sorry, my evil slip is showing, isn't it!)
| What Your Latte Says About You |
 You are very decadent in all aspects of your life. You never scale back, and you always live large. You can be quite silly at times, but you know when to buckle down and be serious. Intense and energetic, you aren't completely happy unless you are bouncing off the walls. You're addicted to caffeine. There's no denying it. You are responsible, mature, and truly an adult. You're occasionally playful, but you find it hard to be carefree. You are deep and thoughtful, but you are never withdrawn. |
This one is frankly confusing...it seems to me the "analysis" is a tad contradictory at points...And, finally, to prove I'm different (and not completely vain!)...
| You Should Rule Saturn |
 Saturn is a mysterious planet that can rarely be seen with the naked eye. You are perfect to rule Saturn because like its rings, you don't always follow the rules of nature. And like Saturn, to really be able to understand you, someone must delve beyond your appearance. You are not an easy person to befriend. However, once you enter a friendship, you'll be a friend for life. You think slowly but deeply. You only gain great understanding after a situation has past. |
The meaning of all this - who knows? Or is he on first...?
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Vanity is merely other people's pride. (Sacha Guitry)
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Come the Revolution
I think this one redresses the balance slightly...
So there - I might be a slob, but I'm a slob with a conscience!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Your conscience is what your mother told you before you were six years old. (Brock Chisholm)
| You Are 12% Capitalist, 88% Socialist |
 You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed. As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power. You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person. |
So there - I might be a slob, but I'm a slob with a conscience!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Your conscience is what your mother told you before you were six years old. (Brock Chisholm)
Oh Dear...
Maybe I should have quit while I was ahead!
Maybe I should be getting in touch with my "inner Barney" instead of my "inner Homer"!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Behavioural psychology is the science of pulling habits out of rats. (Douglas Busch)
| You Are Barney |
 You could have been an intellectual leader... Instead, your whole life is an homage to beer You will be remembered for: your beautiful singing voice and your burps Your life philosophy: "There's nothing like beer to give you that inflated sense of self-esteem." |
Maybe I should be getting in touch with my "inner Barney" instead of my "inner Homer"!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Behavioural psychology is the science of pulling habits out of rats. (Douglas Busch)
The Evil Within...
Alright, so my promise that the last blog post quiz thingie would be the last one for today was a "non-core promise" - so make me Prime Minister of Australia, already!
However, given I told a porkie on that one, I just couldn't resist the How Evil Are You? blog quiz - and here's the result!
I'll bet the folks currently test reading the manuscript of my novel are thinking this right now, too!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Wickedness is simply a myth invented by good people to account for the attractiveness of ohers. (Oscar Wilde)
However, given I told a porkie on that one, I just couldn't resist the How Evil Are You? blog quiz - and here's the result!
| You Are 28% Evil |
 A bit of evil lurks in your heart, but you hide it well. In some ways, you are the most dangerous kind of evil. |
I'll bet the folks currently test reading the manuscript of my novel are thinking this right now, too!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Wickedness is simply a myth invented by good people to account for the attractiveness of ohers. (Oscar Wilde)
Blue Day
Okay, okay, the last blog quiz post was meant to be a one off, but then my eye got caught by the following....Frankly, I'd say I'm doing pretty well today, wouldn't you?
But this is the last one...promise!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: A diagnosis is simply the physician's activity of determining the state of your purse in order to decide how sick to make you. (Ambrose Bierce)
| Your Inner Color is Blue |
 Your Personality: Your natural warmth and intuition nurtures those around you. You are accepting and always follow your heart. You in Love: Relationships are your top priority, and this includes love. You are most happy when you are serious with someone. Your Career: You need to help others in your job to feel satistifed. You would be a great nurse, psychologist, or counselor. |
But this is the last one...promise!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: A diagnosis is simply the physician's activity of determining the state of your purse in order to decide how sick to make you. (Ambrose Bierce)
Stormy Weather
I've got a few things I want to get off my chest on this blog in the upcoming weeks(s), but at the moment I'm a little pre-occupied with starting second semester (and still trying to get my head around the fact that I passed New Testament Greek!), so these posts of moment are confined to the back burner for the time being.
However, just to pass the time, I did another of those blog quiz thingies, this time on the question: What Type of Weather Are You? And, I have to say, they got it absolutely right!
Read it and weep, folks!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Greatness is a zigzag streak of lightning in the brain. (Herbert H Asquith)
However, just to pass the time, I did another of those blog quiz thingies, this time on the question: What Type of Weather Are You? And, I have to say, they got it absolutely right!
| You Are Lightning |
 Beautiful yet dangerous People will stop and watch you when you appear Even though you're capable of random violence You are best known for: your power Your dominant state: performing |
Read it and weep, folks!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Greatness is a zigzag streak of lightning in the brain. (Herbert H Asquith)
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Substance of Faith
Yesterday, I attended my first lecture in "The Triune God", one of the theology subjects I am studying this semester.
This subject is concerned both with Trinitarian theology and with the Christian understanding of God as a Triune being: that is, one Being with three Persons. The former concerns the specifically Christian doctrine of the Trinity; the latter is how Christians speak of God, how Christians understand the nature of the Godhead.
The focus of this lecture was the placement of Trinitarian theology and the Christian understanding of the Triune God at the centre of Christian faith. All the other teachings of the church - the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Salvation - are founded in and predicated upon the Christian teaching about the Triune nature of the Godhead. There are several reasons for this centrality, but one of the most important is that it goes to the identity of Christian faith.
The Trinity is the specific and particular claim about God made by Christian faith. Only Christianity understands the Godhead in Trinitarian terms: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is the creator, source, and basis of all life; the Son is the Father's decisive act in creation; the Holy Spirit is the Father's ongoing presence in and engagement with the world. God is one Being in which reside three Persons who exist in relation with one another and with the created order. The Son and Holy Spirit are not separate beings, or created beings, or subordinate beings; they are co-eternal and coeval with the Father, of one Being and "of one substance" as the Nicene Creed affirms.
But the other, often not considered point here is that this issue of Christian identity is important for interfaith dialogue. Too often, in my view, interfaith dialogue is predicated upon ignoring the differences between faiths and concentrating on the things held in common by different faiths. In other words, the differences between faiths is seen entirely in pejorative terms, it is seen as a negative; and to counter this "negative", it is necessary to focus on the "positive" of commonality.
I can understand why this attitude exists: partially, it is an attempt to counteract prejudice and ignorance; and, partially, it is deeply psychologically satisfying. However, I think it is misguided. I'm not suggesting that we ought not concentrate on the commonalities; what I think is that we should change our attitude to the differences. Indeed, I think we should celebrate them.
As an example, I look at the phenomenon of the so-called "interfaith minister". This is the subject of a documentary series currently running on the wonderful Compass program on the ABC. These "interfaith ministers" essentially conduct services that not only draw on the rituals and traditions of the major faiths, but also of movements such as neo-paganism and gaianism. I must confess that I viewed this development with considerable reservations, for three essential reasons.
Firstly, it seemed to me that this movement was based on wish-fulfilment: that is, the desire to "unify" the faiths so that people could have the comfort of a religion that pointed to a single, overriding truth that enabled them to avoid having to wrestle with the difficult questions posed by religious diversity. Again, while this may be psychologically satisfying, it strikes me as possibly the least appropriate basis upon which to found an approach to faith.
Secondly, it seemed that this movement was a process of manufacturing a "faith" that essentially doesn't stand for anything or amount to anything. You simply can't throw together a mish-mash of theologies and rituals and expect that it will amount to anything substantial or relevant. Yes, it might be satisfying from the perspective of making you "feel good" or enabling you to get away with not thinking deeply about faith, but there is a vast difference between a spirituality that is founded upon an understanding of God and God's relation to the universe (and which grapples with all the questions, doubts, and ambiguities which this entails), and a "spirituality" that is just a construction whose purpose is to facilitate the desires and inclinations of the individual.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I think this movement toward "interfaith ministers" can actually do a lot of harm, not least because it fails to honour the differences between faiths, and to acknowledge the beauty, power, truth, and poignancy that resides within, and is articulated by, these differences. In other words, the "interfaith minister" movement simply papers over the differences between faiths, as if dialogue could actually be facilitated by pretending these differences don't exist, and that the way forward is to just bung the symbols and rituals of different faiths together and essentially ignore their theologies. But this fails to understand that it is the differences between faiths that is the basis of individual faith conviction; that theological integrity resides, not in cobbling together some religious hodge-podge of beliefs and practices, but in simultaneously asserting the truth of faith claims while at the same time acknowledging and respecting the claims of others.
In other words, the "interfaith ministry" movement is a cop-out, just the latest manifestation of the infection of faith by self-helpism.
And this is why yesterday's lecture resonated so strongly for me: because it reinforced the necessity for me, as a Christian, to articulate the truth of the Christian faith; and, at the same time, to celebrate and see the majesty and beauty and legitimacy that exists between and across faiths because of their differences. It is not difference by which we should be frightened; it is the mediocrity of superficial "unity".
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: An unlearned carpenter of my acquaintance once said in my hearing: "There is very little difference between one man and another, but what there is is very important." (William James)
This subject is concerned both with Trinitarian theology and with the Christian understanding of God as a Triune being: that is, one Being with three Persons. The former concerns the specifically Christian doctrine of the Trinity; the latter is how Christians speak of God, how Christians understand the nature of the Godhead.
The focus of this lecture was the placement of Trinitarian theology and the Christian understanding of the Triune God at the centre of Christian faith. All the other teachings of the church - the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Salvation - are founded in and predicated upon the Christian teaching about the Triune nature of the Godhead. There are several reasons for this centrality, but one of the most important is that it goes to the identity of Christian faith.
The Trinity is the specific and particular claim about God made by Christian faith. Only Christianity understands the Godhead in Trinitarian terms: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is the creator, source, and basis of all life; the Son is the Father's decisive act in creation; the Holy Spirit is the Father's ongoing presence in and engagement with the world. God is one Being in which reside three Persons who exist in relation with one another and with the created order. The Son and Holy Spirit are not separate beings, or created beings, or subordinate beings; they are co-eternal and coeval with the Father, of one Being and "of one substance" as the Nicene Creed affirms.
But the other, often not considered point here is that this issue of Christian identity is important for interfaith dialogue. Too often, in my view, interfaith dialogue is predicated upon ignoring the differences between faiths and concentrating on the things held in common by different faiths. In other words, the differences between faiths is seen entirely in pejorative terms, it is seen as a negative; and to counter this "negative", it is necessary to focus on the "positive" of commonality.
I can understand why this attitude exists: partially, it is an attempt to counteract prejudice and ignorance; and, partially, it is deeply psychologically satisfying. However, I think it is misguided. I'm not suggesting that we ought not concentrate on the commonalities; what I think is that we should change our attitude to the differences. Indeed, I think we should celebrate them.
As an example, I look at the phenomenon of the so-called "interfaith minister". This is the subject of a documentary series currently running on the wonderful Compass program on the ABC. These "interfaith ministers" essentially conduct services that not only draw on the rituals and traditions of the major faiths, but also of movements such as neo-paganism and gaianism. I must confess that I viewed this development with considerable reservations, for three essential reasons.
Firstly, it seemed to me that this movement was based on wish-fulfilment: that is, the desire to "unify" the faiths so that people could have the comfort of a religion that pointed to a single, overriding truth that enabled them to avoid having to wrestle with the difficult questions posed by religious diversity. Again, while this may be psychologically satisfying, it strikes me as possibly the least appropriate basis upon which to found an approach to faith.
Secondly, it seemed that this movement was a process of manufacturing a "faith" that essentially doesn't stand for anything or amount to anything. You simply can't throw together a mish-mash of theologies and rituals and expect that it will amount to anything substantial or relevant. Yes, it might be satisfying from the perspective of making you "feel good" or enabling you to get away with not thinking deeply about faith, but there is a vast difference between a spirituality that is founded upon an understanding of God and God's relation to the universe (and which grapples with all the questions, doubts, and ambiguities which this entails), and a "spirituality" that is just a construction whose purpose is to facilitate the desires and inclinations of the individual.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I think this movement toward "interfaith ministers" can actually do a lot of harm, not least because it fails to honour the differences between faiths, and to acknowledge the beauty, power, truth, and poignancy that resides within, and is articulated by, these differences. In other words, the "interfaith minister" movement simply papers over the differences between faiths, as if dialogue could actually be facilitated by pretending these differences don't exist, and that the way forward is to just bung the symbols and rituals of different faiths together and essentially ignore their theologies. But this fails to understand that it is the differences between faiths that is the basis of individual faith conviction; that theological integrity resides, not in cobbling together some religious hodge-podge of beliefs and practices, but in simultaneously asserting the truth of faith claims while at the same time acknowledging and respecting the claims of others.
In other words, the "interfaith ministry" movement is a cop-out, just the latest manifestation of the infection of faith by self-helpism.
And this is why yesterday's lecture resonated so strongly for me: because it reinforced the necessity for me, as a Christian, to articulate the truth of the Christian faith; and, at the same time, to celebrate and see the majesty and beauty and legitimacy that exists between and across faiths because of their differences. It is not difference by which we should be frightened; it is the mediocrity of superficial "unity".
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: An unlearned carpenter of my acquaintance once said in my hearing: "There is very little difference between one man and another, but what there is is very important." (William James)
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Time and Tide
Yesterday, I was cleaning out the inbox from my email (that's the kind of exciting thing I get up to when my Dearly Beloved is not about), when I stumbled across my quiz results for the Select Smart Belief System Selector web quiz. I had taken this quiz in a moment of idle curiosity some years ago, and the results were sitting in my inbox, forgotten until I rediscovered them.
Now, I take these quiz thingies with more than a grain of salt, largely because, methodologically speaking, they are quite simplistic in their either/or format, and are thus open to manipulation. You can pretty much produce the result you want by thinking about the answers you need to provide in order to arrive at said results. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable process. (That's why, among a whole host of other reasons, I think the entire Myers-Briggs getup is a load of dangerous pop-psychological garbage - but that's an entire other issue!)
Anyhoo, these qualifications aside, I normally try and answer these quizzes as honestly as possible, even when I think the best answer I can give to the questions provided doesn't really reflect my point of view at all. I'm usually pretty sure of what the result will be notwithstanding, although, on occasion, I do manage to surprise myself - or is it that the quiz surprises me?
The point being that, last time I took this quiz, these are the top ten results (in percentage terms) that my quiz produced (the results go up to 26 rankings, but I'm not going to impose them all upon you):
#1: Humanist (100)
#2: Unitarian Universalist (92)
#3: Theravada Buddhist (85)
#4: Atheist/Agnostic (81)
#5: Liberal Quaker (76)
#6: Neo-Pagan (63)
#7: Taoism (60)
#8: Orthodox Quaker (54)
#9: Mainline Liberal Protestant (47)
#10: Mahayana Buddhist (46)
Now, there are a few interesting results here that require a bit of discussion in light of my present status as a Christian who is studying theology and hoping to candidate to the ordained ministry of the Uniting Church in Australia.
The Humanist rating doesn't surprise me much at all, given that, at the time, I was not a member of the church and still identified myself primarily in terms of the Stoic moral philosophy I had first encountered in my early 20s. Neither was I terribly surprised by the appearance of Theravadan and Mahayanan Buddhism in the top ten. Aside from the fact that Buddhism is a non-theist faith, thus aligning it somewhat with the humanist philosophical tradition, Theravadan Buddhism might be described as the "monastic" tradition of Buddhism, reflecting my own sense that had I been born in another era, I might have ended up as a member of a religious order; whereas Mahayanan Buddhism, whilst the more "popular" school of Buddhist practice, nevertheless preserves the traditions of meditation and contemplation toward which I am personally strongly inclined.
The atheistic/agnostic tag did surprise me somewhat. I have never been an atheist personally, despite all my struggles with coming to an understanding of faith over the course of my life. Moreover, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are not interchangeable; they are not similes, and do not represent the same thing; but this confusion between the two is not uncommon. I can only surmise that the appearance of this rating in my top ten reflects the level of scepticism I held at the time about matters of faith; and which, to an extent, I still hold today as a necessary part of faith. That is to say, my belief that faith, and the claims of faith, must be held with a certain humility in the understanding that God is not who we think God is, that God is wider than our thoughts and our capacity to comprehend, and is revealed as a transcendent mystery and not a mapped-out, pinned down, packaged in a box certainty.
The appearance of Universal Unitarian, Liberal Quaker, and Orthodox Quaker puzzled me, as I knew - and still know - next to nothing about these traditions and their theological perspectives. Perhaps I'm more ecumenical than I thought! The Taoism suggestion wasn't that much of a surprise, as I have read the Tao Te Ching (as well as the Analects of Confucius and the Book of Mencius) and found much within it that resonated with both Buddhist and Stoic moral philosophy. The Neo-Pagan rating had me frankly scratching my head; to be brutally honest, I think the "pagans" are a bunch of cultural-imperialist, cherry-picking from other traditions to suit themselves tossers! Especially the "druids" and all the others who carry on with "Celtic spiritual" practices, not least because the truth is almost next to nothing is now known of the ancient druidic traditions and beliefs, and what they actually stood for and practiced (the Romans did a very thorough job of wiping them out).
The interesting one is the appearance of Mainline Liberal Protestant. Although at number nine and less than 50%, it does, perhaps, reflect the fact that I was starting to drift toward a Protestant church as a possibility for re-connecting with a faith community. Indeed, I had certainly started to become increasingly aware of the Uniting Church in Australia, and was intrigued by its bringing together of three denominational traditions, and also impressed by its commitment to social justice. Now, I know the Uniting Church does not define itself as a "liberal" church - it is far too broad and diverse a community for any single label to do it justice. But perhaps what this quiz result reflected was that, although I still predominantly identified myself in humanist/Stoic terms, perhaps the possibilities of faith and a place in a Christian community were starting to make themselves apparent.
The upshot is that, stirred by curiosity as a result of stumbling across this quiz, I decided to do it again. And this time, the top ten results came out like this:
#1: Mainline Liberal Protestant (100)
#2: Liberal Quaker (88)
#3: Orthodox Quaker (84)
#4: Hinduism (82)
#5: Unitarian Universalism (81)
#6: Eastern Orthodox (74)
#7: Roman Catholic (74)
#8: Neo-Pagan (73)
#9: Seventh Day Adventist (71)
#10: Sikhism (66)
The most significant outcome of the quiz was that Mainline Liberal Protestant has shot up to the #1 position. Hardly surprising given the fact that I am now a practicing Christian and member of the Uniting Church (bearing in mind my caution about applying the term "liberal" exclusively to the UCA), and reflective also of the theological conclusions and resolutions to which my struggles with faith have arrived.
Interestingly, both the Buddhist and the Taoist influences seem to have declined, despite the ongoing reverence for, and resonances with, both traditions that I continue to feel to this day. I think this reflects two developments: firstly, that I have come to a particular and specific theological conviction in terms of faith practice and identity; and, second, that they have not so much disappeared from my life as moved from the psychological and philosophical foreground to the background. In this respect, they reflect the change which the influence of Stoic moral philosophy has undergone in my life; Stoicism now forms part of the philosophical bedrock of my Christian spirituality, but is no longer part of my up-front, "headline" theological thinking.
I was surprised by the Neo-Pagan rating still making it into the top-ten, especially given my views about "pagans", expressed above (it dropped from 6th to 8th position on the list, but actually increased in percentage terms). And I'm frankly astounded by the Seventh-Day Adventist aspect, especially since I regard Seventh Day Adventism as, at best, a kind of quasi-Christian sect inhabiting the extreme fringe of the Christian world (along with Mormonism, Christian Science, and other products of the so-called Second Great Awakening in 19th Century America). The relevance of the Liberal and Orthodox Quaker elements, and of the Universal Unitarianism, remains, as with the previous quiz result, a complete mystery to me.
The two developments which really grabbed my attention, however, were the appearance of Hinduism and Sikhism in the top ten, as well as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Regarding the former, whilst I have a little knowledge of Hinduism, I am hardly an expert; and I have next to no knowledge of Sikhism other than that it is (I think) an offshoot from Hinduism. Given the affinities between Hinduism and Buddhism (although there are, obviously, critical differences), I would have thought that the disappearance of Buddhism from the top ten would have mitigated against both Hinduism and Sikhism making an appearance; but apparently not!
And as for the emergence of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy into the top ten, well, I think that can be explained in two ways. Firstly, it simply reflects the affinities between all denominations of the Christian community, the shared theological traditions, worship practices, liturgical resources, and doctrinal bases. My location with a mainline Protestant church necessarily involves my location within the wider Christian church, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy included. Secondly, I think my finding a place within a Christian faith community, and the theological and philosophical conclusions which doing so necessarily involves, combined with my theological studies at an ecumenical faculty, means I have re-engaged with the Catholic traditions in which I grew up, and from which I became alienated in my youth; and this necessarily precipitates an affinity for the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic and Orthodox churches in many respects being mirror images of one another.
An example of this is sacred music: I have always loved the Western Church's tradition of sacred music, and in recent years have discovered the sublimely beautiful sacred music tradition of the Eastern Church. Partly because they are similar and serve similar purposes; but also because of the differences. For example, whereas in the Western church, the voices of the upper register tend to get emphasised, in the Orthodox tradition, the voices of the lower register tend to be more prominent. Rachmaninov's stunning All Night Vigil and Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom being ethereal, spell-binding examples.
So what can be made of these results? Probably not much. But I do think they reflect, however imperfectly, the philosophical, theological, and intellectual journey on which I've been engaged for much of my adult life, and the incredibly rich and diverse opportunities for growth and understanding that have been opened up to me as a result.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: To change your mind and to follow him who sets you right is to be nonetheless the free agent that you were before. (Marcus Aurelius)
Now, I take these quiz thingies with more than a grain of salt, largely because, methodologically speaking, they are quite simplistic in their either/or format, and are thus open to manipulation. You can pretty much produce the result you want by thinking about the answers you need to provide in order to arrive at said results. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable process. (That's why, among a whole host of other reasons, I think the entire Myers-Briggs getup is a load of dangerous pop-psychological garbage - but that's an entire other issue!)
Anyhoo, these qualifications aside, I normally try and answer these quizzes as honestly as possible, even when I think the best answer I can give to the questions provided doesn't really reflect my point of view at all. I'm usually pretty sure of what the result will be notwithstanding, although, on occasion, I do manage to surprise myself - or is it that the quiz surprises me?
The point being that, last time I took this quiz, these are the top ten results (in percentage terms) that my quiz produced (the results go up to 26 rankings, but I'm not going to impose them all upon you):
#1: Humanist (100)
#2: Unitarian Universalist (92)
#3: Theravada Buddhist (85)
#4: Atheist/Agnostic (81)
#5: Liberal Quaker (76)
#6: Neo-Pagan (63)
#7: Taoism (60)
#8: Orthodox Quaker (54)
#9: Mainline Liberal Protestant (47)
#10: Mahayana Buddhist (46)
Now, there are a few interesting results here that require a bit of discussion in light of my present status as a Christian who is studying theology and hoping to candidate to the ordained ministry of the Uniting Church in Australia.
The Humanist rating doesn't surprise me much at all, given that, at the time, I was not a member of the church and still identified myself primarily in terms of the Stoic moral philosophy I had first encountered in my early 20s. Neither was I terribly surprised by the appearance of Theravadan and Mahayanan Buddhism in the top ten. Aside from the fact that Buddhism is a non-theist faith, thus aligning it somewhat with the humanist philosophical tradition, Theravadan Buddhism might be described as the "monastic" tradition of Buddhism, reflecting my own sense that had I been born in another era, I might have ended up as a member of a religious order; whereas Mahayanan Buddhism, whilst the more "popular" school of Buddhist practice, nevertheless preserves the traditions of meditation and contemplation toward which I am personally strongly inclined.
The atheistic/agnostic tag did surprise me somewhat. I have never been an atheist personally, despite all my struggles with coming to an understanding of faith over the course of my life. Moreover, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are not interchangeable; they are not similes, and do not represent the same thing; but this confusion between the two is not uncommon. I can only surmise that the appearance of this rating in my top ten reflects the level of scepticism I held at the time about matters of faith; and which, to an extent, I still hold today as a necessary part of faith. That is to say, my belief that faith, and the claims of faith, must be held with a certain humility in the understanding that God is not who we think God is, that God is wider than our thoughts and our capacity to comprehend, and is revealed as a transcendent mystery and not a mapped-out, pinned down, packaged in a box certainty.
The appearance of Universal Unitarian, Liberal Quaker, and Orthodox Quaker puzzled me, as I knew - and still know - next to nothing about these traditions and their theological perspectives. Perhaps I'm more ecumenical than I thought! The Taoism suggestion wasn't that much of a surprise, as I have read the Tao Te Ching (as well as the Analects of Confucius and the Book of Mencius) and found much within it that resonated with both Buddhist and Stoic moral philosophy. The Neo-Pagan rating had me frankly scratching my head; to be brutally honest, I think the "pagans" are a bunch of cultural-imperialist, cherry-picking from other traditions to suit themselves tossers! Especially the "druids" and all the others who carry on with "Celtic spiritual" practices, not least because the truth is almost next to nothing is now known of the ancient druidic traditions and beliefs, and what they actually stood for and practiced (the Romans did a very thorough job of wiping them out).
The interesting one is the appearance of Mainline Liberal Protestant. Although at number nine and less than 50%, it does, perhaps, reflect the fact that I was starting to drift toward a Protestant church as a possibility for re-connecting with a faith community. Indeed, I had certainly started to become increasingly aware of the Uniting Church in Australia, and was intrigued by its bringing together of three denominational traditions, and also impressed by its commitment to social justice. Now, I know the Uniting Church does not define itself as a "liberal" church - it is far too broad and diverse a community for any single label to do it justice. But perhaps what this quiz result reflected was that, although I still predominantly identified myself in humanist/Stoic terms, perhaps the possibilities of faith and a place in a Christian community were starting to make themselves apparent.
The upshot is that, stirred by curiosity as a result of stumbling across this quiz, I decided to do it again. And this time, the top ten results came out like this:
#1: Mainline Liberal Protestant (100)
#2: Liberal Quaker (88)
#3: Orthodox Quaker (84)
#4: Hinduism (82)
#5: Unitarian Universalism (81)
#6: Eastern Orthodox (74)
#7: Roman Catholic (74)
#8: Neo-Pagan (73)
#9: Seventh Day Adventist (71)
#10: Sikhism (66)
The most significant outcome of the quiz was that Mainline Liberal Protestant has shot up to the #1 position. Hardly surprising given the fact that I am now a practicing Christian and member of the Uniting Church (bearing in mind my caution about applying the term "liberal" exclusively to the UCA), and reflective also of the theological conclusions and resolutions to which my struggles with faith have arrived.
Interestingly, both the Buddhist and the Taoist influences seem to have declined, despite the ongoing reverence for, and resonances with, both traditions that I continue to feel to this day. I think this reflects two developments: firstly, that I have come to a particular and specific theological conviction in terms of faith practice and identity; and, second, that they have not so much disappeared from my life as moved from the psychological and philosophical foreground to the background. In this respect, they reflect the change which the influence of Stoic moral philosophy has undergone in my life; Stoicism now forms part of the philosophical bedrock of my Christian spirituality, but is no longer part of my up-front, "headline" theological thinking.
I was surprised by the Neo-Pagan rating still making it into the top-ten, especially given my views about "pagans", expressed above (it dropped from 6th to 8th position on the list, but actually increased in percentage terms). And I'm frankly astounded by the Seventh-Day Adventist aspect, especially since I regard Seventh Day Adventism as, at best, a kind of quasi-Christian sect inhabiting the extreme fringe of the Christian world (along with Mormonism, Christian Science, and other products of the so-called Second Great Awakening in 19th Century America). The relevance of the Liberal and Orthodox Quaker elements, and of the Universal Unitarianism, remains, as with the previous quiz result, a complete mystery to me.
The two developments which really grabbed my attention, however, were the appearance of Hinduism and Sikhism in the top ten, as well as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Regarding the former, whilst I have a little knowledge of Hinduism, I am hardly an expert; and I have next to no knowledge of Sikhism other than that it is (I think) an offshoot from Hinduism. Given the affinities between Hinduism and Buddhism (although there are, obviously, critical differences), I would have thought that the disappearance of Buddhism from the top ten would have mitigated against both Hinduism and Sikhism making an appearance; but apparently not!
And as for the emergence of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy into the top ten, well, I think that can be explained in two ways. Firstly, it simply reflects the affinities between all denominations of the Christian community, the shared theological traditions, worship practices, liturgical resources, and doctrinal bases. My location with a mainline Protestant church necessarily involves my location within the wider Christian church, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy included. Secondly, I think my finding a place within a Christian faith community, and the theological and philosophical conclusions which doing so necessarily involves, combined with my theological studies at an ecumenical faculty, means I have re-engaged with the Catholic traditions in which I grew up, and from which I became alienated in my youth; and this necessarily precipitates an affinity for the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic and Orthodox churches in many respects being mirror images of one another.
An example of this is sacred music: I have always loved the Western Church's tradition of sacred music, and in recent years have discovered the sublimely beautiful sacred music tradition of the Eastern Church. Partly because they are similar and serve similar purposes; but also because of the differences. For example, whereas in the Western church, the voices of the upper register tend to get emphasised, in the Orthodox tradition, the voices of the lower register tend to be more prominent. Rachmaninov's stunning All Night Vigil and Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom being ethereal, spell-binding examples.
So what can be made of these results? Probably not much. But I do think they reflect, however imperfectly, the philosophical, theological, and intellectual journey on which I've been engaged for much of my adult life, and the incredibly rich and diverse opportunities for growth and understanding that have been opened up to me as a result.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: To change your mind and to follow him who sets you right is to be nonetheless the free agent that you were before. (Marcus Aurelius)
Thursday, July 19, 2007
I Passed! I Passed! I Passed!
Well, the mailman dropped my first semester results into the mailbox this afternoon, and even with one eye closed in expectation of the worst, I was able to see that I passed New Testament Greek! Indeed, I scored 63%, only a couple of percentage points off a Credit!
Now, you might not think that 63% is anything to get excited about - but that's not taking into account the fact that I would have been happy with 51%, largely due to the fact that Greek was a really hard struggle, and I discovered to a painful degree my ineptitude when it comes to languages. So 63% frankly looks like I really kicked arse!
As for my other results...oh, well, I scored 71% for Biblical Texts (a few agonising points short of a Distinction!) and 75% for Christology (bang on a Distinction). But that's not important - what's important is the fact that I passed New Testament Greek!
woo-hoo!
And I'm sure my Greek lecturer will be glad that I won't be back to clutter up the class next year!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Success is never having to admit that you're unhappy. (Robert Evans)
Now, you might not think that 63% is anything to get excited about - but that's not taking into account the fact that I would have been happy with 51%, largely due to the fact that Greek was a really hard struggle, and I discovered to a painful degree my ineptitude when it comes to languages. So 63% frankly looks like I really kicked arse!
As for my other results...oh, well, I scored 71% for Biblical Texts (a few agonising points short of a Distinction!) and 75% for Christology (bang on a Distinction). But that's not important - what's important is the fact that I passed New Testament Greek!
woo-hoo!
And I'm sure my Greek lecturer will be glad that I won't be back to clutter up the class next year!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Success is never having to admit that you're unhappy. (Robert Evans)
Spoke Too Soon...
I really should have known better.
This morning, I received a call from the UFT to say that the Epistemology subject in which I had enrolled was cancelled due to lack of numbers. A quick scramble through the handbook revealed another subject I can undertake - Faith and the Learning Process - but I really should have realised that there was bound to be one last minute snafu in stall for me!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Experience is just the name that everyone gives to their mistakes. (Oscar Wilde)
This morning, I received a call from the UFT to say that the Epistemology subject in which I had enrolled was cancelled due to lack of numbers. A quick scramble through the handbook revealed another subject I can undertake - Faith and the Learning Process - but I really should have realised that there was bound to be one last minute snafu in stall for me!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Experience is just the name that everyone gives to their mistakes. (Oscar Wilde)
Waiting, Waiting....
Well, second semester of the academic year kicks off next week, and I'm still waiting for my first semester results (I think they get posted today). I'm particularly anxious about my New Testament Greek result: if I pass, I won't have to repeat this (compulsory) subject! Although I enjoyed many aspects of the subject, and found it quite revealing and interesting, I now have a full and thorough appreciation of the fact that languages just aren't part of my gifting! So the prospect of having to do it all over again is not a pleasant one...
Not that I'm griping about the delay. I appreciate the fact that the good folk at the United Faculty of Theology's administration office are overworked at the best of times. Just wish there was some way of getting the results sooner so that I would know. Maybe the UFT should explore setting up some sort of online system whereby each student is assigned an account that enables them to access their results (and only their own results)....
There's been a bit of fiddling around with my subjects for Semester Two. Partly my fault, partly the fact that sometimes subjects get cancelled for various reasons. But now they're all settled, and I'll be studying:
Not that I'm griping about the delay. I appreciate the fact that the good folk at the United Faculty of Theology's administration office are overworked at the best of times. Just wish there was some way of getting the results sooner so that I would know. Maybe the UFT should explore setting up some sort of online system whereby each student is assigned an account that enables them to access their results (and only their own results)....
There's been a bit of fiddling around with my subjects for Semester Two. Partly my fault, partly the fact that sometimes subjects get cancelled for various reasons. But now they're all settled, and I'll be studying:
- Epistemology: Theory of Knowledge and Knowing
- The Triune God
- Mark and the Synoptic Gospels
I'm confident that this lot should give me an interesting and thought-provoking mix! Now if only those results would arrive....
Talk to you soon,'
BB.
Quote for the Day: Success is merely delayed failure. (Graham Greene)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The Cold Curse
You may recall my post about my first sermon, in which I lamented the fact that I spent the whole week beforehand struggling with a massive headcold.
Well, it's happened again. This Sunday, I am rostered to lead our local Uniting Church congregation in the "Prayers for the People" section of the service - and, yep, you guessed it, I am presently being ravaged by a magnitude 5000 headcold, replete with all the unpleasant features by which such maladies are accompanied.
Where the heck did this come from? Here I was, thinking that because I've already had a dose of the lurgy this year, I'd be pretty well immune to whatever the 'flu season could throw at me. But, noooo, the universe has decided that it hasn't quite finished tweaking my pride or pulling the rug out from under my feet.
So here I am, at some God-awful hour of the morning, lamenting yet again about the universe's particularly pernicious sense of humour - especially where Yours Truly and leading public worship is concerned! Some days I feel like asking for a refund...
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Some days, I say, some days it just don't pay to get outta bed.* (Foghorn Leghorn)
*Oh, if only I could go back to bed and get some SLEEP!
Well, it's happened again. This Sunday, I am rostered to lead our local Uniting Church congregation in the "Prayers for the People" section of the service - and, yep, you guessed it, I am presently being ravaged by a magnitude 5000 headcold, replete with all the unpleasant features by which such maladies are accompanied.
Where the heck did this come from? Here I was, thinking that because I've already had a dose of the lurgy this year, I'd be pretty well immune to whatever the 'flu season could throw at me. But, noooo, the universe has decided that it hasn't quite finished tweaking my pride or pulling the rug out from under my feet.
So here I am, at some God-awful hour of the morning, lamenting yet again about the universe's particularly pernicious sense of humour - especially where Yours Truly and leading public worship is concerned! Some days I feel like asking for a refund...
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Some days, I say, some days it just don't pay to get outta bed.* (Foghorn Leghorn)
*Oh, if only I could go back to bed and get some SLEEP!
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Another Step Forward
Last night, my Dearly Beloved and I took another step forward in the application process to candidate for the ordained ministry of the Uniting Church. Along with another applicant, we presented ourselves before the full Maroondah Presbytery and made submissions as to why we should be affirmed in our application and go forward to the Selection Conference in September.
We had already met with and been interviewed by the Presbytery's Candidates Committee, which involved a detailed and in depth examination of our faith journey to this point in our lives, and our reasons for applying to candidate as ministers. The interview was very thorough, with lots of probing and thoughtful questions, and conducted in an atmosphere of respect and support for the interviewees. We already knew that the Candidates Committee were going to recommend to the full Presbytery meeting that we be affirmed in our application, but that, of course, didn't mean we still didn't have to present ourselves before the Presbytery and make our case.
This involved each of the applicants making a short speech to the Presbytery and then answering any questions from the floor. We had to keep our speeches short because, aside from not wanting to bore anyone to tears, the Presbytery had a very full agenda to get through - which made the task of providing the meeting with a reasonable insight into our lives, our faith journey, our spiritual gifts and passions, and our reasons for applying in a bite-sized presentation very tricky indeed!
But we managed it. After doing so, we went out of the meeting room with a number of support people to await the Presbytery's verdict. Naturally, we were slightly apprehensive, and very grateful for the presence of the support people by whom we were accompanied. And then we were called back - feeling, I have to admit, slightly like prisoners being called back to court to hear the verdict! - and were informed that the Presbytery was very enthusiastically affirming and supporting all the applications.
A break for supper was called. All the applicants were immediately flooded by the rest of the people present at the meeting with their warm congratulations and expressions of support. It was wonderfully affirming and heartening to be the subject of such generosity and kindness, especially given the nerves that had accompanied the process. Needless to say, we went away feeling both slightly exhausted and on quite a high!
So, we have successfully negotiated the congregational and Presbytery phases of the application process - we now have to prepare for the Selection Conference in September. I am sure this will be an equally nerve-racking event - although we were glad to hear from one of the candidates present at the meeting last night that she quite enjoyed the conference! - but I am sure with a little help from our friends, and a little grace, we will have as enriching and positive an experience as we did last night.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4: 6-7)
We had already met with and been interviewed by the Presbytery's Candidates Committee, which involved a detailed and in depth examination of our faith journey to this point in our lives, and our reasons for applying to candidate as ministers. The interview was very thorough, with lots of probing and thoughtful questions, and conducted in an atmosphere of respect and support for the interviewees. We already knew that the Candidates Committee were going to recommend to the full Presbytery meeting that we be affirmed in our application, but that, of course, didn't mean we still didn't have to present ourselves before the Presbytery and make our case.
This involved each of the applicants making a short speech to the Presbytery and then answering any questions from the floor. We had to keep our speeches short because, aside from not wanting to bore anyone to tears, the Presbytery had a very full agenda to get through - which made the task of providing the meeting with a reasonable insight into our lives, our faith journey, our spiritual gifts and passions, and our reasons for applying in a bite-sized presentation very tricky indeed!
But we managed it. After doing so, we went out of the meeting room with a number of support people to await the Presbytery's verdict. Naturally, we were slightly apprehensive, and very grateful for the presence of the support people by whom we were accompanied. And then we were called back - feeling, I have to admit, slightly like prisoners being called back to court to hear the verdict! - and were informed that the Presbytery was very enthusiastically affirming and supporting all the applications.
A break for supper was called. All the applicants were immediately flooded by the rest of the people present at the meeting with their warm congratulations and expressions of support. It was wonderfully affirming and heartening to be the subject of such generosity and kindness, especially given the nerves that had accompanied the process. Needless to say, we went away feeling both slightly exhausted and on quite a high!
So, we have successfully negotiated the congregational and Presbytery phases of the application process - we now have to prepare for the Selection Conference in September. I am sure this will be an equally nerve-racking event - although we were glad to hear from one of the candidates present at the meeting last night that she quite enjoyed the conference! - but I am sure with a little help from our friends, and a little grace, we will have as enriching and positive an experience as we did last night.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4: 6-7)
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Me Explained Finally (Sort Of)
And now, just to make the whole picture complete....
There you go - wasn't that just fascinating?
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: An egotist is a person of low taste, more interested in themself than in me. (Ambrose Bierce)
| You Are a Licorice Jelly Bean |
 You are an acquired taste. The less people fight your strange ways, the more they like them. |
There you go - wasn't that just fascinating?
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: An egotist is a person of low taste, more interested in themself than in me. (Ambrose Bierce)
Me Explained Once More (Sort Of)
I think this one was a little closer to the truth....
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Statistics are like bikinis: suggestive in what they reveal and vital in what they hide. (Aaron Levenstein)
| You Are an Old Soul |
 You are an experienced soul who appreciates tradition. Mellow and wise, you like to be with others but also to be alone. Down to earth, you are sensible and impatient. A creature of habit, it takes you a while to warm up to new people. You hate injustice, and you're very protective of family and friends A bit demanding, you expect proper behavior from others. Extremely independent you don't mind living or being alone. But when you find love, you tend to want marriage right away. Souls you are most compatible with: Warrior Soul and Visionary Soul |
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Statistics are like bikinis: suggestive in what they reveal and vital in what they hide. (Aaron Levenstein)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
