why are people cheering for kate?

part of the reason i feel uncomfortable with people lauding 'kate the christian' is you then have to come up with a reason to distance yourself from the christian brother done for disgusting dodginess.

i don't want people to consider christianity just because christians are good people or nice cooks, in the same way as i don't want them to write it off because of people like the victorian paedophile or the norwegian mass murderer.

rather i want people to consider christianity because they see in Jesus a God who has proven his love for them, and they see in the bible a way of looking at things that makes sense of the world and ourselves, our ability to do great and beautiful things but also to commit great evil.

ecumenism 1

a lot of thoughts in the last few months about ecumenism [= the promotion of unity among Christian churches], one of a few experiences and reflections:

vision valley snow camp
i did some talks on a camp where the leaders were from a variety of denominations which could in really broad brush strokes by typecast as evangelical, pentecostal, charismatic, liberal. one real positive was that there was a unity in purpose, in that we sought to care for and love the campers as taught by Christ. another positive for me was that i (because i'm perfect in doctrine and understanding!) got to set the theological brackets for the discussions that took place over the 3 days, in framing the gospel as a response to God's love for us shown in the death and resurrection of Christ. there were only positive responses to the way i explained the gospel from the other leaders.

some of the discussions i had with the other leaders showed some very different expressions, language like 'journeying', 'claiming' and so on. very different expressions for what i would maybe describe as 'seeking to live out in concord with the scriptures' and 'receiving new life given by grace'. what this shows is perhaps that it's not the base definition where we differ, but in what we'd add to that basic gospel outline. but the emphasis for the camp and the discussions on the ski lifts over the time was that basic outline.

so i was really happy to be a part of it, but was really thankful i was doing the talks. which goes to show, i'm all for ecumenism when i get to set the agenda. it definitely reeks of arrogance on my part.

more to come.

religious? moi?

i listen to the radio a bit. mostly to 702 ABC Sydney. they often have interviews with various people, and they often get asked the 'so are you religious?' question.

and i can't remember yet hearing anyone say 'no'. and this frustrates me. partly because making up your own religion doesn't make you religious; if anything it says you're deluded. secondly because being superstitious about which sock you donn first does not equate with trusting that your eternal salvation is in the hands of something or someone greater than yourself.

but i think the final reason i find such a response so frustrating is that i spend so much of my time trying to explain that i'm NOT religious, that Christianity is a-religious, that Jesus didn't spend much time going around exonerating the religious leaders of his day, rather hammered them for being false shepherds, hired men, duplicitous wolves. i therefore go to great lengths explaining the difference between following Jesus and religion.

am i right to do this? or in this culture of postmodernity does everyone have the right to determine for themselves what religion entails?