I love the way the theatricality of the christian churches is couched in the most soaring language. I guess it’s kinda comforting that these grand promises are accompanied by some of the most uplifting language available to us. Lay a Händel soundtrack behind it and it becomes utterly irresistible.

Nevertheless, just because my parents got sucked in, it doesn’t mean that the churches have any claim on me, or any right to determine my behaviour beyond the churchyard gate. You’re more than welcome to your grand words and your mystic madness. I promise to make no attempts to change you if you stop trying to tell me how I can behave.

Such certainty terrifies me, save me from those who are so sure their truth is the only truth.

Peter either forgets or does not know that the rituals he mentions pre-date Christianity by centuries. Both Baptism and the so-called Eucharist (drinking a god's blood and eating his flesh) were common at the time of Christ's birth. The original Pagan integrity of these rituals was corrupted by early Christians and wrapped in layers of Jewish and Hellenistic myth. Is it not fair, therefore if "post-modernists" again adapt these rituals to suit the "superstitions" of the time?
Of course, while we are on the subject, the myth of the dying-resurrecting god-man was also Pagan as was the son-of-god concept, virgin birth, being born in a cave, the 25th December birth date, dying on a cross to wash away sin and most of Christianity's borrowed mythology and concepts. Do these things ever remain static and unchanged. Well they haven't so far.

I totally agree that the church should not be influenced by the trends and fashions of a sinful world. This should include rituals although the primary objectives of the church are in upholding the Bible truth and the morals of God's law.

God's commandments are here to stay and the Bible tells us those who choose to follow them only as far as it suits their sinful nature will surely perish, along with those who invent excuses to ignore them completely.

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5:3).

Priscillian says, "Peter either forgets or does not know that the rituals he mentions pre-date Christianity by centuries. Both Baptism and the so-called Eucharist (drinking a god's blood and eating his flesh) were common at the time of Christ's birth. The original Pagan integrity of these rituals was corrupted by early Christians and wrapped in layers of Jewish and Hellenistic myth. Is it not fair, therefore if "post-modernists" again adapt these rituals to suit the "superstitions" of the time? Of course, while we are on the subject, the myth of the dying-resurrecting god-man was also Pagan as was the son-of-god concept, virgin birth, being born in a cave, the 25th December birth date, dying on a cross to wash away sin and most of Christianity's borrowed mythology and concepts. Do these things ever remain static and unchanged. Well they haven't so far."

This is just a wild set of unsubstantiated words.

If Priscillian wants to be taken seriously he or she should try and take just one of these statements, quantify it and then we can compare with the Christian belief.

A more interesting issue is why pagan religion crumbled in the century before before Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire. What was different about Christianity, persecuted sect that it was, that the pagans flocked to it in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

"Similarly, when Russell Crowe can have his child “baptised” in his own private chapel, without the support of the faith community, presumably without ordained ministry - for what clergy would get involved ?...."

Whatever made you leap to such a conclusion ? I feel you owe a very public apology to the entire Crowe family. The baby was christened by the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, Philip Huggins, who also married the couple in the chapel a year ago.
http://www.murphsplace.com/crowe/band/raewyn.html Scroll to bottom.

I would like to correct that Mr. Aand Mrs. Crowe were married two years ago, not one.

How embarressing, that was a cheap shot about the Crowe baptism, my apologies to all, however it does raise questions about what baptism means in the absence of a public congregation.

'How embarressing, that was a cheap shot about the Crowe baptism, my apologies to all, however it does raise questions about what baptism means in the absence of a public congregation. ' P.Sellick

It just means that the private chapelle made it possible for a family to enjoy this precious moment away from nosy people and paparazzi. Anything wrong with that ?

Anne

I was quite shocked to read the comments made regarding the baptism of the son of Russell and Danielle Crowe. Mr Sellick obviously did no research before writing his article or he would have ralised that the ceremony was officiated by the very same bishop who married the couple in 2003. The original building has already been used for a wedding, and the new, larger chapel will most likely be used for other religious gatherings in the future.

The fact that it was a 'private' baptism surely does not lessen the meaning, I am not religious but are you not making a commitment God and not your neighbours? If this is the case, surely a baptism in a stream with just the parents and godparents and the officiant from whichever faith you choose should mean just as much 'in the eyes of the Lord' as it would in a cathedral full of people!

They didn't have to have their child baptised, but they CHOSE to. Surely that should be good enough for any Christian.

Mr. Peter Sellick - It is more than just unfortunate that you sank to the level of the gossip monger Jeannette Walls when you stated that the Crowe's didn't have a church representative at his son Charlie's baptism. It it thoughtless comments like yours that have tended to unfairly tarnish Mr. Crowe's reputation.

A public apology should be given.

cheers

What is your agenda Aubreii and Crowlady? Are you agents of "Mr and Mrs" Crowe? A "public apology," Crowlady!? I'm sure Russ is not so sensitive that he needs you to censure every minor criticism of him.

I can't stand this boutique christianity, whereby some people think their children should be baptised apart from the worshipping community. For infant baptism, there is a corporate responsibility for the child's development in the faith because the child cannot make his/her own commitment.

The problem with infant baptism is that few parents persevere with worship in church--so baptism is made meaningless. Also, infant baptism obscures other aspects of the rite, namely that it is a washing of sin and a partaking of Christ and the Spirit. This is precisely the 'turning away' from sinfulness and 'turning to' God which the child cannot make. All in all, then, infant baptism should be reserved for children of churchgoing folks, and others can have some sort of 'child commitment ceremony' and perhaps be baptised as young people or adults.

May I quote from the guidelines for the administration of Holy Baptism released in the Diocese of Perth. I assume the Diocese of Melbourne has similar guidelines.
" Baptism is not "done" to the child as an isolated individual , nor can it be expected to impart "instant grace" in a mechanical way in isolation from the continuing life of the church. The two sacraments of the Gospel, Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, are organically related: Baptism is initiation into the Eucharistic community and makes no sense in separation from it..... The Sacrament should be administered in the context of public worship. On occasions other than the principal Sunday service, care should be taken to ensure that the congregation is adequately represented.... When parents desire Baptism to take place other than in their Parish church, this must be arranged through their parish priest, who may well wish to encourage them to consider the desirability of the Baptism taking place where the child will be nurtured in the faith....The rite of the Baptism of Infants in APBA should be used in such a way as to emphasise that it is, in fact, the rite of admission into the Church of God." It is obvious from the last line of my article that I did not know all of the circumstances of the Crowe baptism and I apologize for any slur on those involved. However, my point still stands, that when the church accommodates itself to prevailing culture it does itself great harm by dissipating the meaning of its rites. Whether that was the case in the instance of the Crowe baptism I am unable to say.

David accuses me of making "wild" statements and then challenges me to " try and take just one of these statements, quantify it and then we can compare with the Christian belief."....and fair enough too. I select a quote from a Christian website found almost at random using Google http://www.fmc-canada.org/Scod%20Pages/scod_baptism.htm
"Baptism, and religious rites involving the use of water, have been around a good deal longer than the Christian Church. At least three practices involving water were in use among groups who had contact with the early church."
I couldn't think of a theological scholar that would not agree with this statement. Every cleric I have spoken to has agreed with it. Does David think that John the B invented baptism? If so where is the evidence? David also asks why Paganism crumbled before before Constantine & what was different about Christianity, a religion that the pagans flocked to. The answer is that Paganism was not one religion it was a multitude of beliefs belittled and named "Pagan"(meaning "from the countryside") by the Christian church. Many of these Pagan beliefs involved ritual and myth that closely resembles many aspects of modern Christianity. These Pagan beliefs did not "collapse" they were incorporated into Christianity. Paganism is alive and well in the the church at the end of your street. David also asks the pertinent question about the collapse of Paganism before Constantine. The answer can be found in virtually every book on 4th century European history. Paganism did not collapse. The number of Christians in the Roman empire by Constantine's time was very small and were fractured into sub groups. What was different about Christianity was that it had the good fortune to recruit Helen (Constantines mother) to their ranks. This murderer and power player had a great deal of influence with her Pagan son. Constantine absorbed many Pagan beliefs into the religion and succesfully introduced it as the state religion. There is no evidence that Constantine had any respect for Christianity and behaved all his life like a typical murderous bully of his time.

"when a church accommodates itself to prevailing culture, it does itself great harm." Does this mean it can never learn, is immutable? Do I take it to mean you still approve of slavery then? I guess that was a change in the prevailing culture.

No church with integrity should change its teachings just to suit prevailing opinion. But no church with intelligence should ignore evidence challenging the validity of its dogma.

As for that horrendous sermon: Raising any child to be so narrow-minded as to only ever believe one 'shepard' should qualify as abuse. Why would God make humans intelligent, questioning and creative if all s/he wanted from us was blind obedience to dogma?

It's futile to rage against the progress and freedoms humans have made since the Enlightenment. The Age of Reason continues -- thank God

The Russell Crowe debate kinds of negate all the lofty stuff happening. He's not going to Heavean or Hell, he's in Hollywood! (Which would seem to be a mixture of the two, but doesn't quite equate to Purgatory or Limbo in my book) Being dragged up Catholic by nuns and had the good book thrown at me ad nauseum. One must remember that it was written by men and not god and was a sign of the times. If the Church ain't gonna move, so be it, but the people will always vote with their feet. Rituals are groovy, I find it amazing that the Catholic Church is the only church that still practices exorcism. So pagan non? Whilst I can admire the cathedrals,stonework, rituals etc I will always prefer patchouli incense over francinsense (too many benedictions) and will always see

the Bible (old testament) as the most sexist and racist book ever written. To the point where I'd prefer Hugh Hefner and Oprah to give a more balanced view in this society!

Homo au Go-go: Don’t equate “shepherd” with “dogma”. The rule of the shepherd is one, not of oppressive stupor, but of empowering love. In the flock the intellect, the questioning, the creativity are all free to function – in fact, they may even be given more energy – but as a channel for love rather than for selfishness or lazy obedience to the prevailing trends of the world. And that also means the baptised “Craig” is free to question and reject current dogma of the church if he comes to that point intelligently and driven by love.

Peter, you have excelled yourself in putting the point so succinctly and dramatically. The sermon is an inspiration, and I’m going to keep it for future reference at those times when the everyday world’s voices seem too much to deal with.

I looked at the posts, seeing which one was most deserving of some 'special attention' and firstly DI, yours rates at the top.

"The most sexist and racist book ever written"

myyyyyy goodness, Di, I would have to say that such a statement by you, would equally rank as probably one of the most uniformed, blinkered, narrow minded and historically and culturally ignornant ones also ever made in this forum.

Not to mention 'cultural centric, ethnoc centric, philo-centric'.

Di, you are just projecting from your very conditioned 'condition' back into a world which you appear to know next to nothing about, and you expect God to speak INTO 'that' world in terms that you, today, fully comprehend. Umm.. don't you see a few mild problems with that approach ? I sure do.

Now.. to JPW2040
J, you are almost doing the same thing as Di, you are imposing your very wayward understanding of what it means to be Christian, part of the Church onto what Sells said, and you are broadcasting it as if it actually existed.

Parents "Sucked in" wow, I can read a lot into that mainly about your own condition. It also tells me a lot about your misunderstanding of Christ and the gospel. "No one is going to tell me how to behave, I'm the boss of me" kind of thing. JP, you should analyze what you say more before it graces our eyes.

You can behave any way you like. Go for it. But the point of the gospel and Christ is that while you have the free will to do this, there are concequences ultimately. The Gospel is calling mankind back into loving fellowship with God, thru Christ. No one is going to drag you kicking and screaming to the foot of the Cross.
You can always follow the Biblical teaching

"If Christ is not raised, then lets eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die".

Does that sound like a wise and sustainable approach to life ? (and eternity)

"one of the most uniformed (sic.), blinkered, narrow minded and historically and culturally ignornant (sic.) ones also ever made in this forum"

Given the bigoted, homophobic and wilfully ignorant blather that "BOAZ-David" repeatedly posts to these forums, one wonders whether he is a little piqued at being apparently outdone - not that Di's very reasonable contributions come close in the ignorance stakes.

"BOAZ" shares with Sellick, not only a stupefying adherence to ancient Middle Eastern myths and rituals, but also a predilection for sloppy exemplification, as is the case with Sellick's erroneous reference to the infant Crowe and any number of BOAZ's fictitious or exaggerated references to the Greens, homosexuals, asylum seekers or anybody else of whom he disapproves.

Then again, these more extreme 'godbotherers' have never let reality get in the way of their stories.

Pricillian
what you trotted out, was so old that its almost boring, don't mean to sound 'mean' but it is. The world into which the gospel and Christ came, was very diverse and many practices were carried out. I don't recall EVER seeing anything in the gospels or the Old testament that suggests that the 'concepts' referred to are 'unique, new, without parallel'. In fact, this was the VERY thing that God was showing, by allowing people to compare and contrast HIS work in history with the myths and legends and stories of the pagan world.

Take the Plagues of Egypt for example. Most of those had actual historic precedents. So, it was not the 'fact' of the plaques which was miraculous so much as the TIMING.

It does not take a reasonably informed and basically educated person very long to see the extreme contrasts between the 'gods' of this world, their ceremonies and the pagan rites, with the purity and stark differences with the Christian/Judaistic ones. Look at the epic of Gilgamesh for one, compared to the Creation accounts.
The pagan rites you refer to involved ritual prostitution, of both genders, child sacrifice, and many other disgusting practices, where the self revelation of God was to draw people AWAY from the idea that there was some spiritual benefit derived from throwing your own baby into some fire to please a 'god'

TOPIC Most of what Sells says and presents is very good in my opinion. The charismatic movement HAS lost a lot of the richness of many traditions, but at the same time, the 'ritual's mob has often lost the freshness and spontaneity of the daily walk with the living God. Both have plenty to offer, but neither should ever re-fashion the gospel in terms of 'contemporary' thinking, the presentation may be contextualized but "I preached Christ, and Him crucified" was Pauls anthem and it must always be ours.

Good to see that godbotherer Boaz David back and on the job again.

Not so good however to see the godforsaken Garra returning with nothing but insults to trade and not an argument in sight with any substance.

I thank Priscillian for getting back and promise him or her a more detailed response later in the weekend.

However, Priscillian you still talk in generalities and your web link didn't really support your point at all, as the examples of "other" Baptisms were all Jewish and of course as you know Christianity grew out of Judaism and indeed cannot be understood apart from it Old Testament (Jewish) heritage.

As for your little history lesson on the collapse of paganism, perhaps we have been reading different history books, but I will come back to this point when I have a little more time.

I see Boaz David has jumped into Priscillian.

Whilst I agree with Boaz David as when he says, "The pagan rites you refer to involved ritual prostitution, of both genders, child sacrifice, and many other disgusting practices, where the self revelation of God was to draw people AWAY from the idea that there was some spiritual benefit derived from throwing your own baby into some fire to please a 'god'",

I would have preferred to have seen Priscillian leave (as I still hope) the comfort of his or her easy, wafty generalisations, to actually quote instances of these parallel pagan rites, so as to allow myself (or Boaz David or other students of history) to demonstrate the vast gulf between the darkness of these pagan rites and the light and glory of Christian baptism.

I also applaud Peter Sellick for his central thesis and I reckon therein lies every hope for the recovery of the Christian mission in the West, not through accommodation with a sick decaying civilisation but a return to truth and accompanying fervour of the Gospel which gives life, peace with God, purpose and meaning in life.

I always find it interesting to observe how Christians are busy with their relief agencies, homes for homeless youth, building hospitals, starting new schools, etc, etc at great personal expenses when modern day pagans can only look to Government for these things and won't lift a finger themselves.

Hang on boys......I was reminding you of the pre Christian existance of certain rites within the context of Sells article. Of course they were different in many ways. My point was that they were adapted and changed and that Christianity has changed and adapted through the ages. As for for readings of history I'm alsmost certain that our sources would be different.

BTW Priscillian is a male name the female would be Priscilla.

BOAZ, I do hope you’re not presuming to judge me when you say, “Parents "Sucked in" wow, I can read a lot into that mainly about your own condition.”

Peter Sellick’s question, “Should we change for the church or should the church change for us?” is actually a disingenuous one. Of course churches have changed – among the Anglicans witness the rise of the low church, the shift from liturgy-based to bible-based worship. I suspect he’s really arguing for the right of churches to determine which changes they accept, and I certainly don’t have any problem with that. If the people who still attend churches want them to change, I say let them go for it.

There’s a mismatch between Sellick’s rhetorical question, and the sermon about baptism, which argues that baptism creates a bond which over-rides the will of the person baptised. The language of the sermon is wonderful, but that doesn’t make me willing to accept its sentiments.

BOAZ, you claim that I am “imposing [my] very wayward understanding of what it means to be Christian,” when actually I am doing precisely the opposite – rejecting the claim of any religious organisation to impose its understanding on me.

I would like to address the subject of change in Christianity raised by several contributors. Christianity is an historical religion, its major event has occurred in the past and it therefore looks backwards before looking into the future. The question of change is a question of drawing closer to the historical bedrock of belief. If there is progress in the church it is a progress towards a greater understanding and practice of what has been given. In Trinitarian theology this is the work of the Spirit who constantly reveals the Son. Because the Son is the eternal true of the Father it can never change, that is the meaning of the prologue of John’s gospel. Because the Son is the truth of the Father He shines on all historical and social situations exposing them for what they are. Rather than a Law of God (“for the law made nothing perfect”) we have in the gospel a light that shines in the world revealing the truth. As the world changes so what is lit changes, but the light itself does not change. A criticism of the Roman church is that it has set moral imperatives in concrete and finds it impossible to change its mind because it fears it will loose credence. But morality does change, as someone wrote about slavery and usury. But God, the truth of the Judeo/Christian story, does not change.

In the famous words from the film Cool Hand Luke "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate".
It is no use throwing your God theology at me to justify aguments as I am atheist and have problems with the God concept.

It also seems that some of you believe that Christianity is basically a development of Judasim with some other cultural influences.
My main contention is that Christianity is really a development of Pagan beliefs set (somewhat) in a Jewish context.
Can some body please explain what Chistianity has that did not already exist in the Pagan world?
Sorry if I am being "boring" again but was Jesus even a Jew?

Boaz, your understanding of my post is much worse than your typing ability. I will always stand by my stance that the Bible is one of the most sexist and racist books (and we won't touch on Harold Robbins or Enid Blyton here!) ever written, and the fact that what has been written in the bible, interpreted and exercised in the name of Christianity has resulted in where we are today. (Black hats vs white hats). God and being christian have nothing to do with that book. It's a curate's egg, it has its good bits, but... as it wasn't written by god, it still has a lot of human crapola in it. Go interpret. One man's meat is another man's poison. And by the way, don't even try to blog my own understanding about my God. Disrespectful, misunderstanding and totally out of your league. The bible is another story altogether. Still waiting for the movie

re Russell Crowe – maybe the author has simply discovered a sin – “Envy” of course it just happens to be a deadly one.

Maybe part of the success of the early “Christian Church” and the decline of paganism can be found in the Roman Catholic (one of the oldest branches of Christianity) concept of “monopoly” power and the use of the inquisition to vilify and kill off the competition.

Let us all understand, that how someone pursues their relationship with God in their own way is fine by me. Just as I expect my view of a rejection of organised religions, focused around a corrupt and corrupting priest-class to be equally accepted by them.

Personally I see faith as the internalisation of a belief system and if you have faith then what need is their of some form of middle man, agent, religious wholesaler,
Alternatively, if you do not have faith – being ranted at by some bible bashing individual with a manic personality who insists the version of the Bible he has adopted and interpreted as the irrefutable “ Word” is not going to help you discover it either.

Christianity is a lifestyle – unfortunately most of us can “talk the talk” – looking up or down from a pulpit – but few “walk the walk” – and least among them the priest class who are the ones who seem most impressed with the majesty and grandeur of mere religious ritual and elitism.

Peter Sellick has removed any doubt I have about the church's ability to recognise and understand human nature. One of the aspects that distinguishes human beings is our adaptability to changing circumstances.

This is something the church cannot or according to Peter, will not do. In order to protect itself it denies the reality of human behaviour and this inflexible, anachronistic attitude will be its downfall.

It can't keep pace with science and it cannot keep pace with the increasing standard of education of people throughout the world. It chases its own ideological tail.

In spite of the current (apparent) resurgence of the christian (not so)right (which is more a reflection of our uncertain times and a reaction to Islam since 9/11) eventually the pendulum will swing back.

There are too many people who find the church's teachings inadequate and unrealistic. This is not to say that less people will believe in God, a belief in a higher deity is helpful to some people - I am talking about the narrow definition that formal religion has bound around itself.

JP, there is a difference between 'judging' and scrutinizing. Judging is saying 'your bad' or 'your good'

I'm saying that what you shared appears to tell a lot more about your mindset than anything else mate. U use the term 'sucked in' in regard to your mum and dad, which carries with it the implicit suggestion

they were 'deceived', which (depending on the 'brand' of church) may well be the case, and you could be speaking 100% accurately, but it seemed that you were yourself 'assessing' :) (avoids the term 'judging') "The Church" as something which only 'sucks people in'. Which I think is a bit unfair.

COL

I can see where your coming from, and agree in principle, in fact a lot of what you said echoes my own thoughts prior to comitting to Christ. Hence, I embraced a tradition which is much less beaurocratic and 'big church' kind of thing, and in my opinion much more like the New Testament pattern of small independant but spiritually linked groups of Christians. I hope you can see past that rather limited image of what real Christianity is, and not let it keep you from a relationship with Jesus.

XENA "...and they were amazed, because she spoke with AUTHORITY" "who then is this, that she calms all our fears and opens our minds to all truth in 3 sentences" :) ..... U were a bit over the top dear....don't expect Peter or me or anyone to get it totally 'right' all the time. Nor will be always express Christian truths in ways which actually scratch where ur itching. But with dialogue, humility and an attempt to actually resolve outstanding issues, we can make a nicer community.

DI your right, my typing was ATROCIOUS. I'll try to do better this time. You call it 'sexist' as IF the current understanding of the term is an absolute truth, its not. The world was different then and it will be diff 2morrow. Your description showed you are a just a child of your generation. Have a wander outside that square.

Mr BOAZ_david says to Di ."Your description showed you are a just a child of your generation. Have a wander outside that square."
Come on now! to suggest in this paternalistic manner that Di is contained in some kind of post-modernist square is denying your own limits of thought. Is your first century mindset the only valid one? This relates directly to Sells article. Because Di sees sexism today that remained invisible two thousand years ago does not make it any less so? It is for this very reason that religion must bend with the winds of time or collapse and the state of the pews attest to the fact that something is badly wrong. Where did this "personal relationship with Jesus" thing come from?. It is pure 20th Century American individualism. The Yankee arm waving evangelical crazies are promising not only salvation in the afterlife but monetary riches in this life. Is this the good 'ol Christianity of Paul?

Hear, hear, Priscillian. Very well said indeed. Unfortunately our resident 'biblical warriors' just won't comprehend you, for the simple reason that their 'faith' doesn't allow them to. These guys are literally missionaries in some cases, which I guess is about all that needs to be said about the possibility of reasoning with them :)

Pricillian your doing the same thing as Di "Because 'sexism' remained invisable'..... what IS sexism ? who defined it ? on what grounds ? is the ground valid ? why ? etc etc. On what authority does the whole concept of 'sexism' rest ?
The point I'm making is that sexism is a cultural invention of modern western/feminist thinking, nothing more. Cultures always have balance, what appears to be 'sexism' in one, usually will have some kind of balancing aspect. The definition of 'sexism' is where an institutional structure treats people differntly because of their gender. Welllll lets show show rediculous that is quick smart. Front line combat ! Female policing of riots, females put in charge of a 6 foot rapist who then takes here gun, shoots her and kills 3 others. U know why he managed that ? its because she is FEMALE and therefore weaker than an equivalent male counterpart.

It is absolute codswallop that males and females should not be treated differently in SOME areas of life purely and absolutely because of their gender.

But back to the topic or I'll get lost in side issues. I agree that the Church SHOULD adapt the presentation of the gospel to a degree in the light of prevailing cultural conditions, but NOT that the essential message should in any way be compromised. It is still the same, though the method of communication may vary.

As for liturgical churches (some would say "lethargical") they are great for those who identify more with that style, as are the Charismatics who cater for a different personality. Peter speaks of 'Sacrements' whereas I would speak more of memorials (communion) and symbolic acts (Baptism)

I'll take up other points of yours priscillian in a 2nd go here.

Let me conclude with Pauls words "If Christ is not risen, then let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die"

Stick to the god bothering Boaz, where do you get off saying that sexism was invented by modern day women's thinking. It's an practice, not a concept. No one but a man would say that women should be treated differently than men. And I suppose you, as a man should decide in what areas they should be? If the Church doesn't move with the times, it will disappear up its own pulpit. Attitudes such as yourself that would have it frozen in time are the ones that will be responsible for its demise. Keep up the good work!

Mr BOAZ_David, you ask "On what authority does the whole concept of 'sexism' rest ? a good question and you are right, it is modern concept that would have been unknown in the first century along with quaint concepts such as democracy, science, rational logic, medicine, secular government, human rights etc. etc. etc.

You go on "I agree that the Church SHOULD adapt the presentation of the gospel to a degree in the light of prevailing cultural conditions"
Exactly right! just like they have done for all the things I mentioned above. Where are the churches going wrong then?

In the first century goverment needed authority and what was it ? the authority of a god. It is still so today in theocratic states like Israel, Iran, USA etc. you know, the ones that still carry out state murder(with the appropriate authority of course!). Instead of science they had/have superstition, spirits, miracles. Instead of rational debate they had/have literal scripture and myth. Why then are you still persisting with the old irrational ideas and concepts when you have been provided (by your god perhaps) with better tools? What actually is the central tenets of your faith today? Strip away the post first century doctrine/politics and what have you got?......as I said right back at the beginning..a Pagan dying and resurrecting god-man promising the same 'ol things as the god-men before him e.g Dionysus/Bacchus/Mithra/Osiris promising forgiveness of sin/everlasting life/etc. Try moving out of THAT square, you might have to even considerer thinking an original thought.

Extremely well put, Pricillian! Boaz argues that cultures always maintain a balance under a church's influence. In whose favour? With the ignorance the church has always eschewed about science et al, it is in danger because it still wants the masses back there, fearing a god that only they are privy to, And they will use smoke and mirrors and segue in cultures to suck them into it. The Church has plagarised from paganism, voodoo and many primitive cultures to woo the "heathens" onto their path. It has always had more to do with politics and real estate than spirituality. And in doing so, destroyed those cultures. Christianity is not the be all and end all, only to Christians. Jesus wasn't a Christian or a Catholic, he was a Jew that didn't like the way things were happening. I'm sure he wouldn't be too impressed these days either, having his moniker on it.

Peter,
the Christian Church has factionalised, split, reformed and undergone change since its inception some 2000 years ago. I don't claim to know but presumably these factions maintain their own sets of ritual, their own hierarchies and their own congregations. I assume this is one mechanism by which the church has retained its essential relevance in diverse communities. It was the case during the church's long history that it had a leading role in societies less secular than modern Australia's. It's undesirable, in my opinion, that the church reclaim such a role but I don't think the church providing spiritual guidance is at issue. Change may be necessary to do so however, the diversity of the modern Christian Church suggests to me that is so.

Di – I realise this is pedantic, but Christianity has been around a lot longer than voodoo. Voodoo has plagiarised Christianity, not the other way around. Having said that, it’s true that Christianity does not have a single belief or ritual that cannot be found in various preceding pagan beliefs. But that is beside the point.

Why is it that the people who yell the longest and loudest about the need for the Church to change are people who don’t believe in God or the Church? I’m agnostic – in that I don’t know if there is or isn’t a God, but if there is, I think that it is well beyond our ability to comprehend or understand. But as for the Church itself, I think it provides many, many people with a real sense of love, belonging, hope and purpose. I haven’t had my children baptised because it would be hypocritical of me. Why should the Church make a hypocrite of itself just to drag in some new followers?

Some months ago, an organic fruit and vegetable shop opened nearby to where I live. An acquaintance of mine was doing some work on the new fixtures. He told me the following story: He told the proprietor that he was going to get some lunch. The proprietor handed him some money and asked him if he could call into Woolworths and buy 2kg of apples. He did this, and the proprietor immediately proceeded to wash them, peel the stickers off and put them on his own shelf labelled as “organic”.

The point of the story is that who would want a Church who behaves in a similar manner? Principles put aside to increase profit (whether that be money or souls).

Adherence to ones own principles is seen to be a virtue and something worthy of respect. Why is this not extended to the Church as well?

Bozzie, I may well argue the point about whether voodoo has been around longer than christianity, but your fruit stall parable has piqued my interest much more. But maybe that's just the Eve coming out in me! After all, apples are apples.

In his book “The Essence of Christianity” Ludwig Feuerbach said that “Man first unconsciously and involuntarily creates God in his own image, and after this God (Religion) consciously and voluntarily creates man in his own image”. That was in 1841.

It would clear up a lot of the confusion which exists in the present discussion if the meaning of Feuerbach’s words were fully appreciated. “God” is an image which human beings created in their own minds and all the characteristics of God which we attribute to him, like love, compassion and judgment are no more than our own emotional feelings projected into that image. There is no supernatural being sitting out there in the limitless void listening and responding to our ceremonies of adoration.

Human beings create their own problems of war, hunger and oppression and it is human beings who have to fix them.

John Warren, sounds like you've read a better book than the bible on the Big/Little Man. You certainly deserve the last word. Well put!

This is really a question of whether “Church” is and wants to be

a part of

or

apart from

Contemporary Society.

Being a part of -
If the Church believes it wants to be a vibrant and relevant institution at the heart of modern society it better get used to the idea that it has to “change” and move with the society it wishes to be at the heart of.

Being apart from -
If the Church believes it is something static, separate and insular, steeped in tradition and some glorious past, not needing to reflect the values of contemporary society, then so be it – its influence will become even less relevant and continue in a spiral of accelerating decline.

So simply put – the world will always turn, it stops for no man – regardless of what claims may be made by any to speak the “word” of God.

Sorry for not being able to respond and follow up as promised, Flu and and extreme business upturn conspired to lay me low from this cherished forum.

Di, you are adding to my words and injecting your biases into what I say. I didn't say 'under the church' in regard to cultural balance, I was speaking about culture in general.

John, re Feuerbach, one doesnt have to dig too far to see what lies behind these "Great Thinkers" who reduce God to an invention or projection of man.. behold :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, some Quotes from a mr Engels (of Marx/Engels...no 'christian' bias here)

"Feuerbach, who on every page preaches sensuousness, absorption in the concrete, in actuality, becomes thoroughly abstract as soon as he begins to talk of any other than mere sex relations between human beings.

Thus, finally, with Feuerbach sex love becomes one of the highest forms, if not the highest form, of the practice of his new religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So, John, I strongly suspect that the God Feuerback has manufactured is one who appears to match his predilection with sex. Or, putting it another way, he reduces the real God, to one who is managable and nothing more than a reflection of our own sensual desires.

If this accorded with the fullness of the Bible, it might be remotely acceptable, but it doesn't. The God of Israel always had world redemption in mind. God was constantly calling the Israelites AWAY from sensuality but the 'natural' man produces a god who needs cult prostitutes, who glories in all manner of pagan rites including the sacrifice of babies etc. So the idea that God is a projection of 'our' minds simply does not stand up to serious scrutiny.

For everyone, it appears there is a huge gulf between the understanding of Christianity/Christ and the Bible which is in many of your minds here, and the reality itself. I'm seeing so many cliche'd myths and media stereotypes here that its quite unfunny.
How about we look more closely at the Bible itself and then rejoin our happy group :)
blessings all

Col, welcome back :)

but you along with a few others seem to have the view that "The Church" is on its last gasp. I didn't feel that way when along with 37,000 other Christians at Telstra dome some weeks back we were all rejoicing in our Lord.
I think there is a big misconception out there about Church. Justified in part by some manifestations of it, from the dry formalism of the high Anglican and Roman Catholic, to the rather shallow exuberance of some of the Charismatics. Some had a good beginning, but a lousy finish. Even my own tradition (Open Brethren) began as a reaction against the formalism, only to substitute their own version in time ("Thou shalt NOT remove thy coat on 35deg days in the morning meeting" kind of thing) but in many cases became entrenched in its own legitimacy and sense of correctness that quite a number are literally dying out, as the older ones pass on, having not adapted worship and fellowship to a changing world. We don't have to compromise our morality to remain relevant. We will not give up on they key issues of which I'm sure ur all aware, but our survival doesn't depend on us suddenly welcoming gay priests or accepting abortion etc, it depends on just one thing, faithfulness to Christ, and enjoying the liberating freedom that knowing Him brings to us.

Peter, I have read many of your articles posted in this forum and have found them and your framework for approaching the bible both thought-provoking and helpful. Your close, contextual reading of scripture in reflecting on pressing and perplexing issues is refreshing and sorely needed - solid biblical exploration and intelligent social "commentary" often seem to drift into disconnected realms. Of course, some things I disagree with - such as the quick leap to support violent response to violence (How celebrating Life displaces celebrating God) in an otherwise excellent article. However, I have found the article "In the company of Mary" and this article on baptism encouraging and challenging reminders of the utterly distinct, deep, and life-giving Christ. You may be interested in Laurenti Magesa on Christology, African Women and Ministry. See: www.sedos.org/english/magesa.htm

Just to attempt to clear up a few points here.

Voodoo derives from a group of very old African religions that have been around for at least 10,000 years and is far older than Christianity. It has been viciously maligned here by our Christian friends in the same ignorant way all the Pagan religions have been denigrated. (eating babies and such rubbish... by the way, Christianity was accused of this once, it is a common slur by one religion about another).

Equally, the bone dingo lack of knowledge about the roots of Christianity and other religions along with the basic common doctrines of Christianity in the general community amazes me, the churches have to lift their game.

An example:-

Over the last 10 years or so I have asked every Catholic I have met (a straw poll, maybe 60+ people) what is meant by the term "Immaculate Conception". With the exception of one person they all said "Immaculate conception is the same as Virgin Birth" These people had all passed through the Catholic school system. (the one exception who knew the answer was a Bob Santamaria clone whose name would be familiar to some of you)

Similarly, Peter mentions general ignorance about the purpose of certain rites in the Churches such as baptism and the Eucharist.
Maybe the original meaning of these rites is now so foreign to most people they have become infathomable. Maybe belief in spirits and miracles is become harder as well in the modern world. Blame the secular education system. Compusory religious instruction in schools perhaps? Theocracy?

Priscillian - Voodoo may be the derivitive of various old African religions but it itself was born in Haiti during the years of European occupation. It's about 200 years old. Another fact is that about 75% of the Haitian people identify themselves as Catholic. Yet 50% of the population admit to practicing Voodoo. Just as they have adopted elements of old African religions, they have also adopted elements of Christianity as well.

You mean, just like the Christaians adopted Paganism?

Yes Priscillian but the Christians were worse. At least the practitioners of Voodoo do not deny their influences or denounce Christianity. Christians both deny and denounce.

Bozz and Priscillian, I'm truly wondering on what your rather fanciful speculations are based on ? Is it of a calibre of "The Davinci Code" or "Chariots of the gods" or.. is there something mildly relating to serious academic observation ?

I just cannot seem to find much 'meat' in what you guys are saying, it seems to be a kind of 3rd hand repitition of every media myth or popularist writer opinion you have ever heard. If I'm being too harsh here, please feel free to correct me, but why dont we look at a particular issue, for example, "The Church adopted pagan practices" and subject it to real scrutiny ? Or, lets try 'The Resurrection of Christ, myth or history" ?

As for Voodoo, have u guys ever seen any of their ceremonies ? with the shamans spitting mouthfuls of whatever over the 'patient' to be healed, and having a smoke in the other hand, .. have u looked at their eyes ? what do u see in there ?

Its no wonder that God condemns contact with the dead, spirits, etc, because all such activity is unquestionably 'Satanic/demonic'. Why would one consult the dead on behalf of the living ? The fact that we 'condemn' many pagan practices should be CLEAR evidence that we have not adopted them.

The early Christians WERE accused of eating babies but it was not factual, the pagans were said to sacrifice their children to the god molech, and they DID. There has always been a clear and unmistakable distinction between the pagan and the Christian

A few initial points.
1. I am not an apologist for Voodoo. Like most religions I see it as unfathomable superstitious twaddle. Bozzie makes some good points about the origin.
2. I did not suggest that Christian ever ate children. There is absolutely no evidence for such a practice. Followers of Mithras apparently did eat the cooked heart of a child and Cathaginians sacrificed children. I concede you have a point here, some Pagan practices were really quite revolting (but others quite beautiful).
3. I tried to read that literary slop the Da Vinci Code but stopped at the beginning of chapter 54. I have only 350 words here so I may write my own article on why I coudn't go on with it.

"Chariots of the Gods" caused me nearly to snap a rib laughing (in 1974).

Let me take up your challenge and scrutinise the proposition "The Church adopted Pagan practices".
(No space for resurrection discussion, maybe later).
According to the gospels John Baptised, Some people say that perhaps John was an Essene as they seemed to conduct a water immersion practice as well as keeping bees and eating locusts. The Jews practiced a similar water based "sin cleansing" rite. As for Pagan religions I quote from "Origins of Christianity and the Bible" by Andrew Benson

"Long before Christianity the Eleusinians instituted the ritual of baptism as part of initiation into the mystery. The initiates were required to undergo a preparatory purification; they marched in a procession to the sea and washed their sins away by baptism. The Roman historian Livy (64/59 BCE to 17 CE) mentions that ceremonial washing preceded initiation into the mysteries of Dionysus. Through baptism they secured glorious immortality in the afterlife. Their message was "new life grows out of every grave." ....."

Sound familiar?
Is Andrew Benson wrong?

Who do you think invented Baptism...John?

Hi David – thanks for the welcome – I was not aware I had been away – I guess just we have been snorting up our 5 hits a day on different topics of indulgence.

As you know, I have no regard for “organised religions”, so tend not to express a view on what has no relevance to me, except to point out the obvious.

Within organised religions, it is not the word of God or Jesus or anyone’s faithfulness in them, which disturbs me but the “interpretation” and the "manipulation" of those words which is and has always been the tool of the priest class in beguiling their "audience". I find, personally, to have “belief” and “faith” does not need the intercession of an interpreter.

I further find I can stand along side a pro-lifer without the need to scream about their short comings in their ear. The problem is – pro-lifers do not extend the same respect to “pro-choicers” but insist, instead, in pursuing their manic obsession to a very unhealthy degree, including a few who have gone on murderous shooting sprees in the name of God, believing they have possibly been previously blessed by the vigour and passion expressed by their clergy.

I would guess, if we are counting numbers it should be noted the biggest ever protest march in UK was not against some War or socio-political outrage but against the banning of fox hunting – I would suggest, whilst we are not in the UK, if you found a pursuit which similarly enflamed Australian passions as much as fox hunting does the poms, it would fill the Telstra dome 10 times over – and leave a mere 37000 looking positively lonely.

Sincerely, enjoy your faith and take strength from it.

Col, on the 'interpretation' etc, I take your point. I think every Christian today has to face this issue no matter which tradition he follows. Bear in mind though, that outside the Catholic tradition, most of us would agree that we have 'unity in diversity' and while there are some strong minded opinionated members of our 'family', we just have to do as the disciples did, 'get along' in spite of differences, I think Jesus choice of the 12 was symbolic of the challenge. Simon the 'insurgent' :) (zealot) and Matthew the Tax collector. If it was Iraq, Simon would be hunting matthew down with a suicide bomb attached to himself. But still, Jesus chose these.
Church of Christ are pretty strong on Baptism, (for salvation) I think they are wrong, but we get along fine. Baptists say "Baptidzeo- I immerse" , Anglicans say "I sprinkle" but again, we get along fine.
On the mission field, we (interdenominational mission) trained some Anglicans sent officially for that purpose. The trenches are no place for denomnational pettiness :) Specially when u walk past the Malay guy who was planning to slaughter each and every one of us during a revolution attempt some years before.

Pricillian, I'll follow yours up as able, I'm swamped with work right now, and your comments deserve an informed response, which I can't give right now as I'm so dosed up on penicilan, Ease-a-Cold Max strength and the old panadol mixed in, *cough...splutter*.... the old grey matter is only on 2 out of 4.