What a load of nonsence, as the same can be said of Aussie Rules or cricket. High culture what poppy-cock, more like fairy tales for adults, I regret wasting my time reading this drivel.

The trouble is is that "relgion" that Sells would promote was produced in the childhood of man when it was presumed that "gods" children were surrounded and protected by the mommy-daddy parental deity, and also punished if they were naughty.

An integral part of that childhood package were the other good-luck- god cartoon characters like santa claus, the tooth fairy, and the easter rabbit. Most people very early on quite rightly dont subscribe to these three cartoon characters, and yet "jesus" is part and parcel of this infantile, and infantilsing, package.

Inevitably, and quite rightly, many half-intelligent adults dont sub-scribe to this nonsense any more.
And those that do become increasingly dim-witted and irrational in their justifications for/of this childish nonsense.

I am all for high culture, and the more the better. But in this day and age you cant produce high culture based on such thread-bare thin foundations.
You can of course attempt to and at the same time lament the collapse and disappearance of former expressions of high culture.

An integral part of a high culture would necessarily be a high philosophy. A philosophy produced by and as an expression of that high culture. There is no evidence of high philosophy in any of Sells writings.

Plus a high culture would also feature a celebration of Beauty and The Beautiful. None of that to be found via Sells either, or in your usual Protestant church, many modern ones being as sacred and beautiful as a sports stadium---the big "revivalist" show-biz Barnum & Bailley barns in the outer suburbs---Hillsong for instance.

If a tree is healthy it will grow. If a church is healthy it will also grow. This does not necessarily mean growing numerically but definitely spiritually. The demise of the orthodox church has everything to do with the infiltration of liberal teachers who twist and deny the plain teachings about and of Christ.

Peter would do well to allow the Lord Himself to sort the wheat from the weeds. The style of music whether it be old hymns or modern day choruses are a very small part of worship. It is what is taken place the other 6.75 days of the week that counts for worship.

It seems Peter is sour because many have chosen the modern day worship over the hymns that Wesley wrote to pub music many years ago. The style of singing songs is just that ( a style). BY the way Peter the Scriptures no where indicate that having a little water thrown on you as a child makes you a Christian. May be a few people are leaving the traditional churches when they read of this among many other unscriptural practices.

I have enough faith in Jesus words to Peter that He would build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Sells said:

"It soon became popular knowledge that the Christian religion was entirely subjective and was only adhered to by those poor souls who could not face the realities of life but needed a sky father to comfort them in the face of tragedy and death."

Wow! That is the smartest thing I have ever seen you write!! ;)

Seriously though Sells, you raise the issue of baptism. I was baptised as an infant into the Catholic church. Can you justify the indoctrination from day one, of children, into a faith? Why was I never given the choice of what my religion was? The answer is self-evident, as a marketing plan, it is peerless. Recruit people before they have any choice and you will maintain more numbers that way. Same goes for all belief systems of course.

I read the comments first, then maybe the posting. :), After reading the Courier Mail on Benny Hinn's visit, and they did not publish my comment as I shoot straight with these con men. He left the country it is said with $800,000.00 neat, and still we have the poor homeless in Brisbane, where he fleeced the flock.

Peter
I`M just wondering as your in WA what you have done towards stopping the babaric cruelty of the live animal trade.

Through no less than six seperate docs on 60 Minutes and other media outlets thye chuch leaders hide on their higher moral ground-or is it lower.

The only ones that were not heard were the Church.

Gods creatures and you lot sit with silent shut mouths and open paws waiting for hand outs from the Government

Even Muslim leaders spoke out.

Does anyone else find, as I do, that the pro-religion posts on this site are considerably behind the others in intellectual rigour? It seems to me that almost anything will be published if it tries to put religion in a favourable light, whereas anti-religious postings have to be of a much higher quality to pass through the filters. This particular article says nothing of interest to anyone but the author, as far as I can see.

Can we agree that personal posts saying 'religion should be THIS' or 'the Church should do THAT' really contribute nothing to debate or enlightenment, and that unless a contributor genuinely has something new to say they should keep quiet?

Sells at least has a point. We are not becoming less religious, as some people might argue. We are becoming differently religious - and God, or even the idea of God needn't enter our piety. Our discovered absence of God isn't recent or indeed such a seismic shift - Friedrich Nietzsche, in 1882, declared the medieval authority towering over the cosmos as dead - simply and aptly, murdered by the modern mind.

But as always, the task of exegesis is to rescue truth from familiarity. The film "The Matrix", struck a chord as a box office hit. Its story gave us a near perfect world where everyone lives a lie, as in reality all human life is being used as fuel to provide energy. What everyone thinks that all they see and feel is real is hidden by the sinister fact that “reality” is only the projection of a monstrous computer program.

We may believe and grasp at our virtually created world - but our diminishing perspectives can only narrow our grasp on reality further. Our Post-modernity, which is most simply characterised by a rejection of the hope and expectation that the modern era, with all of the technological advances brought to us, leave us with the same vacuum or nihilism we wished to secede. Our consumer religion, after all, is “all about me.” Yes, I will join a church, find a guru or crystal gaze - if it lifts my depression, finds me a lover, takes care of my children, brings me wealth or success, lowers crime and finds me friends in the community. 'High' Church should certainly distinguish itself from this mediocrity of both spirit and intellect.

A "Bullet Magnet?"
Hmmm ...
In Indo, it was broadcast widely rather that if the "Islamic Freedom Fighters* were 2 catch young *Harry,* that they would cut off his ears and send them back to the *Whore of Satan* in a box for failing to "Hear" the word of their *Goddo Concept*
..
But, what if poor old *Lizzy Winza* just wants 2 b a *Luv Poppet* now &
to do a Heart-Felt-Expression of:
*Luv Poppets*
& do something of a ala "Disney Fairy God Mother Stage Dive" for those who argueably suffered abuses in contravention of the "Genocide Convention Act" post the WWII Nazi Era.
..
But, it seems the Australian Head of State is to be seen and not heard on this matter. This goes 2 the very Heart of our $demucracy$ in my view dear *Poppets* as if the basic rights of the individual are of so little significance in the form of the head, U may not expect them to accorded to the pawns either.
..
Mayhaps some in the church would beg forgiveness for having insufficient Spiritual fortitude to act, out of fear perhaps of loss of life and or possession and would say that at that time, they were only trying to make the best of a bad situation whilst *Uncle Satan* was running the House, a policy argueably finalised by the "law" that denies the right of return to those who cannot demonstrate a historical ongoing connection to the land. Take a look at the wealth under some of those bits *Poppets* to gain an additional perspective into *Darstardly's* mechanism of oppression & dispossession.
..
Mayhaps a media poppet will ask he who clearly suffers from delusions of grandeur, i.m.h.o., when he arrives, and I note that whilst I personally do not approve of the Red Chinese barbequeing priests, I do concurr that it wld b better that people are encouraged to feed, water and medicate those "excess" children in the world that we already have, as distinct from encouraging the Euros to breed up Catholic style.

...Adam...

Not that I bothered to read the article, but one of Christ's teachings was that the Church is irrelevant when it comes to we poor sinners approaching whatever god we want to believe in. Which is why the Church-of-the-day crucified him. Priests, mullahs and rabbis who insist that we bow down and worship encrustations of tradition that they have instituted for the sake of their own power fully deserve the name "God-botherers".

Ho Hum ,
Interesting that you should be so hostile to Peter Sellick's piece and yet contain in your writing the little gem that "a high culture would also feature a celebration of Beauty and The Beautiful". Beauty and The Beautiful have always played a large part in the search for God. It featured importantly in the conversion of St Augustine. In more modern times the search for Beauty and The Beautiful led the likes of Oscar Wilde, Edith Sitwell and Aubrey Beardsley to convert to the Catholic faith.

In my (online of course) opinion that is precisely the point of Peter Sellick's article. Without putting it into so many words he seems to be regretting the dumbing down of the Good, the True and the Beautiful in religion out of a misguided sense of appealing to the modern psyche. But it seems to me that never in its whole history has the human psyche been so thirsting after the Good, the True and the Beautiful as it is thirsting now.

This brings to mind the iconoclastic attitude of the teacher Miss Brodie in Muriel Spark's novel "The prime of Miss Jean Brodie" towards a popular school slogan.

"Little girls," said Miss Brodie, "come and observe this." They clustered round the open door while she pointed to a large poster pinned with drawing-pins on the opposite wall within the room. It depicted a man's big face. Underneath were the words "Safety First." "This is Stanley Baldwin who got in as Prime Minister and got out again ere long," said Miss Brodie. "Miss Mackay retains him on the wall because she believes in the slogan 'Safety First.' But Safety does not come first. Goodness, Truth and Beauty come first. Follow me."

And they did.

Some used to argue that High Culture and Beauty in the Church was epitomised by the Latin Bible, and to prove the point they burnt as heretics those who dared to print it in English. I did read the article; what a load of pretentious garbage. Christianity is as Christianity does, not whether it reads Latinate Bibles, walks round a rock seven times, bows 15 times to the Torah, jumps up and down like Kylie Minogue, plays beautiful orchestral music, or the pope wears bejewelled woolly pink socks. Such trappings are mere encrustations on any religion and are irrelevant, except for giving theologians trash with which to confuse the punters.

stickman,
Can you justify the indoctrination from day one, of children, into learning a language? Why was I never given the choice of what my language was? The language I was “indoctrinated into” throughout my school years is spoken by about 5 million people in the world. Why was I not indoctrinated into speaking, say, Chinese?

I was also indoctrinated into learning mathematics, starting with counting apples and oranges before I could develop any critical thinking about mathematical concepts. Now those who were not sufficiently (or properly) “indoctrinated” are frustrated and feel obliged to deride or ridicule those who developed a liking for, and deeper understanding of, these concepts, an understanding made easier through an early childhood “indoctrination” like learning to count apples and oranges.

Recruit people to learn maths before they have any choice, and you will maintain more numbers of those who can understand and make use in their life of at least elementary maths. Of course, to “make use in one‘s life” has a much deeper meaning in matters of religion than just mathematics. Also, with maths as with religion, you need good teachers to have that effect. And therein lies the problem, especially in the case of religion.

"Where, in our society, apart from specialised theological schools, may be studied the three great pillars of theological science; Church history, biblical studies and systematic theology? It has been the triumph of secularism that such studies have been removed from our schools and universities with the excuses of the separation between church and state and the idea that religion is essentially private."

Hmm - don't you think it might be because there isn't a great demand for them outside theological schools?

I studied some aspects of religious history in my BA 30 years ago. Let me tell you, there were 2 other people in the class.

MT

That may be so, but Im not sure that ignorance on the subject of religions is a sign of wisdom.
Perhaps more people SHOULD have been in those classes but, as you say, religion was OUT in the seventies and we were rather full of our own self-importance... for those who can remember being there.

Actually, I think Anglicans prattling on about High Culture are still a little too full of their own self-importance.

"It has been the triumph of secularism that such studies have been removed from our schools and universities with the excuses of the separation between church and state and the idea that religion is essentially private."

That from the organisation which wants to micromanage your life.

The Benefit of secularism is precisely that it protects the individual from the excesses of the organised religious zealotry.

As for the culture of the church, when I consider Quakers, they always seem so much more "secure" in their faith than those "Christians" who go for the show and rassamattazz, the incense and the funny hats.

Sells

I found this article disturbing and it has taken the quiet period of Easter vacation to gather my thoughts on the subject.The article is disturbing primarily because it is a fair assessment of the Anglican Church’s culture(and others)and so places it in tension with the Gospel which favours those who are least able to make the effort required to‘appreciate’the‘high’culture of the Church.

Those charged with oversight of and responsibility for the Church’s culture are surely required,in order to proclaim the Gospel faithfully,to render it in such a way that it is accessible to all.I don’t see this in your article.

The challenge,of course,is to make the Gospel accessible without‘dumbing it down’.This has parallels in the art of the story-teller.The story-teller participates in the‘high’culture of word-craft.The story,on the other hand,may be aimed at any audience.If the target audience is children,for example,then the author cannot assume the same background knowledge as an adult audience would bring to the reading.Children will be less attuned to all the nuances of the words.While the language must be simpler for children,the author’s task is not necessarily simpler.

So it is that the Church participates in a‘high’culture,where the‘highness’of the culture refers to the amount of effort required to access its meaning/significance/purpose.Another way of saying this is that the culture of the Church has become‘sophisticated'in the sense of having become overly complex in relation to its real purpose.The Roman and Eastern Churches have,for example,multiplied the number and complexity of rituals of the Church.The Laws of the Church have also multiplied and become extremely complex.It will be argued that increasing sophistication is an inevitable consequence of the growth and geographical expansion of the Church.This is true but it must also be appreciated that this increasing sophistication obscures the Gospel which it is the Church’s primary task to proclaim.

It is all very well for theologians and liturgists to appreciate or even enjoy the high culture that is their craft but if this translates into‘high’culture as the raison detre of the Church then that Church has lost its way.

Jon J
You ask some questions, so I’ll give you my take on them.

Must anti-religious postings first get over a higher test of intellectual rigour before they’re published here?

I doubt it. I don’t think OLO has tests for intellectual rigour. The bar is not set very high. They seem to go for anything that will stir up a discussion. I’ve seen some atheist ones which haven’t impressed me much. But a lot comes down to your idea of rigour, or what side of the fence you sit.

This article by Peter Sellick wouldn’t qualify as trying to ‘put religion in a favourable light’ anyway, as he is quite critical.

Should we have posts that say the church should do this or that? Why not? OLO covers lots of topics including Christian ones. And lots of non-believers wade in to add their comment at those times (and vice versa). However, I’ll agree that this article isn’t saying much.

Sellick is confusing depth of church teaching with high culture, and comes out looking snobbish. What’s wrong with a well crafted 4 beat pop song? It beats a liturgical yawn any day.

Here’s a recent one that Sellick probably wouldn’t like, because it comes with a catchy tune that makes it easy to remember --

Praise the Lord, I tell myself
With my whole heart I will praise
His holy name forever more
Praise the Lord, I tell myself
To remember the good things that
He does for me because He loves me

That You forgive of my sin
And make me clean again
That You healed me of my sickness
And made me new again
That You ransomed me from death
So now I can know You
Now and for everything
I’ll praise You !

I’ll tell the world
Of Your unfailing love
I’ll tell the world
Of Your everlasting love