"the decay of society " when was this Golden period were Society was so much better then it is today?

Oh yes now I remember it was when the church had more power, nothing to do with how Society behaved just how much power the religous leaders had.

This piece is an interesting example of the intellectual contortions forced on otherwise intelligent people who attempt to justify something that does not exist. The ultimate basis of the argument can only be the authoritarian assertion that God is truth, a claim that is impossible to substantiate, if it has any meaning at all.

Peter Sellick: "For we know that any attempt at purity that relies on our own efforts is delusion."

I'd stick to physiology if I were you Peter.

The upshot of this is that when the church tries to influence gov policy giving "moral" guidance, they essentially are not.

They are in fact trying to enforce a way of living according to their religious teachings on everyone else.

Thus the separation of church from morality should be as separate as church from state.

This article is a good summary of contemporary theology on Christian ethics. The trouble is, it is an approach that is demonstrably inadequate - just look at the abuse scandals that have rocked the Churches. It leads to the loss of the sense of any objective morality, and the sense that the Church is just lecturing people.

It founders I think on one basic issue: namely, men are not like angels, gifted with infused concrete knowledge. We need to learn!

The solution I think lies in a better balance. The subjective transformation of the Christian through grace (the sacraments and word of God) needs to be supplemented with two other things.

First, the practice of the virtues, which in classical philosophy (and Christianity up until the advent of nominalism in the fourteenth century) were the stuff of the 'good' life. The active cultivation of the virtues is both a prerequisite for grace to transform us, and a result of grace.

And secondly, we need to be taught the concrete norms of the natural law and Revelation and revelation.

The non-Christian can instinctively grasp the natural law when it is pointed out, and can admire the virtues. St Paul and the Early Church Fathers would argue though that they can't achieve mastery of them without grace. This point I think, is the distinctive contribution of Christianity.

Recovery of a firm sense of the existence of an objective natural law, and of the importance of the virtues won't necessarily lead to everyone becoming Christians. They are after all, in the main, found in virtually every religion and moral code to some extent. But it could provide a useful anchor for our society.

Peter
When is Christianity going to face up to truth that Christianity began to die from 325AD I believe ...the kiss of death by Constantine who sought to bind it to that pernicious creed and make Christianity creedal mythology...Christ was made a saviour ...all about the Fall,another myth was there ever a "Fall"?

The Constantinian corruption has been with us long enough with all its gobbledegook.
socratease

I like what Godo and Shadow Minister said..... nothing much more needs to be said.

I am grateful for the opportunity to receive Sellick's thoughts and to hear others responses to his thoughts. I am challenged by the concepts of reason and faith and how they play out in everyday life. PP asks, What is Truth? not What is The Truth? Hair splitting perhaps but something to ponder when we examine morals and ethics and a relationship beyond ourselves. Sellick is a thinking individual, calling us to question and explore. That he does so in a Christian context is a plus for me because I believe Christianity calls us to step outside ourselves. As a parent, I struggle with morality and the "humanising of humanity." I am not sure Sellick provides any answers to this dilemma in his article, but at least he is raising the issue for us to consider in a constructive forum. Thank you.

Of course once you abdicate the responsibility for your own actions then you can claim any extraneous influence as the source or reason of your behaviour.
Everyone is, at any time in their life, in charge of their own actions.
The judgement of good or not good is not one of morals, but is innate to each and every sentient being.
There is no need for such fancy human thought constructs as religion or god.
Once subscribed to such beliefs, one is on the slippery path of exclusivity, self-righteousness and condescension.
The ordinary human mind is a very gullible entity and the dangers are always that any dogma, doctrine or belief system will cloud the issues and referential thinking will be the ultimate arbiter for ones actions, rather than the apparent merits that present us with every choice we are faced with.

I see that the writer has, regretfully, ignored my suggestion that he offer himself as the first Aussie martyr.
Please do it soon, Pete - the constant need to replace keyboards that have been covered in vomit is sending me broke.

Peter, one of your best pieces I believe.

Godo, where you see intellectual contortions I find echoes of my own experience in the voice of another writer. Peter says “God is truth”, but he is not demanding that readers accept it simply because he says so. He writes that “Christianity is a practice …” The practice can bring an ongoing experience that “transforms the individual by situating him in the story of God.” It is left to each person to decide whether to try the practice seriously in order to test the assertion. Logical argument without that experience is a sterile waste of time.

Terra, thanks for your very thoughtful and provocative suggestions.

Socratease deplores “myths” upheld by the church. We all need myths! Myths are not lies, mistakes or idle fancies. Myth is the narrative pathway to spiritual reality, just as empirical facts provide science with a basis for discovery. We can contemplate and evaluate a myth through discussion and find useful new interpretations. It seems to me very like the way a scientist may re-evaluate a theory by looking at the raw data in a different way. And just as science breaks new ground with the discovery of new facts, so spiritual enquiry may find a new myth that takes us into a new era. Revelation did not stop with the writing of biblical scripture, but rather continues through the generations. But sorry, I'm wandering off the topic...

Gymn-Fish, why bother to enter the forum if you don't intend to discuss the article? Spewing a thoughtless emotional reaction helps no one. This happens too often in posts related to Peter's articles.

Thank you, Crasby. What a perfect rescuing of this comments section. Mr Sellick, I always look forward to your thoughts and am glad to receive them. I find it a trial to read most of the comments, i.e. to express compassion for these comments. My moralistic side would want the editor to not bother with these. I won't be reading the comments anymore but just would like you, Mr Sellick, to know how much I appreciate your articles. Perhaps I am a moralistic, small minded prig, but I don't need these kinds of nihilisitc thoughts.

If one is somehow aligned with "the truth" it is more likely that ethical behaviour will ensue, or at least be more likely understood if not enacted. So up to now I am on board with Peter. But I would object if Peter is suggesting that an experience of life in God is the best or only way. So far as I've been able to grasp in my struggles to understand ethics, the best glimpse of truth about the Universe is offered by efforts at the laws of physics. These apparently amoral laws of the universe have somehow led to the emergence of life as we experience it, and as we identify ourselves with this process we are more likely to respect life, all life. Reverence for life, truth, or God if you care for that term is the basis of ethics. The virtues and the moral precepts that have been distilled from the stuff of successful communities and cultures through the ages seem to me to be about respect of life and life together. There may well be something prior to the Big Bang that could be called God but knowledge of this is folorn. If God be the Truth, or respect for life, an epiphenomenon of physical laws on this side of the Big Bang, and exemplified by Christ and the spirit he inspires in believers, then maybe I am not so far from Peter's way at all.

Where does Thomas Aquinas come in all this,Terra?

Remember he was also a philosopher who tempered his faith with Socratic Reasoning through word from the French monk Peter Abelard, who had mixed with Muslim scholars.

Aquinas also became a Saint, as did other Christian leaders who accepted Hellenistic Reasoning.

It is also said that Mahomet may have accpted such reasoning also, which helped him convert practically all the Middle intelligentsia of the time.

It is so sad, Terra, that Christian leaders of today discount much of the above history mainly for political reasons, especially in America.

Best Regards, BB, WA.

Crasby,
I do not know why you need myths but I do not need them. I need evidence to support an opinion as I search for real truth. I prefer Terry Lane's view that all theology is made up by men as they go along. Maybe GyM-Fish's reaction to a load of bad baloney is appropriate.
Annina please learn to look for real evidence. I can think of several ways in which religions act in an unjust manner; or evil if that is a word you prefer. Destruction of a child's ability to think clearly is probably one of the worst and is achieved by indoctrination. The Jesuit claim of, "Give me a child until the age of seven and we will give you the man," is a boast of achieving an aim using an diabolically destructive and evil method.

Which Christ are we supposed to be imitating, then? The one who drove the moneylenders from the temple, or the one who said 'suffer the little children to come unto me'? The Christ who gave the Sermon on the Mount, or the one who cried out in despair on the Cross? Or whichever of the above happens to suit your mood at the time?

Unfortunately religious 'morality' is so flexible that it only gives carte blanche for anyone to do whatever they think happens to be right without the need to try and justify it in terms of reason or evidence. Would Jesus burn down an abortion clinic or beat up gays? There are plenty of people who think he would, and I don't know any way to prove them wrong.

Genuine morality consists in doing things because they are likely to produce good results, not because some guy did them in a 2nd-Century storybook.

No, John J, going by the Sermon on the Mount, coupled with the actions of the younger Christ, or rather the Nazarene Jesus, though he would discount abortion, the anger he displayed against the moneylenders in the temple, one feels would not be evident.

Also reckon one does not need to be religous to appreciate the difference.

JonJ.

"Suffer" in the old meaning of the word meant "to allow".

"13. a. To allow (a thing) to be done, exist, or take place; to allow to go on without interference or objection, put up with, tolerate. arch. or dial."...

"c1290 Beket 1601 in S. Eng. Leg. 152 I-nelle none costomes soffri..at aein sothnesse beoth. c1350 Will. Palerne 3337 Men, for youre manchipe na more at suffre. 1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. II. 174 Erchdekenes and officiales..Lat sadel hem with siluer owre synne to suffre. c1385 CHAUCER L.G.W. 1846 Lucrece, That nolde she suffre by no wey. c1400 Destr. Troy 5081 It falles to a fole his foly to shew, And a wise man witterly his wordes to suffer. c1430 LYDG. Min. Poems (Percy Soc.) 67 Suffre at thy table no distractioun. 1523 FITZHERB. Husb. §20 The sede [sc. of Cockole] is rounde and blacke, and maye well be suffred in a breade-corne. 1584 LODGE Alarm agst. Usurers 15 Our lawes..although they suffer a commoditie, yet confirme not they taking. 1592 SHAKES. 3 Hen. VI, VI. viii. 8 A little fire is quickly trodden out, Which being suffer'd, Riuers cannot quench. 1604 E. G[RIMSTONE] tr. D'Acosta's Hist. Indies III. iv. 128 The Easterly winds raine continually, not suffering their contraries. 1660 JER. TAYLOR Worthy Commun. ii. §2. 124 We suffer religion, and endure the laws of God but we love them not. 1716 LADY M. W. MONTAGU Lett. I. vi. 19, I have..here..had the permission of touching the relics, which was never suffered in places where I was not known. 1806 GOUV. MORRIS in Sparks Life & Writ. (1832) III. 229 France will no longer suffer the existing government. 1894 HALL CAINE Manxman VI. xiii. 405 They wouldn't have me tell thee before because of thy body's weakness, but now they suffer it." - OED - Unabridged

I am not religionist, but a seeker of the truth, via scientific and histographic knowledge discovery.

Regards,

Foyle, isn’t it interesting how we use that word “indoctrination” when describing a teaching process? It often simply means we don’t like what is being taught. When we approve of what is taught we call the process “education” or “empowerment” or something else. There is more to it of course, but we do need to be careful how we use these words.

Fencepost, yours is a very interesting perspective which could bear much fruit. I remember reading years ago Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics and being completely absorbed in his linking of quantum theory with ancient Hindu and Buddhist mysticism. I know that since then a number of top scientists and mathematicians like Paul Davies have taken a similar approach to the notion of God, but haven’t had the time to read them.

Jon J., the imitation of Christ is not what Peter is advocating. It is not just an effort of will and intellect. He is saying that through the Eucharist we can be transformed almost without our knowing. It is not a process of cut-and-paste – picking recorded behaviours or words of Jesus and tacking them into our own personality. The transformation occurs, you might say, from the inside out. It occurs through participation, rather than detached thought and determination.

Nevertheless, I agree with you, Terra, that more is required if we are to make sound ethical judgements. Cultivating the virtues and studying natural law could well be part of a more complete response. Would you agree that including Philosophy in the National Curriculum for primary (and perhaps secondary) schools could be a useful step towards facilitating the development of moral reasoning? Having had a chance to trial such a program some years ago, I am sure it would go down well with the kids – given, of course, the professional development for teachers and adequate resources. They get quite passionately involved in the struggle to solve a problem through clear reasoning and communication, especially if it’s a moral dilemma. I believe there is some effort in Queensland to make Philosophy a regular component of primary schooling.

I am amused that the atheists/secularists/humanists have gotten so frothy around the mouth at this article. Perhaps this is because I attack the common understanding of morality and that is all the poor things have to sustain them in life!

Terra and crabsby.
I find the notion of natural law problematic. For this to be a concept at all one has to posit something called “nature” something that came late in the history of Christian theology. This produced the idea of the two book, nature and revelation that divides thought that was originally one. Certainly in the late 17th C there was much talk about the “light of Nature”, Newton’s laws of motion were thought to be the actual laws of God who language was mathematics. Many thought at the time that this was a far more dependable path to the mind of God and that moral precepts could be read off from nature. This produced Natural theology in which a providential God held the world in the palm of his hand. The Lisbon earthquake in 1755 showed that the world was not so constructed for our benefit and this realisation began to erode the idea of natural law until it was demolished by Darwin. Nature goes on without any reference to the good of mankind and any morality that can be read off from it is that of the survival of the fittest, hardly a gospel imperative.
When natural law arguments are included in ethics then the gospel automatically gets second best because the gospel is a scandal to all.

If God is the truth, (after Augustine, truth is not an attribute of God, but God is the truth) then this truth will conform to the way the grain of the universe runs. That does not mean that Newton’s laws of motion can be found in the gospel, but that these laws do not cancel the truth of the gospel.

Peter Sellick

Locke & Newton and Whiston % Newton were correspondents, regrading the gospels, especially regarding the Trinity. Newton saw 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:6 to be antitrinitarian. Ref: Correspondence 64 Ibid. iv. 164-5 (no. 1338 of 14 Nov. 1690), and viii. 1-2(no. 3287 of 15 May 1703)

Moreover, Newton was very shy on the topic of religion as to apply Nature against the gospels would have threated his tenure of the Lucian Chair.

Brewster would deny this case. Ref: Sir David Brewster, Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton ( Edinburgh, 1855), ii. 340. Yet, Newton's personal memiors indicate, " 'for a long time . . . the faith subsisted without this text" [Newton]. Presumably, Newton is refering to the period Nicaua [325] or Constantinople [381]. Here, I think Newton's point was there were Christians before the Trinity, becomes doctrine.

"Goodness was considered a self-evident truth from which the goodness of God could be inferred." [Of Locke,in History of Science Society]...

Since this implied the criticism of revelation by reason and the substitution of individual enquiry for authority, the way was opened for a liberal Christianity which might ultimately supersede traditional beliefs. It is not surprising that the outcome of this movement should be a 'religion within the limits of reason' [Kant?]...

Religion is to be based upon morality: morality is part of the order of nature and based upon the laws of nature: the work of reason is the only sure foundation on which to build a living creed and save mankind from the domination of superstition." [Of Kant?] Ref:Sir Isaac Newton, 1727-1927: A Bicentenary Evaluation of His Work
Book by History Of Science Society, 1928

Crasby,
Indoctrinate means teach or imbue with a doctrine. Religious doctrines are not supported by testable evidence but instead are usually based on faith. Faith is a very poor basis for any strand of education and absolutely hopeless in science education. Providing any education that is not based on the best available evidence is child abuse.
I notice your mention of philosophy being proposed in education in Queensland. It has been in use in Buranda State School with excellent results and is in use in many locations around the world. Philosophy for Children should be in every school from aged six. It only requires about one hour of school time per week and can or even should even be part of the language and personal development curriculum. Behaviour would improve dramatically and the improvement in intellectual capabilities would be an excellent bonus. Please read Stephen Law on the subject. His book is The War for Children's Minds and there is an article by him in OLO archives.

Crasby and Foyle,

I would posit a religionist belief is as Polanyi might put it indewlling in the doctrine rather than being indoctinated. There is a subtle difference, where the indwelling influences tacit structures and interpretation, i.e., religious interpretation, is the the co-efficent of tacit indwelling and explicit knowledge.

Herein,

Superstition is a separate construct to belief. Peter Sellick might not be superstitious in the sense that a person kisses icons in the Orthodox Church. Presumably, Peter is does not believe in fairies and elves. Yet, a secular Irishman might believe in the Little People, as a positive heuristic. Both might be agnostics to UFOs.

The Eygptians, Jews, Christians and Humane Secularists all fell they know right from wrong, yet amongst this set, only the latter see morality for morality's sake, here, confined generally to three score years and ten [give or take] and then nothing. Morality is an end unto itself; morality is not a means [deeds] to an end.

Albeit, morality can achieved through empathy, justice and love, achieves positive ends.

Religionist or non-Religionist, we have a cognitive process at work. In the end, we a really looking the case of terminal death or belief in an after-life, based on altruistic regard or, promise of reward, respectively.

Correction:

NOT:

"Religionist or non-Religionist, we have a cognitive process at work. In the end, we a really looking the case of terminal death or belief in an after-life, based on altruistic regard or, promise of reward, respectively."

RATHER:

"Religionist or non-Religionist, we have a cognitive process at work. In the end, we a really looking the case of terminal death or belief in an after-life, based on on promise of reward Or, altruistic regard, respectively."

The humane secularist understands morality intrinctly, rather than as a response to a direction or a reward.

WOW,

I got that wrong, before.

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son...bring him unto the elders of his city...And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" so shalt thou put evil away from among you!"

Deuteronomy 21:18:21

"Suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

1 Timothy 2:12

Are these the examples of truth and morality Christians would have us follow? How do they keep a straight face? Do they really belive that if they write a piece sounding as academic as possible people are meant to ignore the source?

I'll pass thanks.

The idea that we can use human reason to 'produce' ethical systems is deeply threatening to the Church. The Church's conventional response to 'secular/humanist' ethics, which Peter expounds here quite accurately, is found wanting when one considers all the evil perpetrated by good, sacrament-participating men of the church. Clearly the beneficent effect of participation in the sacraments is not as 'effective' as Sells has argued and anyone can see that.

Socratease makes a very pertinent observation regarding a fundamental change in the nature of the Church that accompanied its adoption as a state religion. From that time the Church lost its prophetic voice. The prophetic movement within Hebrew tradition was a challenge and counterbalance to the exercise of political power with all its temptations.

A church that itself participates in the exercise of political power cannot, virtually by definition, act prophetically. As an Anglican, Sells comes from a religious tradition that can not possibly understand its prophetic calling and hence cannot have a sound ethical foundation. Hence the 'Trust us, we're the Church.' non-argument.

The value in Christianity does not lie in any revealed morality or truth that 'comes down' from God. Whatever it is that brings a person to the realisation that they are doing ".. that which they want not to do." is essential to the spiritual journey that we sometimes call Christianity. For most of us, most of the time, the elements of the eucharist are just bread and grape juice (wine if we're lucky). Sometimes participation in the sacraments brings us back to the journey when that is what is needed. That is when the elements take on their full significance as the Body and Blood of The Christ.

Sorry Sells but I cant accept your argument here. Neither Church nor science can be trusted with such and important matter as this one and the Christian Church has no monopoly on this 'truth'.

Sells, you said

"Church leaders are right when they point to the decay of society and connect that decay with the decline of the practice of Christianity."

What exactly are the signs of this "decaying society"?
Is it government commitment to universal education?
Is it ever-increasing spending on health?
Is it our anti-discrimination legislation?
Is it our freedom to express our opinions in forums like this?
Is it the commitment of government to deal with pollution and save our environment?
Is it our justice system?
Is it the laws which prevent abuse of children?
Was it the abolition of slavery?
Was it the abolition of capital punishment?

If ever there was a "Golden Age" of society then we surely are living in it right now. Sadly, the Church is lagging behind the state on issues of justice. While society is moving forward the Church still treats women as inferior, underpays its workers, supports capital punishment, protects criminals and discriminates against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Anglican Church is imploding because significant elements of the Church refuse to give up their prejudices and misguided 'morality'. Far from being a prophetic voice in society with moral authority the Anglican Church is itself discredited and in a state of decay.

If by "decay of society" the Church leaders are referring to the shift away from traditional 'Church' attitudes and culture then they are right but I would say that is a good thing

Waterboy.

I agree that established churches such as the Anglican Church in Britain is a mistake, as does Rowan Williams. That the Anglican church in Australia is not established, it owes nothing to secular powers, does not relieve it of the tradition. I am not a defender of this tradition, indeed I find it weak on many fronts.

I am having difficulty conceiving of a Christian such as yourself having such a low understanding of worship. Do you not think that something crucial happens in that hour on Sunday, or should happen? Why then would we go if not for the hope that we will be changed? My criticism of the mainline Protestant denominations is that we do not really expect it to happen and neither do those who lead worship.

I know that there never has been a golden age and that, by the looks of it, we live in a paradise. However, I think you confuse two things, there is the life of the flesh and the life of the spirit. This need not lead to a dualism in which the flesh in reduced, after all the Word became flesh. We live in a society that sees only the needs of the flesh and is hell bent on infinite improvement in the conditions of the flesh that is beginning to look totalitarian. But we Christians know that we do not live by bread alone and that the spiritual lives of the population is to be regretted. Of course this has always been the case but that does not make it any the less regrettable.
Peter Sellick

Sells

I suppose I come from a tradition that overemphasised the individual aspects of worship and participation in the sacraments. What makes a Church is not the single occasion of a sacrament but the rhythm of worship that spans and thereby transcends time and individuality. We worhsip and act out the sacraments not for some immediate personal benefit but because we believe this is what Christ requested of us. We do it faithfully even when we do not understand it, even when we do not gain from it personally and even when it seems nothing more than bread and wine.

The worshipping church is God's presence in the world, a sign of hope for all. My lack of faith and my flawed beliefs do not diminish the significance of my participation in the sacraments. The flaws of the Churches do not diminish the significance of the sacraments. That is why they stand for all that can be hoped for. If you think that a low view of worship then we must agree to differ

waterboy,

Do you believe that a Church is necessary? That is, absolutely necessary for every Christian? Could a Christrian survive as a Christian from the Bible and writings?

Do you see a differentiation between Christiandom and Christianity?

Oliver

Given what I have written in previous posts this as a very odd question!

Christendom usually refers to the ideal of theocratically ordered society. If you have read my previous posts you would surely realise this is NOT an ideal to which I subscribe.

Perhaps you mean to ask whether I believe that one can lead a Christian life without reference to the institutional Church. To this I would have to say no it is not possible. To live a 'Christian' life is to follow Christ quite explicitly. How would one know about Christ but for the Church? Even the Bible is a product of the Church, so reading the Bible is a point of connection with the institutional Church.

Or perhaps you are referring to the notion of so-called 'anonymous Christians'. I think it is quite common for people to try to live by the ethical precepts of Christianity without wanting to identify themselves as Christian. This is not the same as being Christian and I think the phrase 'anonymous Christian' is a poor description of such people since by definition they do not want to be identified as Christian. Being Christian means identifying oneself with a Christian community. Christian life is always rooted in Christian community and the relationships implicit in being truly human and Christian. Christianity is not some sort of individual pilgrimage.

Is it necessary to be Christian to lead a meaningful and fulfilling life? Of course not.

Is it necessary to believe in God to lead a meaningful and fulfilling life? Of course not.

Is it necessary to be Christian? No.

Do Christians believe that Gods love is directed exclusively toward Christians?
Of course not.

Have I answered your question