Normal service will be resumed...

Both the Otagosh laptops have choked in recent days. Till at least one is operational again updates will be constrained by the fact that posting via smart phone or iPad is less than ideal. Hopefully things will be back to normal - or what passes for normal around here - by early next week.

End Times - Islamic style

Another BBC radio podcast that's well worth taking the time to listen to concerns the Islamic understanding of prophecy and the Last Days.

Bizarre End Times scenarios are by no means restricted to Christian millennialist sects. Islam swallowed a heady draught of apocalyptic in its formative years, courtesy of early Christian chiliasm, and brought forth its own bespoke eschatology. Most of us outside the borders of Islam have very little awareness of what these beliefs involve.

The BBC's Beyond Belief programme recently brought together representatives from both Sunni and Shia backgrounds in Britain to discuss the End Times and Islamic belief. The parallels to fundamentalist and Adventist teachings are quite remarkable. The return of Jesus, the hidden Mahdi, the anti-Christ; even the significance of a black flag in Muslim prophecy.

The podcast is half an hour in length, and an easy way to be pushed up the learning curve when it comes to understanding the influence of apocalyptic on Islam, and its contrasts and convergences with the more familiar Christian variety. More so because the information is coming directly from Muslims rather than outsiders.

Rugby and Religion - Bread of Heaven

For New Zealanders there's not much of a relationship between rugby and religion, although more than a few wags have suggested that Rugby itself (the capital letter is intentional) is the one true Kiwi faith.

In Wales it's very different. They sing hymns at matches! The Welsh association is now largely historical (see the article in The Independent), but even those cynical about Christianity will concede that there's nothing quite like a rousing chorus of "Bread of Heaven" rocking the stands.  BBC Radio Wales digs deeper, appropriate listening for the current Rugby World Cup. Worth a listen if only to enjoy the wonderful Welsh accents. Be quick though, it's only available for a couple of weeks.

And of course, the final showdown will be an all Antipodean affair - the All Blacks versus the ancient enemy from across the ditch (name escapes me for the moment). No hymns are expected, but a few prayers of a non-standard variety will doubtless be offered up if the score turns on a knife point. Not that it worked for the Welsh who got knocked out in the quarter-finals.

Graven Images?

Fascinating interview with Vatican based lay scholar Dr Christopher Longhurst on, among other things, why "graven images" are okay in Western Christianity, in contrast to Islam and Judaism.

RNZ's Kim Hill presses the issue, but Longhurst is up to it. It's a perspective that isn't often heard outside of Catholicism. No need to rush out and buy a crucifix for wall art, but perhaps those of us with iconoclastic tendencies might feel a little more able to chill out when we see the next Madonna and child artwork

Also covered is the often raised issue of all that amazing art work owned by the Vatican, and why it shouldn't be sold off to alleviate poverty.

Why do theologians write like that?

It's probably a rhetorical question, but let's put it up there anyway.

Why do so many theologians express themselves with opaque language?

You have to hand it to the conservative evangelicals, at least we know what they mean. Which is something of an Achilles' Heel I suspect. You know exactly what they're trying to say and, all too often, it's rubbish. But at least they know how to use plain English, and the reader can critique it - for better or for worse.

Not so the more philosophically minded theologians of the old school. They all too often finesse their language to the point of incoherence, so keen are they to draw out every meaningless nuance in their tortured argument. In the quest for profundity they crucify the language in the hope nobody will call their bluff.

Not everyone engaged in the more rarefied domains of the theological enterprise does this of course, but it's probably a sizable majority. To be clear, we're not talking about a concern for accuracy and integrity; those are non-negotiables in any field of enquiry. Nor are we talking about genuine biblical studies that set aside the waffle in the cause of actually understanding the ancient texts.

It's reminiscent of those stereotypical Anglican vicars who tend to that excruciating sing-song liturgical mode of speaking that exudes paternalism and privilege. It's not so much what they say (which turns out to be nothing much actually) as how they say it. Churchly theologians are somewhat different; it's more what they say (which turns out to be nothing much actually) in order to sound deeply knowledgeable.

And lo, the contempt of the entitled theologian when confronted with that most abominable of things, a popular treatment of their area of expertise. A sudden intake of breath, snooters raised upward... three, two, one... sniff.

The lads (and only very occasionally a laddette) are not so much interested in engaging with the common herd as those in their circle of equally obscurantist peers. In the absence of anything solid to nail their deep and convoluted insights to, it all collapses over into philosophic confectionery - much as Shakespeare put it: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5)

It's all too often a game of self-delusion, of castles built on clouds. A gathering of theologians to present papers to each other has all the relevance (but none of the panache) of a Star Trek convention - without the cool Vulcan ears and makeup.

Good theology is surely something else. Consider the parable.

Theology was once considered the queen of the sciences. So was astrology. The two are perhaps not unrelated. And perhaps the former is now going the way of the latter.

If so, these worthy individuals (with some honorable exceptions) have no-one to blame other than themselves.

Ethics, Morality and Theism

In the last few days the following issue was raised in the comments section.

Evil is the violation of the moral code expressed in the New Testament. Since atheist have no such source, I am assuming that they base their morality on whim. Or for those atheists who are more systematic and see themselves at their highest state as simply a functionary of Nature, they might try to map evolutionary theory into their moral behavior. Or maybe it is just a mystery. (Neo, October 22)

Theists have a foundation for their morality that has to do with (a) god. Atheists have a foundation that is essentially whim. .. The type of theist, whether Christian or Muslim or whatever, has nothing to do with this. Whether or not the god of the theists is credible does not have anything to do with this. Whether this or that sacred writing can be believed or not has nothing to do with this. The question is... how do atheist(s) figure out what is evil? (Neo, October 23)

Usually I prefer not to "have a dog in this fight" between sincere Christians and equally genuine atheists. Much heat, little light, and nobody comes away convinced otherwise. But maybe a couple of points could be made.

1. "Evil is the violation of the moral code expressed in the New Testament." There are problems with this formulation. How exactly do you distill a moral code from the various injunctions in the Bible? Does the moral code preclude slavery? The status of women? Does Paul trump Jesus, the acknowledged letters of Paul the Pastorals? Where are the textual markers that spell this out?

The devil isn't so much in the detail as in the interpretation. Mennonite scholar Willard Swartley's Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women is a classic text on this issue. All too often when it comes to building just societies it is Christians who have been left in the embarrassing position of having to run to catch up with their secular peers.

Then there's the issue of the possibility of morality in places beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. Could you have lived a moral life in Persia, India, China or Angkor Wat? It seems outrageous to even ask.

2. The subsequent comment broadens things out and detaches the New Testament in favour of a more amorphous theism. Your god (of whatever stripe) is your lodestone. Again, problems. Non-theistic religions exist such as certain strands of Buddhism. Are Buddhists - by and large - moral people? What about the followers of Confucius?

"Atheists have a foundation that is essentially whim." I don't pretend to speak for atheists, but I've certainly known a few who are happy to adopt that badge. I haven't met any sociopaths among them yet. Most tend to humanism, and are every bit as compassionate as their theistic neighbours. The focus of their concern tends to be a little different, not so obsessed with issues of individual guilt as with the welfare of communities, but this is also the position of liberal and progressive Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.

The bigger question is whether morality can be externally validated. Does the fact that Jesus taught non-violence (assuming that he did) therefore make non-violence right; or is non-violence the preferable path regardless, and the fact that Jesus taught it simply an indicator that he was teaching something true? (How do you know it's true? If you have to ask then you probably haven't started thinking about what morality really is.)

Ethics is a fascinating field, and exists outside Christian discourse (or any other theistic community). Specifically Christian ethics are ethics informed by Christian discourse. A good example of this can be found in Daniel Maguire's A Moral Creed for All Christians. That certainly doesn't mean though that everything beyond the boundaries of Christianity - or one of the other theistic faiths - is based on whim, or that love, mercy and compassion are restricted to believers.

I appreciate the comments that have been provided. In engaging with them we all should be challenged to clarify our own thinking, whether we end up agreeing or not. As is invariably the case though, the easy solutions are generally the most dubious.

(Edited)

"Terror" Nova?

I'm suspicious of all controlling social movements, whether conservative (fundamentalist sects for example) or liberal (new age communes in this case).

As a kid I remember news coverage of Bert Potter's Centrepoint commune. There's a Wikipedia entry on it that gives a fair overview. Key points:

The commune was created in the model of the therapeutic encounter groups popularised in the 1960s in California... sexual relations with children as young as 10 had occurred with regularity, with parents either neglecting to protect their children from the assaults, or actively abetting them.

The Centrepoint community was highly educated. They relished freedom of sexuality. They were "enlightened".

Or not. The childhood survivors of Centrepoint might have another opinion.

It was the first thing I thought of when listening to John Shuck's latest Religion for Life podcast. Martin Winiecki scored free publicity for Dieter Duhm's Institute for Global Peace Work in Tamera, Portugal; largely run by German nationals.

Martin is on a nationwide tour to promote this vision of holistic “system change – environmental stewardship; establishing new paradigms for love, sexuality, and partnership; inner peace work; and global peace work”... (RFL notes)

The work on the issue of sex-love-partnership is at the center of the project.  Since the beginning we wanted to create a societal environment in which a solution for this issue could arise.  The principle of free sexuality is part of the ethical and social foundation of Tamera.  This is why many people come to Tamera; they want to get out of the old bondages and make up for what they have missed out on so far. (Tamera website)

I've a lot of respect for John Shuck's progressive approach to Christianity, but this would have to be the exception that proves the rule. The Tamera initiative gives the impression of being grounded in psychobabble, with an apocalyptic recruitment edge.

We live in apocalyptic times. We see the miracles of technology, the high gloss of urban façades, the wealth of the elites; and we see the beaten and starving human beings, the destroyed nature and the war machine that has gotten out of control. (Duhm)

The closest John got to asking any hard questions of Winiecki was an enquiry about decision making in the commune. The answer given ("a consent model") was anything but reassuring, amounting to, if I understood Winiecki correctly, something between oligarchy and peer pressure. Winiecki is part of the twelve "core group" members under founding gurus Duhm and his wife.

The statement on children and youth on the Tamera website shows no awareness of the need to protect children from sexual manipulation or exploitation.

Fundamentalist cults are one thing, New Age cults another, but both share common characteristics such as top down leadership models, no matter how much the latter groups might ballyhoo about 'autonomy'. Tamera may not be another version of Centrepoint, nor Dr Dieter Duhm a cult leader in the mold of Bert Potter, but given the Winiecki interview, neither could you discount that possibility.