theology and society

It seems as though there is a trend where self help is making its way in to many Churches.  We currently are hosting a class at our Church called "Safe People".  Does the Bible teach only God can know a person’s heart?  Why should we try to determine a person’s heart using man made analysis?  Was the woman at the well a safe person?  How about Saul, before he became Paul, was he safe?  Should we be judging others in an area only God has the right?  At what point are we being the Potter and not the clay?  There seems to be many man made solutions to many man made problems.  Where does God fit in?- Courtney

Imagine a winding pathway, stretching off into the distance. The sides of the pathway are steep and slippery. On one side of the path is a bog, on the other a desert, from either of which it is most evidently difficult to escape, should a traveller find themselves in one or other of them…

Listening in to the ‘chatter’ on the ‘secular satire v. muslim rage’ forum recently, the impassioned views of folk in the US, which have particularly taken into their orbit the relationship of church and state, and international perceptions of the US as a ‘Christian nation’, have been perplexing me. In fact making about as much sense as a conversation between the elderly men on the muppet show (no offence intended).

In a new series on BBC Radio 4 David Starkey asks ‘Who killed Christianity?’ He blames Christians:

Many people have tried to kill Christianity, from the Jewish establishment of Jesus’ own day to pagan Roman emperors and mocking modern secularists. But none has ever inflicted such damage as Christians themselves, who have tortured and twisted Christ’s legacy, much as his poor body was on the cross.’

Tozer poses a great question when he asks, "What comes into your mind when you think about God?"  This might be one of life’s most important questions.  So what is a healthy view of God’s jealousy for our practical theology today? And what are the implications of holding to such a view?

The US president recently made a speech containing the following

These militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain. If they are not stopped, the terrorists will be able to advance their agenda to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to break our will and blackmail our government into isolation.

What was the purpose of this statement and how do we respond?

I recently wrote an article for our denominations magazine.  It was an article exploring the separation of church and state.  Because it seems (in America) that those who scream most loudly for a separation are also calling the gov’t to ban abortion, gay marriage, etc.  I’m wondering where the emerging church is going to enter the political conversation, if at all?

My article explored the distinction between God’s holiness and God’s righteousness.  It also made use of the three offices of Israel: prophet, priest and king.  The basic conclusion of the article was to leave it to the gov’t to ensure justice/equality and leave it to the church to form "moral" beings.  It seems to me that a focus on justice allows Christians to have a voice in the political dialogue without being overtly religious.  "Letters to the Editor" quickly labeled me a communist which led me to believe that I didn’t explain myself very well.  But I am a firm believer in capitalism and democracy, even if I think (in America) it has led to severe injustices.

I have serious reservations about the present UK Govt’s. proposals re ‘ID Cards’ and the ‘National Identity Register’. My position is argued through economics, efficacy, and historic rights and ethics, but from a Christian point of view I believe all of that should/could be tied together theologically. The ‘Church’ doesn’t, to date, seem to be taking much interest in the matter, though as far as I can understand it certainly should have something to say about who ‘owns’ personal identity before God and in society, and how that ‘identity’ should be protected and recognised.

I listened to Alister McGrath speaking at LICC earlier in the week on Richard Dawkins (pictured) and the meaning of life. I have a sneaking admiration for Dawkins and his teasing, tendentious rhetoric, but I thought McGrath’s critique was well constructed until he came to his last point. He wanted to put forward as evidence against Dawkins’ view that religion is intrinsically harmful recent scientific research that has tended to suggest that faith and spirituality can have measurable health benefits.

Whilst I’m all too aware that I say little on OST to endear myself to the majority of contributors, I do respect the various opinions expressed and would thus be interested to learn of any such views stimulated by this thread.

It’s been bugging me ever since the War on Terror began, and the incarceration of individuals at Guantanomo Bay etc. for what basically amounts to treason. My problem is, where does religious allegiance end and national loyalty begin? Even the Bible overrides misguided nationalism with the admonition to ‘obey God rather than man’. Thus, however misguided we may feel Islamist fighters to be, are we correct in condemning them as traitors when the are following a spiritual conviction? Does true national allegiance even exist, since it is inevitably rescinded in the face of opposition to a a specific religious viewpoint.