mightychurch.com

So, I’ve been keeping a mental list of oft-repeated ideas in syd ang circles that are really just dogma that don’t stand up to scrutiny, but are repeated as fact nevertheless

Here’s what I got so far. Feel free to add your own! :)

The media is terrible & out to get us
The media” is our favourite whipping boy—we complain about how shallow and inaccurate it is, when really we’re just reading the SMH.com.au headlines.
The reality imo is that reporting, analysis and opinion in other areas (SMH paper, SBS & ABC news etc) is generally excellent and we’re lucky to be blessed with “the media” we have. Sure there is plenty of rubbish too, but if you want the good stuff, it’s there.

Al Steward recently gave this a bit of run and I responded here.

Secularization in Australia could result in banning churches in the not-too-distant-future
I heard this fear the other weekend, not for the first time. While we should never take our liberty for granted, the idea that churches in Australia could be banned anytime soon is incredibly far-fetched.

Persecution is good for church growth
For some reason this one often gets trotted out from time to time, but not in connection with the contradictory churches-in-Australia-could-be-banned line. This meme came about due to church growth in China I think, where limits are imposed on meeting sizes. These rules, rather than limiting church growth, force groups to multiply, cell-division style; ergo you have persecution-leads-to-growth. However, you only have to look at other countries in the ME and elsewhere (DPKR, Burma?) where “persecution” means no churches, no Christians, no growth—the logical outcome the “persecution is good!” people somehow miss.

Marriage/sex is a good gift created by God
Ok, this is a bit of a theological one, but the language of creation and design is straight out of the YECS/ID school of thought. We think that our post-sexual revolution, Westernized, romanticized understanding of marriage is just the same as those two thousand, or four thousand years ago, and that’s exactly what God handed down from on high at some (?) point.

The reality is—with sex, particularly—that evolution and natural selection by definition favours things that promotes successful breeding, and therefore perpetuate themselves. (A species with no interest in sex or its offspring isn’t going to get very far!) That’s not an argument against marriage or saving sex for marriage, it’s probably an argument for it, but the language of design really has to go.

Gay marriage threatens the institution of “traditional” marriage
Heterosexuals have done more to harm the institution of marriage than homosexuals ever will. Plus, the whole idea of “traditional” marriage (*who’s* tradition?) is inane faux-nostalgia for something that never was. The idea of keeping secular people *out* of a recognized marital contract (or however it’s defined by law), as though they’ll somehow turn around and say “Oh, ok, I’ll become a celibate homosexual Christian then!” is bizarre, to say the least. 

Christians = big families, atheist = small
This one was recently trotted out by Phillip Jensen. The argument goes that Christians love children and life, and therefore have big families, and those eeevil atheists apparently hate them and therefore breed at rates below population-replacement levels.

This is inane on so many levels—poor people have big families too, to the detriment of their own future and community, but it’s not because of their sheer love of life. Atheists don’t exclusively breed below replacement levels—we all do when we’re wealthy (hence Government inducements to have more babies). Finally, in Christian communities, families with only one or two children don’t love/hate life any more than those with many children, and if more = better, shouldn’t we all be having 10-12 children each?

Christians should be OUTRAGED!
Whether it’s climate change or abortion, TV series like John Safran’s Race Relation (recent, laughable target of the ACL) or global poverty, being outraged counts for very, very little. Outrage is, at best, a means to an ends, not an end in itself, but we often confuse it for an ends and think that’s enough. I think the best we can be is conduits for money and expertise from our society to the less fortunate, which requires a much more pragmatic, analytical approach than the emotive “I’m OUTRAGED!” that we often go for.

Any more? :)

Oh yeah…

If it’s affirmed within Calvin’s Institutes then it is indubitably right.

e.g. Infant baptism, the dreaded TULIP, the sexualized Augustinian view of original sin (at odds with Ante-Nicene understanding) is RIGHT!

Don’t you cringe when, just because one is a Sydney Anglican, it is assumed that you are a card-carrying Calvinista?

And:

Thou shalt be Right-Wing in one’s politics.

(Granted, there are individual exceptions in both laity and ministry; but I’m thinking about the general consensus.) If one dares to spotlight social justice issues repeatedly in church - and remember, the Bible does speak about the poor and oppressed a great deal - then one gets branded a ‘lefty’ (rather than a well-balanced, socially concerned Christian). The same goes for environmental issues (e.g. climate change; I note the Bishop Al Stewart’s stance in the link!) - although Genesis tells us to be good stewards of the planet…

Ian Shanahan - 08 December 2009 05:47 PM

And: Thou shalt be Right-Wing in one’s politics.

1. The reverse too - thou shalt be left-wing in politics.  I assume you’re talking about Syd Ang when saying that churches are slanted right-wing, as many Baptist and Uniting churches would be what the ordinary person would call left-wing.

(As an aside I’m sure Al Stewart was NOT advocating anti-environmentalism, but rather merely stating a ‘bad truth’ commentary about the change in Australian attitudes to climate change.  Like it or not [as I and probably Al Stewart don’t, the Liberals are gaining support on the back of climate change denial).

2. The idea that you need 100% new music, loud guitars, dim lights and flash presentations to have good worship.

Thanks Arthur. Yes, I was thinking of SydAng - simply because that was Luke’s initial premise (see his opening sentence); and I am SydAng myself, but rather atypical in several respects… I think your aside is probably correct too, on reflection. Regarding the Federal Opposition, which you note in passing, I reckon the support for them from climate-change skeptics will only be a temporary reprieve. Have you seen Abbott’s new shadow cabinet? It’s yesterday’s men - extreme Right-Wingers: the horrors of Howard revisited. Labor will only have to raise the spectre of WorkChoices rearing its ugly head again and the electorate will run a mile, as before.

Your point 2 is a beauty! Couldn’t agree more. Indeed, “good worship” - proskuneo - demands almost the opposite of what you listed. (Incidentally, I taught music at university level and have a PhD in music composition; so I have rather strong yet considered views on the matter. For further details, check out this link.)

@Luke:

Gay marriage ...

... certainly threaten’s the English language’s definition of “marriage”. All I would add here is that I wouldn’t ever like to see it happening within any churches (OK, so I’m not a ‘liberal’ Christian), let alone being conducted by ordained Christian ministers / pastors / etc. Such a thing is obviously contrary to Scripture, and would be a blasphemous ceremony which attempts to sanctify the sin of porneia.

By the way, an ironic typo in your opening list, Luke: for many, marriage is a “martial contract” indeed! :-)

lol, yes, well spotted ;)

Another one, and perhaps a classic:

Things were so much better in the not-too-distant past
Now this has a couple of variants - things were so much better back in my day, or things were so much better a couple of generations ago. The Sola Panel ran with the latter recently ( “Two generations ago, we’d have expected her to grow out of it.”). The latter case is especially egregious when the person making the claim wasn’t even alive in the time they’re harking back to.

When this comes up, I always wonder: when exactly, were things so great? When we were on the brink of nuclear annihilation during the cold war? When we thought White Australia was a great idea? During the ‘moral conservatism’ (hah!) of the swinging sixties? When we were drafting men to fight in Vietnam? Or when the whole world was at war a couple of times over?
The answer is, of course, the 1950s, which were apparently the height of white, Western Judeo-Christian civilization: society was morally conservative (apparently), women knew their place, there was no icky multicultural stuff, and there was nothing wrong with the world (nevermind the shell shock of WWII) and rainbows and sunshine and puppy dogs greeted us everyday! ;)

Edit: And I guess the corollary of this is “Things are so much worse now than there were x years/decade/generations ago,” never mind that I think just about all indicators are up, and technology is flippin’ amazing :)

Along with the “things were so much better then” tosh is the “Society is more violent” line. This little fear monger gets a lot of re runs in the press and churches and in advertising for security and self defense (an area I have an interest in)
I do think this is designed to make us go into a mental space that is ready to hear whatever the next line is.
eg: Our self defence course is what you need right through to “we are in the end times”.

You had a much better chance of getting a kicking and/ or killed in the 1950’s than now. The further back you go, the worse it gets.

“Society is more violent”

Thats right cause World War 2 was all hippy love

Owen Atkins - 09 December 2009 06:03 AM

You had a much better chance of getting a kicking and/ or killed in the 1950’s than now.

Of course, ‘you’ had to be alive back then wouldn’t you - otherwise ‘you’ had no chance at all ;)

Also, why ‘a much better chance’ ?  Surely, it should be “a much worse chance” ;)

LOL

Hi Luke, you initially said:

The media is terrible & out to get us

The media” is our favourite whipping boy—we complain about how shallow and inaccurate it is, when really we’re just reading the SMH.com.au headlines.
The reality imo is that reporting, analysis and opinion in other areas (SMH paper, SBS & ABC news etc) is generally excellent and we’re lucky to be blessed with “the media” we have. Sure there is plenty of rubbish too, but if you want the good stuff, it’s there.

The media is all about getting readership. The topic which helps to sell papers gets the headline. Reports on politics religion etc are only designed by buffoons in terms of understanding the subject and where the topics are coming from

Al Steward recently gave this a bit of run and I responded here.
Secularization in Australia could result in banning churches in the not-too-distant-future
I heard this fear the other weekend, not for the first time. While we should never take our liberty for granted, the idea that churches in Australia could be banned anytime soon is incredibly far-fetched.
Persecution is good for church growth
For some reason this one often gets trotted out from time to time, but not in connection with the contradictory churches-in-Australia-could-be-banned line. This memo came about due to church growth in China I think, where limits are imposed on meeting sizes. These rules, rather than limiting church growth, force groups to multiply, cell-division style; ergo you have persecution-leads-to-growth. However, you only have to look at other countries in the ME and elsewhere (DPKR, Burma?) where “persecution” means no churches, no Christians, no growth—the logical outcome the “persecution is good!” people somehow miss.

Persecution is a reality that has always existed in societies where religion is not the dominant force. Problem is that Christianity is not a religion in the strict sense. Christianity does not seek approval from God because people have done religious things. We get God’s approval simply by trusting in Jesus and not ourselves.

Marriage/sex is a good gift created by God
Ok, this is a bit of a theological one, but the language of creation and design is straight out of the YECS/ID school of thought. We think that our post-sexual revolution, Westernized, romanticized understanding of marriage is just the same as those two thousand, or four thousand years ago, and that’s exactly what God handed down from on high at some (?) point.

What marriage requires naturally, God approves of fully. It is a union, the forming of one flesh, a holy institution, and in the end, equal to remaining single.
Humans have not changed in millenniums. They simply marry to form families, and it is a natural response to natural sexual desires. Homosexuals do not marry for this reason. They usually marry for support and peace from society’s demands.

The reality is—with sex, particularly—that evolution and natural selection by definition favours things that promotes successful breeding, and therefore perpetuate themselves. (A species with no interest in sex or its offspring isn’t going to get very far!) That’s not an argument against marriage or saving sex for marriage, it’s probably an argument for it, but the language of design really has to go.
Gay marriage threatens the institution of “traditional” marriage
Heterosexuals have done more to harm the institution of marriage than homosexuals ever will. Plus, the whole idea of “traditional” marriage (*who’s* tradition?) is inane faux-nostalgia for something that never was. The idea of keeping secular people *out* of a recognized marital contract (or however it’s defined by law), as though they’ll somehow turn around and say “Oh, ok, I’ll become a celibate homosexual Christian then!” is bizarre, to say the least. 
Homosexuality is not natural, and God disapproves against it. This is also common sense. Most Christian homosexuals practice sex with the same sex. They also believe in God. They do not have the strength to resist because homosexuals are usually weak inside.
Christians = big families, atheist = small
This one was recently trotted out by Phillip Jensen. The argument goes that Christians love children and life, and therefore have big families, and those eeevil atheists apparently hate them and therefore breed at rates below population-replacement levels.

Yes, Phil Jensen had three kids, and he encouraged it at his church. That was not a bad thing, but it is up to individuals to decide ultimately. Christian ministers do not totallu decide things based on economic reasons. Christian church employees are outside normal career and finance reasoning. (God will provide) Most lay people have real financial restrictions, unfortunately. Not everyone can be a leader in a church.

This is inane on so many levels—poor people have big families too, to the detriment of their own future and community, but it’s not because of their sheer love of life. Atheists don’t exclusively breed below replacement levels—we all do when we’re wealthy (hence Government inducements to have more babies). Finally, in Christian communities, families with only one or two children don’t love/hate life any more than those with many children, and if more = better, shouldn’t we all be having 10-12 children each?

Australia does not need to have more babies. We are populating beyond our needs, and compared to other developed countries, we should not tolerate increased immigration. We breed enough children to support the future.

Christians should be OUTRAGED!
Whether it’s climate change or abortion, TV series like John Safran’s Race Relation (recent, laughable target of the ACL) or global poverty, being outraged counts for very, very little. Outrage is, at best, a means to an ends, not an end in itself, but we often confuse it for an ends and think that’s enough. I think the best we can be is conduits for money and expertise from our society to the less fortunate, which requires a much more pragmatic, analytical approach than the emotive “I’m OUTRAGED!” that we often go for.

I split Dannii’s question out to this thread as it deserves its own thread.

Ken, thanks for the comments, and just so you know, I’m a pretty laid back guy :) The above is half tongue in cheek/half serious.

Another (seasonal) one:

Christmas
All of it, for better or worse.

Eh?  I see Christmas as always a good thing, so long as it’s devoid of the commercialism. 

Churches traditionally increase attendance over and directly after special Christian events like Christmas (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100020450/church-is-changing-if-only-the-c-of-e-can-keep-up/), and personally I find it a good time to rest/relax and reflect on the year.

I see Christmas as always a good thing, so long as it’s devoid of the commercialism. 

Good luck with that!
The shops are full of red, green, gold n silver and they are pumping out “Rudolph the Red Nosed Christmas Tree” and all sorts of “enthuse em to buy” crap.
The bloody stuff has been sneaking onto shelves since September and the last six weeks saw a D-Day type of invasion crank up until shoppers’ souls are bruised and battered into submission.

I’d sooner blow my nose on glasspaper than go into Woolies at the mo. It’s hell out there mate.

I’m the TEAR Australia rep at my church, so my advice is: avoid the commercial junk altogether and buy gifts through TEAR (or World Vision, or CMS) that help the poor - for all kinds of obvious reasons. I guess an exception would be purchasing presents for young kids, who expect toys etc., but when they’re old enough…

Yeah Cool
I saw the history of that movement on Compass (?) last week. Brilliant stuff.
TEAR is a flagship for excellence in gift giving.

The Compass website previewed :

De-Stuffing Christmas :
Many Australians have traditionally engaged in an orgy of spending in the lead-up to Christmas, lavishing huge amounts on gifts for family and friends. But for some, it’s gone too far. Tired of what they see as rampant materialism, more and more Australians are buying goods at ‘Fair Trade’ markets. Others are turning to gift catalogues with a difference. They’re opting for presents of pigs, cows, toilets and seeds, and in the process helping some of the world’s poorest people. This Compass Christmas special examines three different initiatives from the buying to the receiving as far away as Oecussi in East Timor.

It’s not yet up on iView - maybe within a week or so :

http://abc.com.au/iview/#/series/compass

It’s not yet up on iView - maybe within a week or so :

It’s up

Ok time to watch it on iView ... on PS3 lol

It was very good.  Memorable points were the kids counting every dollar, the ‘repeated gift’ of peanut seeds, and the final letter to Kevin Rudd!