Google and Secularism

Now this annoys me - not that it is really that surprising. The myth of the secular, the neutral, the a-religious territory, seems to creep all around us. Everyone has religious presuppositions, everyone has a doctrine of God, everyone believes in something. If our generation has an attitude of 'incredulity towards metanarratives' as per Jean-François Lyotard's famous simplification of the postmodern climate, then Google doesn't seem to be as cutting edge as we once believed. On the other hand, perhaps they're just stuck in the old "bias against bias" thinking... Either way, this annoys me!

"LONDON, April 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A pro-life and pro-family Christian lobbying and education organisation is taking the internet giant Google to court over the latter's refusal to allow advertisements about abortion that contain religious content. When the Christian Institute, a UK registered charity, asked Google for site-targeted advertising, the company refused citing the proposed ad for "inappropriate content". The Institute is suing, saying the refusal constituted discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, a violation of Britain's anti-discrimination laws.

A spokesman for the Institute said, "For many people, Google is the doorway to the internet. It is an influential gatekeeper to the marketplace of debate. If there is to be a free exchange of ideas then Google cannot give special free speech rights to secular groups whilst censoring religious views."

The company told the Institute, "Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content'"."

If they were consistent in banning all religion-related content, we'd have nothing to search for!

More here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08040806.html

Justin Moffatt on Conference Season

Justin has touched a nerve of mine about the potential hype and starry-eyed leader following which is the temptation from big-name preachers and conferences. I love the Gospel being preached and especially in ways which profoundly impact people, but there is a danger of elevating the standard of catchy sermons such that the everyweek preacher at the local evangelical church is viewed as being boring or not worth listening to. Perhaps a longer rant another time! Anyway, Justin suggests a great thing:

"If you have a hot ticket to a Christian conference with a gifted communicator, why not give up your seat to a non-believer? A not-yet-believer? Let's say that the conference you want to attend is completely sold out. Would you sacrifice your seat for a person who was not yet a Christian?"

Read more here: http://moffattnyc.blogspot.com/2008/04/sacrifice-your-seat-at-sold-out.html

Total Church: The Mission Demands Downsizing

Yesterday was the Total Church conference here in Sydney. It was well attended, and a well-worthwhile conference to be at and to be stimulated by. I'm really on board with the movement's emphasis on community: local, long-term, low-key, relational - rather than an attractional model of church (and it's attendant large staff team, many programs, confusion over congregation/church, many homogeneous units, and ability to draw members from other parishes far and wide etc). And yet, from a small conversation afterwards, I'm left thinking about really whether the purpose of church is mission.... I've been writing a series of bible studies on church, I think that the primary purpose of the church is for worship, then equipping, with mission close behind these two. Anyway, enough ranting, have a read of the Sydney Anglicans review of the conference:

http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/mission_demands_downsizing_sunday/

Francis Schaeffer - The Church Before the Watching World

I've been preparing a series of studies on the doctrine of church for my small group and this was a beautiful and powerful quote I came across in Schaeffer's book, The Church Before the Watching World:

"Who are we? We are not just those going to Heaven. We are even now the wife of God. We are at this moment the bride of Christ. And what does our divine Bridegroom want from us? He wants from us not only doctrinal faithfulness, but our love day by day. Such a study as this should not be ended by merely looking with clear perspective upon those who are unfaithful.

I must ask myself, "But what about you, Schaeffer?" And what about you, each one of you who knows the grace of God? What should be our attitude? Our attention must swing back now to ourselves. We have a crucial question to ask about ourselves.

We must ask, "Do I fight merely for doctrinal faithfulness?" This is like the wife who never sleeps with anybody else, but never shows love to her own husband. Is that a sufficient relationship in marriage? No, 10,000 times no. Yet if I am a Christian who speaks and acts for doctrinal faithfulness but do not show love to my divine Bridegroom, I am in the same place as such a wife. What God wants from us is not only doctrinal faithfulness, but our love day by day. Not in theory, mind you, but in practice.

For those of us who are the children of God, there can only be one end to this study concerning adultery and apostasy. We must realize the seriousness of modern apostasy; we must urge each other not to have any part in modern apostasy. But at the same time we must realize that we must love our Saviour and Lord. We must be the loving, bride of the divine Bridegroom in reality and in practice, day by day, in the midst of the unfaithfulness of our day. Our call is first to be the bridge faithful, but that is not the total call. The call is not only to be the bride faithful, but to be the bride in love."

Jonathan Fletcher: Reforming the Church of England - Learning from the Past

Here's a great article well worth reading!

http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/bb/backtofuture.php

Jonathan Fletcher puts things into perspective by diving into the past and thinking about how to be generous within orthodoxy (I prefer this type of generous orthodoxy than that of Brian McLaren). Here's a sample:

"At the Reform Conference last year, we had a magisterial presentation from David Holloway demonstrating that the Church of England, with its Thirty-nine Articles, Ordinal and Book of Common Prayer, is the best expression of the Protestant Reformation. (to hear the audio files of DH's talks click here)

The Church of England, as we heard last year, is not halfway between Rome and Geneva; it is halfway between Luther and the Anabaptists, which brings you to Calvin - we stand for moderate Calvinism. We heard last year that the Thirty-nine Articles have a marvellous breadth - they are not as narrowly tight as the Westminster Confession. There is predestination but there is a silence about double predestination. There is the reality of heaven and hell, but the article that attacked annihilationism was dropped, so we do not break fellowship with those who are annihilationists, although I am not one myself. Penal substitution is clearly there in the Book of Common Prayer with its reference to the satisfaction Christ made on the Cross. But Article 31 seems to speak against limited atonement.

So there is a breadth. We like bishops - the idea of bishops at any rate - because they are better than a committee. David's talks last year were important and memorable. There was at least one person present who was under pressure to leave the Church of England because he was experiencing difficulties. But because of what he heard he realised that theologically this was the place to be."

and more here:

"In the middle of the eighteenth century, the state of the Church of England was far, far worse than it is today. In the mid-1750s on Easter Day in St Paul's Cathedral there were a total of six people - that is how far things had shrunk. Six undergraduates were sent down from Oxford for reading the Bible. This is how Ryle puts it: 'Does anyone ask what the churches were doing a hundred years ago in the eighteenth century? The answer is soon given. The Church of England existed in those days with her admirable Articles, her time-honoured liturgy, her parochial system, her Sunday services and her ten thousand clergy. The non-conformist church existed with its hardly won liberty and its free pulpit. But one account unhappily may be given of both parties: they existed, but they could hardly have been said to have lived.'

The celebrated lawyer Blackstone, early in the reign of George III, went out of curiosity from church to church to hear every clergyman of note in London. He says that he did not hear a single discourse that had more Christianity in it than the writings of Cicero and that it would have been impossible for him to discover from what he heard whether the preacher was a follower of Confucius, Mohammed, or Christ. And it was said that when occupants of the Episcopal bench were troubled by the rapid influence of Whitefield it was gravely suggested in high quarters that the best way to stop his influence from spreading was to make him a bishop! "