The Most Hated Family in America April 1, 2007
Posted by rupertward in fundamentalism, Louis Theroux, society, TV.12 comments
Tonight on BBC 2, Louis Theroux produced a documentary on the Phelps Family, dubbed the most hated family in America (you can see some highlights here). The Phelps family, with patriarch Fred Phelps, essentially make up Westboro Baptist Church (with only one non-family member, Steve, that we saw on the program, who had been a journalist doing a program on the Phelps, and then joined them!). The family and church are fundamentalist, anti-gay, anti-America, pretty much anti-everything.
The family picket funerals of soldiers who dies in Iraq (a sign of God’s judgement), other churches (they hate gay people enough), and even a store that sell Swedish hoovers (don’t ask … oh OK, apparently the Swedish authorities arrested a pastor who preached against homosexuality). It is a hate-filled, rules based, grace-less religion that seems so far removed from all that I know of God, Jesus, and the Christian Faith. There is nothing in common that I have that with this group …
Or have I?
Louis Theroux, in his disarming and yet penetrating way, gets beneath the surface. He makes a couple of penetrating observations of the Phelps family, that rings some bells for me in other segments of the Christian Church, and my own life … albeit in a less extreme form:
1. “In their world, being hated is proof they are doing the right thing … they preach a hatred, that is reflected back on them, confirming them in their beliefs.”
We may not preach a hatred like the Phelps. We may not be so angry or judgemental. But don’t we sometimes think too, that we are oppressed or marginalised? We are the ones being sidelined by the society we live in. By people at work or college. By our neighbours. Doesn’t our society increasingly hate Christians? Or hate what we stand for? And we justify ourselves by saying that it is clearly a sign that we are saying God’s word, that the world can’t accept it.
And yet we don’t often to stop to look at why they might not be liking our message. Just maybe it isn’t the message, but it is the way we saying it … just maybe we have a little anger and judgement in our voices … and that is what the world is objecting to?
Of course there will be things that the church has to say which won’t be popular. But isn’t it easier to point the finger at others, rather than examining ourselves? And doesn’t Jesus have something to say about that?
2. “If you preach that the world is full of condemned sinners, the world will begin to take that shape.”
We may not use the same language, but Louis makes the point well: what you look for, is what you see. If we expect to see evil and lawlessness, then that is what we will notice. The acts of kindness, the love, goodness, humanity of others … we tend not to notice those things, when we expect to see something else.
In fact, I think Louis is saying something more: the way we see the world, will actually shape the world in that way. If we see the world full of condemned sinners, then that is what we actually call up in people. If we see people as image bearers, even if we are broken image bearers, then something of humanity and goodness will emerge.
What do you think? Do you think it is just what we stand for that the our society seems to be rejecting or do you think we bear some responsibility for? And how do you see the world?
The Great Global Warming Swindle March 8, 2007
Posted by rupertward in Environment, TV.11 comments
I like to think that I am the kind of person that believes others, that thinks the best of them. Very noble you might say. Or you could say gullible. I hate it when it happens (and it does!): when I have believed someone hook, line and sinker, and then find that I have been led up the garden path (do you like my mixed metaphors?).
So when it comes to global warming, or “human induced climate change” as I am told it is now called, I am believer! I was convinced last year, watching a program by David Attenborough, hugely respected and well known naturalist and TV presenter. If David is convinced, so am I. I believe. We all believe. Er, excuse me, I don’t!
So, says Eric, in the comments of a previous post, New Earth and Carbon Emissions: he is not a believer. He cites books and points us in the direction of an article about a leading French scientist, who has changed his mind on climate change, or to be more accurate, if humans are causing climate change. And apparently Erik and this Frenchman are not alone.
Tonight, on Channel 4 at 9pm (in the UK) there is program called the Great Global Warming Swindle, questioning the consensus on global warming being induced by the CO2 and human activity. The logic goes (apparently) it is not the increase in CO2 that is producing Global Warming, but Global Warming that increases the levels of CO2. Apparently there are some leading scientists who are promoting this view on the program.
In the US there seems much more debate about the environmental issue than in the UK. James Dobson and others, has joined Jerry Falwell, in denying the human cause of climate change in a recent open letter to the National Association of Evangelicals. Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren join in the riposte against the religious right. In the UK, there really doesn’t seem to be any loud dissenting voices in the Christian World. All are believers, so it seems.
I too am a believer. But who knows what I will believe after the program tonight! What about you? Do you believe? And if you watch the program, what did you make of it?
Is Carbon the new Sex? February 13, 2007
Posted by rupertward in Environment, fundamentalism, society, TV.23 comments
Last night was the airing on Channel 4, in the UK, of God is Green, as mentioned in a previous post. Mark Dowd presented the program, looking at why religious leaders have been so silent on environmental issues. But that does seem to be changing somewhat, with the Bishop of London pledging not to fly for personal reasons for a year, having previously declared that driving large cars, or flying on holiday was sinful.
So Mark Dowd asks “Is Carbon the new Sex?”. [Maybe I am in danger of fueling an interesting debate that has been happening in the comments on another post, “Dancing in the Aisles“?] Will we be confessing our carbon sin to each other, as we have been confessing other sin?
Well, perhaps not. But finally the church is waking up to its responsibility to be prophetic to our society. So often we have limited being prophetic to some words that are shared (and often forgotten pretty quickly afterwards) on a Sunday morning when we Christians gather together. But we have often lost our role of being a prophetic voice to the society we live in, calling people to live less selfishly for the sake of others, our children and their children.
It seems to me that we have not bothered about our responsibility to care and stewardship of creation, as our theology has often got in the way. There are still some wacky Christian groups who see the changing patterns of the world’s weather as a sign of the “end times”, the immanence of the return of Christ. And why bother with taking care of the world if Jesus is coming back soon, and we will have a “new heaven and new earth” … all will be restored?
Fortunately, that view is increasingly less common in the Christian world (although it has to be admitted there is still a lot of it about, for example see this article). The early church thought Jesus would return before they died. They have been people throughout history that think the end of the world is nigh. What happens if it isn’t? What if there is another 2000 years, or 10,000 years?
Added to this is the interpretation of the passage in Genesis 1 … where God tells the first man and woman to “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” [verse 28]. Unfortunately this has been taken in isolation of the mandate in Genesis 2:15 to “work it [creation] and take care of it“. [See a post by Paul for more on the Hebrew words used in Gen 2:15 and for his take on the program last night.]
We are seeing that God has given us responsibility to care for creation. We are to be stewards, not consumers of the world we live in, ruled by profit and GDP. Surely we have a responsibility to pass on the world we live in the best possible condition to our children, and to call the rest of the world to be similarly minded? And surely, as Mark Dowd pointed out in his film, we have a responsibility to the poor, who have done very little to contribute to climate change, but would be ones most affected?
Wouldn’t it be great for the church to be known as the group of people who are at the forefront of the movement calling people to live less for themselves, and more for the benefit of the whole?
God is Green February 12, 2007
Posted by rupertward in Environment, TV.3 comments
Tonight at 8pm on Channel 4 (for UK readers), Mark Dowd has written and presents a documentary entitled “God is Green”, which should be interesting viewing.
Dowd is a thinking Catholic, and once trained as a Dominican Friar, before going into journalism. I first came across him over a year ago, when he produced another documentary: “Tsunami: Where was God?”. It was fantastic, the best piece I have ever come across on how a loving God can allow natural disasters to occur like the Tsunami. He asks all the difficult questions, interviews and listens to people from all religions, and doesn’t come out with trite answers, but does come back to faith at the end. Brilliant. For a more comprehensive review, check out Jason Clark’s comments.
So this promises to be good too. You can read what Channel 4 have to say about it here, and this is blurb from the Radio Times:
Why are the world’s religions so quiet on the subject of climate change? Inquisitive Catholic Mark Dowd takes a look at green issues through a religious prism and bemoans the lack of spiritual leadership on the issue. The highlight is his interview with a senior cardinal who, in the best traditions of Vatican encounters with the press, comes across as shifty, complacent and faintly sinister. The man the Holy See puts forward as its top dog on climate change chuckles at the thought of how many air miles he must clock up every month. No, really. Not that Islam or Hinduism do much better out of Dowd’s green audit. And sadly, it’s hard to see his film, engaging and powerfully written as it is, bringing any of them to their ethical senses any time soon.
See here for my thoughts and review of the program.
The Trouble with Atheism … part 2 December 18, 2006
Posted by rupertward in atheism, fundamentalism, TV.6 comments
At 8.35pm tonight I suddenly realised that I had forgotten to record the program on Ch 4, The Trouble with Atheism. Fortunately, it is on Telewest Teleport for the next 7 days … the wonders of modern technology! It is repeated at 2.30am on Friday morning (22nd) if you missed it.
In the program, Rod Little looks at the growing rise of Atheism, some of whom are “terribly dogmatic … and are becoming as intransigent as the people [religious] they despise.” Liddle constantly draws comparisons between atheism and religion, seeing that Atheism has its own sacred texts and temples, and its adherents also have faith.
Liddle interviewed a number of atheists, Richard Dawkins, author of the “The God Delusion“, the most prominent of them. As a renown scientist, he sees Science as the answer to all questions – its all we need to make sense of the world. Liddle also examines “proof” of the existence of God, science and faith, and origins of the world we live in.
Atheism is not the answer, says Liddle. Take God out of the equation, and you still have the problem of human nature … the capacity for great good, and incredible evil. How can you have morality without some reference to God & the sacred texts?
There is much that I think the atheists don’t understand about “believers” or perhaps they tar us all with the same brush: weird, unthinking, uncaring etc. Perhaps this could be the subject of some future posts: I really don’t see a conflict between faith and science. However, the thing that struck me the most from the program was the certainty with which the atheists spoke: they ARE right! Believers are either a bit simple and conform in some way. The fervour and passion with which they speak sounds like the religious people they criticise! Another faith is emerging!
History has shown us that it is not religion that is the problem, but any system of thought… one group of people that in the right and the others are in the wrong and must be punished.
Maybe dogmatism and certainty are the real evils! The language of “journey”, while in danger of becoming a cliche, is perhaps a new kind of language for Christians to use, in a world suspicious of certainty.
The Trouble with Atheism December 10, 2006
Posted by rupertward in atheism, fundamentalism, TV.2 comments
While brousing the TV listings for Christmas, I noticed an interesting program on Channel 4 “The trouble with Atheism”, on the 18th December, at 8pm.
Here is the blurb:
Far from being an antidote to religious fundamentalism, Rod Liddle sees 21st century atheism as sharing many characteristics with the very belief systems it opposes. As he argues in this authored film, those that turn to atheism for a rational, logical and moderate approach to modern problems are in for a shock; atheism too has its high priests, dogmas and beliefs as much as any fundamentalist religion.
Looks like one of the more interesting programs to watch over the Christmas period.
I could say more, but maybe I will wait until I have watched the program.
Rupert's Blog 