The High Court has ruled that it is illegal for Bideford Council to have prayers as part of the formal agenda. The Council does not have the statutory authority to require this.
In a previous blog I reflected along the lines that the problem for the Christian (and anyone of a faith group) is the conviction that the meeting will be the lesser for the lack of prayer, not least because at the heart of prayer is listening. And listening (to anyone) is something that is in short supply.
The net result is that the faith-conviction of a minority (i.e. the secularist) is allowed to outweigh the faith-conviction of the majority.
(Let no-one think that faith groups other than Christian will be pleased by the outcome.)
I come at this from this angle because this is close to the heart of Bishop Lesslie Newbigin's critique of secularism. In The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, the final chapter is entitled The Myth of the Secular Society.
For the secularist must argue either
- that there is no God and this prayers are foolish. But to say that there is no god of a faith statement
OR
- that a society governed without reference to religion is preferable for the greater good of all, including the religious.
Only the second option need be addressed.
In the chapter referred to, Newbigin writes:
"Especially in a country like India, long riven by inter religious tensions... the vision of a genuinely secular society was and is compelling. Such a society, it was believed, would provide free space for the exercise of religion."
Newbigin then goes on to argue, amongst other things, that the secularist is committed to a very particular view of society, namely one that excludes the notion that all creation is under the rule of God. This then is not a neutral society.
The secularist then argues (Newbigin says, critiquing the writing of Denis Munby) that society should distinguish between facts and values. The latter are for personal choice alone. Society is governed on the basis of facts alone, without anything held up for emulation.
Newbigin's response is that the mind of man is in fact an image-factory. This I see with new clarity, for Chennai is full of images. Not only are there the Hindu gods but there is also Kollywood (there is a very vibrant film industry, comparable with Bollywood).
In our own culture i note the 'Celebrities' and hour after hour of image on our TV screens.
If we are to have a truly secular society then we must do away with all 'images'. But no one wants that.
The upshot is that the Golden Calf is allowed, but any attempt to introduce images that challenge ( e.g though prayer), are not allowed.
The paradox is that it is Christ who challenges the false gods of this age. The attempt to exclude prayer from public life will lead us to have more gods, not less. Except these gods (commercialism, celebrities etc.) have no reason to act for anything other than their own interest.
Whereas Christ opened his arms for us on the cross.
In a previous blog I reflected along the lines that the problem for the Christian (and anyone of a faith group) is the conviction that the meeting will be the lesser for the lack of prayer, not least because at the heart of prayer is listening. And listening (to anyone) is something that is in short supply.
The net result is that the faith-conviction of a minority (i.e. the secularist) is allowed to outweigh the faith-conviction of the majority.
(Let no-one think that faith groups other than Christian will be pleased by the outcome.)
I come at this from this angle because this is close to the heart of Bishop Lesslie Newbigin's critique of secularism. In The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, the final chapter is entitled The Myth of the Secular Society.
For the secularist must argue either
- that there is no God and this prayers are foolish. But to say that there is no god of a faith statement
OR
- that a society governed without reference to religion is preferable for the greater good of all, including the religious.
Only the second option need be addressed.
In the chapter referred to, Newbigin writes:
"Especially in a country like India, long riven by inter religious tensions... the vision of a genuinely secular society was and is compelling. Such a society, it was believed, would provide free space for the exercise of religion."
Newbigin then goes on to argue, amongst other things, that the secularist is committed to a very particular view of society, namely one that excludes the notion that all creation is under the rule of God. This then is not a neutral society.
The secularist then argues (Newbigin says, critiquing the writing of Denis Munby) that society should distinguish between facts and values. The latter are for personal choice alone. Society is governed on the basis of facts alone, without anything held up for emulation.
Newbigin's response is that the mind of man is in fact an image-factory. This I see with new clarity, for Chennai is full of images. Not only are there the Hindu gods but there is also Kollywood (there is a very vibrant film industry, comparable with Bollywood).
In our own culture i note the 'Celebrities' and hour after hour of image on our TV screens.
If we are to have a truly secular society then we must do away with all 'images'. But no one wants that.
The upshot is that the Golden Calf is allowed, but any attempt to introduce images that challenge ( e.g though prayer), are not allowed.
The paradox is that it is Christ who challenges the false gods of this age. The attempt to exclude prayer from public life will lead us to have more gods, not less. Except these gods (commercialism, celebrities etc.) have no reason to act for anything other than their own interest.
Whereas Christ opened his arms for us on the cross.
The mind is an image factory - some images from Mahabalipuram...
No comments:
Post a Comment