Embracing a biblical siege mentality doesn’t mean adopting aggressive evangelism or open hostility toward unbelievers. The full compass of Christian living – warm hospitality, sensitive evangelism, joyful fellowship, and discerning cultural engagement – are arrows in the Christian’s quiver. It is worth noting that these do not exist alongside the Christian’s spiritual warfare, they are our spiritual warfare. These are precisely the behaviours that Christ is pleased to use to storm the very gates of hell.

When discussing missions with any zealous evangelist, it won’t be long before the phrase ‘siege mentality’ is mentioned with a head shake and a furrowed brow. From their spiritual walled castle, adherents of this mentality fearfully examine the moral decay in their surroundings and resolve to have little to do with unbelievers. The call to keep oneself unstained by the world has become their great commission; they’ve raised the drawbridge and put extra piranhas in the moat for good measure.
It is an amusing thought experiment to look out over my Tasmanian suburb and imagine a walled castle amid the streets. While such a building would be geographically strange, perhaps it is spiritually appropriate. After all, the siege mentality has one thing going for it: Christians are actually at war (Eph 6:12). This celestial war, waged on a terrestrial battlefield, rarely reaches the front intellectual burner for many Christians. While the siege mentality is a problem – and it is a problem – very much greater is the problem of believers walking out into the battlefield each day with their spiritual armour in a box under the bed. Walking out into the fray in one’s spiritual birthday suit doth not a battle plan make.
Read More
Related Posts:

In education, the words “secular, government, and public” are not synonymous with neutrality. A public school is every bit as enmeshed in a system of ardently held, worldview-shaping religio-philosophical underpinnings as any religious school out there. It is not neutral because it is not possible to be neutral.

The claim that every school is intrinsically religious is hard to grasp at face value. The naked eye sees religious schools as adhering to faith commitments and non-religious schools as educating within a neutral philosophical framework. Neutrality is an attractive option for many; after all, isn’t it better to teach the curriculum without letting the monkey-wrench of theology jam the gears? Can’t we get on with the business of learning about maths, science, and history, without shoehorning in religious claims? That’s not as easy as it seems.
While at the level or 2+3=5, or spelling the word ‘apple’, it may be possible to operate with a species of impartiality. However, this sort of learning represents a narrow slice of the educational pie, the rest of the pie being filled with a chunky metaphysical stew. What is the purpose of learning? What does it mean to be human? How should we treat others? How should we interact with the earth on which we find ourselves? A “neutral” education would have to navigate around these matters and, in doing so, would cease to be much of an education at all.
You don’t need a chapel to be religious.
The concept of a neutral school – or a neutral anything, for that matter – is born out of a narrow understanding of religion. If, by religion, one is speaking of priests, chapels, and ceremonies, then of course, there are non-religious schools. Harro Van Brummelen argues for an expanded definition, stating that it is possible to “define religion in its broad sense as a system of ardently-held beliefs that undergird your worldview…” These beliefs are the eyes of the mind; you don’t look at them, you look through them at everything else.
As the saying goes, you can’t get anywhere unless you start somewhere. To think yourself in a straight line, you must start from a basic set of philosophical assumptions; these are not argued for, they are argued from.
Read More
Related Posts:

In education, the words secular, government, and public are not synonymous with neutrality. A public school is every bit as enmeshed in a system of ardently held, worldview-shaping religio-philosophical underpinnings as any religious school out there. It is not neutral because it is not possible to be neutral.

The claim that every school is intrinsically religious is hard to grasp at face value. The naked eye sees religious schools adhering to faith commitments and non-religious schools educating within a neutral philosophical landscape.
Neutrality is an attractive option for many; after all, isn’t it better to teach the curriculum without letting the monkey-wrench of theology jam the gears? Can’t we get on with the business of learning about maths, science, and history, without shoehorning in religious claims? That’s not as easy as it seems.
While at the level of 2+3=5, or spelling the word apple, it may be possible to operate with a species of impartiality. However, this sort of learning represents a narrow slice of the educational pie, the rest of the pie being filled with a chunky metaphysical stew.

What is the purpose of learning? What does it mean to be human? How should we treat others? How should we interact with the earth on which we find ourselves? A “neutral” education would have to navigate around these matters and, in doing so, would cease to be much of an education at all.
In education, the words secular, government, and public are not synonymous with neutrality. A public school is every bit as enmeshed in a system of ardently held, worldview-shaping religio-philosophical underpinnings as any religious school out there. It is not neutral because it is not possible to be neutral.

You don’t need a chapel to be religious.
The concept of a neutral school – or a neutral anything, for that matter – is born out of a narrow understanding of religion. If, by religion, one is speaking of priests, chapels, and ceremonies, then of course, there are non-religious schools.
Van Brummelen (1988, p2) argues for an expanded definition, stating that it is possible to “define religion in its broad sense as a system of ardently-held beliefs that undergird your worldview…” These beliefs are the eyes of the mind; you don’t look at them, you look through them at everything else.
As the saying goes, you can’t get anywhere unless you start somewhere. To think yourself in a straight line, you must start from a basic set of philosophical assumptions; these are not argued for, they are argued from.
Read More
Related Posts: