I grew up in a nominally Christian household. I was educated at a boarding school run by Anglican nuns. As a young mother I had my sons baptised. Soon I'll attend the baptism of my infant grandson.
In my early thirties, I ceased to believe in the Christian God and organised religion. A few years later feminism gave me the analytic tools to deconstruct religion and reveal it for the powerfully oppressive force it can be for women.
I look back to my time with the nuns with great gratitude, but I no longer subscribe to their beliefs.
What I learned about being a Christian is that a follower is expected to live his or her faith. It isn't some abstract concept that is trotted out on Sundays. It's supposed to imbue every aspect of life, every action the believer takes is to be taken in God's light, and when a Christian encounters difficulties of any kind, a Christian prays to God for guidance and sustenance. No matter what one's profession, one is expected to perform it as a Christian, according to Christian values.
I don't know if all Christians learn this, but we certainly did.
Followers are also expected to identify themselves in the hope that others will "see their good works and glorify their father in heaven." And, hopefully, join the religion.
These seem to me a commendable set of expectations. Transparency, honesty, willingness to share, and to extend invitations to others to join you in what you believe to be the best way to live a life here on earth.
As long as they remain strictly invitations.
So I am entirely unable to comprehend the attitude held by Melinda Tankard Reist that her religious faith distracts from her work and she doesn't want to talk about it for fear of being "labelled." Labelled what, I'd like to ask. Labelled Christian? How and why does Tankard Reist believe that being labelled as a Christian distracts or detracts from her work?
In an interview with Reist on Mia Freedman's website mamamia is this observation: Ms Reist herself has said in the past that she is reluctant to discuss her stance on religion because people tend to use it to 'colour' the rest of her work.
My understanding is that a Christian is supposed to "colour" their work, indeed colour their whole lives with the presence of God. Why is this "colouring" regarded as negative by Reist to the degree that she is reluctant to discuss her religious views and appears to distance herself from them when the question of their influence on her work arises?
In the same interview a comment from Herald Sun journalist Jill Singer:
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
134 posts so far.