Skip to main content

Mother and son...?

Mother and Son is an old ABC sitcom starring Ruth Cracknell & Garry McDonald. They play Maggie & Arthur, who are - uh - mother & son (*shock*), who live together 'coz Arthur's divorced. The comedy comes from Maggie's slightly senile antics & Arthur's long-suffering devotion to her.
I'm going to have my own mother & son experience this Sunday, when my mum & I make a combined presentation on - wait for it - sex and singleness...
As I've mentioned before, my mum's an Evangelical Sexologist. This Sunday, she & I are delivering a seminar on what it means to be Christian, single, and sexual. We're going to explore questions like:
  • What does it mean to be sexual, anyway? Is it the feelings? Acting it out? Something else?
  • If I'm single, then sexual feelings are sinful - aren't they?
  • Does the Bible say anything about sex - apart from "save it 'til marriage"?
It'll be at St Matthias Anglican church, cnr Oxford St & Moore Park Rd, Sunday 16 Nov, 2:30-4:30pm. Contact them for more info. And feel free to turn up. My mum's nowhere near senile, and I'm not divorced - but I suspect there'll be plenty of sitcom moments.


Labels:

Comments

Mark said…
Good on you Kamal! Are they going to record the talks per chance?
14 November 2008 at 06:43
Mark said…
How did it go?
18 November 2008 at 08:48
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it.  Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us.  Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more

Backlog of blogs

This is ridiculous. I have a backlog of some 30 half-baked blogs that I haven't published 'coz I feel I haven't thought them out well enough yet. I'd forgotten that blogs are supposed to be timely & personal, not necessarily scholalrly and precise. I thought I'd poll my readers (helloooo - is anyone out there...?). What would you prefer: occasional serious thought-through stuff, or regular ignorant ravings? Personally, I'd prefer regular thought-through comments... but my lack of posts in October demonstrates this is unrealistic.
5 comments
Read more