Originally posted on 6th March 2008
I'm reading Laurance A. Turner's commentary on Genesis and it's just turned up a very provacative question.
In Genesis 4:1 The first instance of human parenthood occurs after Adam 'knows' Eve and she gives birth to Cain. Now most Bibles describe this in an uncontroversial manner saying that Eve declares that she has created life with the help of the Lord.
But is Eve's cry in 4.1 actually a sinful cry of pride? Turner suggests that it should (or at least could) be translated 'I have created a man as well as the Lord'
This is very different from the NRSVtranslation: 'I have produced a man with the help of the Lord'; or 'with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man' (NIV) or 'By the Lord's help I have acquired a son' (Good News); 'I have gotten a man with Yahweh's help' (WEB); 'I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah' (ASV); or 'I have gotten a man from the Lord' (KJV)
None of these translations makes Eve anything other than humble and gracious in granting the true power of creation to God. But, according to Turner, this could in fact be evidence that the serpent's recent influence is lingering around her, still tempting her to become 'like God
'Obviously, (he points out), she could not be saying that she has created the Lord, but she could be suggesting that she is equalling God in having created a man. '
Now the suggestion that parenthood brings with it some sort of sinful pride, even a feeling of God-like power, will be offensive blasphemy to many. Many parents say that on becoming parents they feel humble, unworthy and daunted, quite the opposite of God-like.
But it's also true (uncomfortably so) that for many people becoming a parent means acquiring authority, status and dominion. How many people see the duty to provide for their children as an excuse to abdicate all other morality towards others? We like to think that parenthood makes people behave better but for some cowards and bullies it sets them up as gods in their own home.
I think parenthood does carry with it a temptation to set yourself up as a god, to know better than anyone else what to do with your children and to be immune from criticism. Ask any teacher who tries to speak to the parents of disruptive children!
Parents have 'sacred cow' status - it's the height of bad manners to suggest that someone is not a good parent, but there is a lot of terrible parenting out there. If there weren't society would be a lot nicer than it is.
And perhaps one of the causes of bad parenting is the all too human temptation to think that by creating life you become slightly God-like? Perhaps it's something that good parents recognise but bad parents give in to?
Showing posts with label Blog Entries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog Entries. Show all posts
Monday, 9 March 2009
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Grace and Perfection
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men— robbers, evildoers, adulterers— or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
How might we re-tell this story for today?
Two mothers were talking about a third parent listing all the ways in which the other mum was ruining her children's life - and by implication praising their own perfect parenting skills. The other mum was indeed a bad mother, she wasn't as organised and disciplined as the others, she often lost her temper, she had smoked while pregnant and she sometimes hit her children after drinking too much. But instead of looking for someone worse than her to slag off she instead cried out to God 'Oh Lord, I must be the worst mother in the world, I don't deserve to live'. And God was greatly pleased with this mother but not with the other two.
Two Christians were sitting in church listening to the preacher whose theme was the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. One of them thought to themselves 'That's right, I undertstand this parable pretty well and I'm thankful that I often bear it in mind. Thank God I'm so humble'. But the other Christian was thinking 'Oh my God, that's what I've been doing. I've been sitting in church thinking about how good I am (of course I give God the credit for that) but now I see that makes me out to be like the pharisee not the tax collector'. And it's obvious which one's prayers made a real connection with God there and then.
As far as personal humility is concerned we know not to boast. If we want to show off we have to be really subtle about it and if we want attention (which we all do) the best way to get it (like power) is to appear as though you have not sought it at all. But we all know the truth: we like to be praised and we can't stand to be criticised.
But if we want our worship to make that real spiritual connection with God then it must include confession. And if we want to feel part of that connection for ourselves then we must, in our hearts, unburden ourselves of the illusion that we are without sin.
God is perfect, we are not. Jesus is perfect, you are not. The Holy Spirit is perfect, the church is not. And yet we limit what we can achieve in our lives, in every venture whether it's a career or a relationship, we limit what we can achieve because we don't imagine that we get anything wrong.
Parents are a good example in illustrating the theme of this parable, because being a parent means being tormented by visions of perfect parents and perfect children. Some parents pretend, to others, that they are perfect parents when there is no such thing. From before your children are born until the day you die you will make decisions that could be right or could be wrong. Over time this inevitably builds up a mass of wrong decisions - things you chose, things you did that you could have not done, things you didn't do that you should have done - that have effected your children. That have harmed them, limited their opportunites, upset them, damaged them.
Every parent experiences guilt. But some parents are in denial about this. They pretend that everything is perfect when the world outside, their children and God Himself see all too clearly that this is not right.
There's another trick that parents who can't fact the inevitable guilt of parenthood sometimes pull. That's to say that the things they have done, the choices they made over the years may have been wrong - but it was never my fault. I had no choice - 'I had to take that job that meant I would never see them because we needed the money.' 'I never showed them any love because that's not how I was brought up'. 'I fed them on junk food because no one ever taught me how to cook'. Deep down they must know that this isn't good enough.
Every single parent is plagued, at times, by feelings of regret.You can't get out of this by pretending that you were some sort of moral robot without the ability to make independent moral choices. The heavy burden of being a parent is that you must make moral choices and you must live with the consequences of these choices. You can't opt out of this universal truth by lying to yourself that you never made any mistakes, or by believing that you only ever did what you had to do and never made choices for which you were responsible.
So given that the guilt is crushing and utterly unavoidable isn't it wonderful that there is a way to be free of it. And that's to be like the tax collector and to freely and honestly admit all your shortcomings without making excuses. Now this situation is clearly seen with the example of parents, but actually it describes the human condition full stop. We are all tax collectors so we should not pretend to be pharisees.
The person who approaches God in this way, aware of all that they do wrong, receives a wonderful response from God. They don't just get a tick against their name, being right with God means receiving his forgiveness there and then. In power and in the spirit.
You can be forgiven. What's more you can feel like you've been forgiven. Tax collectors, unfit mothers, those we like to take comfort from being better than - they may well be much closer to God than we are.
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men— robbers, evildoers, adulterers— or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
How might we re-tell this story for today?
Two mothers were talking about a third parent listing all the ways in which the other mum was ruining her children's life - and by implication praising their own perfect parenting skills. The other mum was indeed a bad mother, she wasn't as organised and disciplined as the others, she often lost her temper, she had smoked while pregnant and she sometimes hit her children after drinking too much. But instead of looking for someone worse than her to slag off she instead cried out to God 'Oh Lord, I must be the worst mother in the world, I don't deserve to live'. And God was greatly pleased with this mother but not with the other two.
Two Christians were sitting in church listening to the preacher whose theme was the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. One of them thought to themselves 'That's right, I undertstand this parable pretty well and I'm thankful that I often bear it in mind. Thank God I'm so humble'. But the other Christian was thinking 'Oh my God, that's what I've been doing. I've been sitting in church thinking about how good I am (of course I give God the credit for that) but now I see that makes me out to be like the pharisee not the tax collector'. And it's obvious which one's prayers made a real connection with God there and then.
As far as personal humility is concerned we know not to boast. If we want to show off we have to be really subtle about it and if we want attention (which we all do) the best way to get it (like power) is to appear as though you have not sought it at all. But we all know the truth: we like to be praised and we can't stand to be criticised.
But if we want our worship to make that real spiritual connection with God then it must include confession. And if we want to feel part of that connection for ourselves then we must, in our hearts, unburden ourselves of the illusion that we are without sin.
God is perfect, we are not. Jesus is perfect, you are not. The Holy Spirit is perfect, the church is not. And yet we limit what we can achieve in our lives, in every venture whether it's a career or a relationship, we limit what we can achieve because we don't imagine that we get anything wrong.
Parents are a good example in illustrating the theme of this parable, because being a parent means being tormented by visions of perfect parents and perfect children. Some parents pretend, to others, that they are perfect parents when there is no such thing. From before your children are born until the day you die you will make decisions that could be right or could be wrong. Over time this inevitably builds up a mass of wrong decisions - things you chose, things you did that you could have not done, things you didn't do that you should have done - that have effected your children. That have harmed them, limited their opportunites, upset them, damaged them.
Every parent experiences guilt. But some parents are in denial about this. They pretend that everything is perfect when the world outside, their children and God Himself see all too clearly that this is not right.
There's another trick that parents who can't fact the inevitable guilt of parenthood sometimes pull. That's to say that the things they have done, the choices they made over the years may have been wrong - but it was never my fault. I had no choice - 'I had to take that job that meant I would never see them because we needed the money.' 'I never showed them any love because that's not how I was brought up'. 'I fed them on junk food because no one ever taught me how to cook'. Deep down they must know that this isn't good enough.
Every single parent is plagued, at times, by feelings of regret.You can't get out of this by pretending that you were some sort of moral robot without the ability to make independent moral choices. The heavy burden of being a parent is that you must make moral choices and you must live with the consequences of these choices. You can't opt out of this universal truth by lying to yourself that you never made any mistakes, or by believing that you only ever did what you had to do and never made choices for which you were responsible.
So given that the guilt is crushing and utterly unavoidable isn't it wonderful that there is a way to be free of it. And that's to be like the tax collector and to freely and honestly admit all your shortcomings without making excuses. Now this situation is clearly seen with the example of parents, but actually it describes the human condition full stop. We are all tax collectors so we should not pretend to be pharisees.
The person who approaches God in this way, aware of all that they do wrong, receives a wonderful response from God. They don't just get a tick against their name, being right with God means receiving his forgiveness there and then. In power and in the spirit.
You can be forgiven. What's more you can feel like you've been forgiven. Tax collectors, unfit mothers, those we like to take comfort from being better than - they may well be much closer to God than we are.
Friday, 18 July 2008
Calamity
This blog is all about me exploring what I consider to be a call to ministry so I can't not record the following: I've recently been to a selection weekend with the pastoral care board of the congregational federation and they've rejected my application for training.
It's a devestating blow as I felt so certain that I was suitable. There is an appeal process so it's not definitely the end of the road, and I can still apply next year, but even so it's hard to take. I'm not going to go into the ins and outs of what went wrong and what my appeal is going to say since it's ongoing.
What I will say is that over the past week I've had the opportunity to ask myself some searching questions like how much do I really want to do this and do I really believe I'm cut out for it?
There's also some uncomfortable truths to face which are that although some people are hostile or mocking when they discover your ambitions for ministry there are others who give you an exaggerated respect - and of course it's very flattering. How much, I've asked myself, did I like the idea of being a minister because of the status that (for some) comes with the title?
There's also the question of money - I wasn't intending to do unpaid ministry and theological training does not lead to many other work opportunities. I thought my CV looked pretty good for ministry, it doesn't look that good for other careers.
But I'm still convinced that I'm called to be a minister and I still want desparately to pursue it as a vocation. Hopefully I'll get there either on appeal or next year.
It's a devestating blow as I felt so certain that I was suitable. There is an appeal process so it's not definitely the end of the road, and I can still apply next year, but even so it's hard to take. I'm not going to go into the ins and outs of what went wrong and what my appeal is going to say since it's ongoing.
What I will say is that over the past week I've had the opportunity to ask myself some searching questions like how much do I really want to do this and do I really believe I'm cut out for it?
There's also some uncomfortable truths to face which are that although some people are hostile or mocking when they discover your ambitions for ministry there are others who give you an exaggerated respect - and of course it's very flattering. How much, I've asked myself, did I like the idea of being a minister because of the status that (for some) comes with the title?
There's also the question of money - I wasn't intending to do unpaid ministry and theological training does not lead to many other work opportunities. I thought my CV looked pretty good for ministry, it doesn't look that good for other careers.
But I'm still convinced that I'm called to be a minister and I still want desparately to pursue it as a vocation. Hopefully I'll get there either on appeal or next year.
Sunday, 9 March 2008
Does child mortality really shatter faith?
I've just walked the dog in a historic cemetery in inner Sheffield. The cemetery was built when the population Sheffield was rising dramtically during the industrial revolution and too many people were dying for the parish graveyards to cope with. It's impossible not to be moved by what you see written on the gravestones - epitaphs to children who never became adults - and adults who never became old. The conditions in which the first steel workers lived and worked were grim and deadly and many died early and painful deaths.
Many people will look at these gravestones and ask themselves how there can be a God when ten year old children die. Theologically it's hard work, there's certainly no glib answer to this and we must take people seriously when they make this objection.
But if child mortality is so deadly to faith then why is that in the days when so many more children did die so many more people believed in God? When virtually every working class family was touched by this sort of tragedy why did the people then not say en masse, there can be no God in heaven!
And in those parts of the world where many children still die before ever growing up faith is strong. It's only in those parts of the world that have made child mortality very rare that the idea of child mortality makes people doubt whether there can be a God. The idea of child mortality certainly makes us question our faith but the reality of child mortality doesn't seem to have any such effect.
Why can this be?
Many people will look at these gravestones and ask themselves how there can be a God when ten year old children die. Theologically it's hard work, there's certainly no glib answer to this and we must take people seriously when they make this objection.
But if child mortality is so deadly to faith then why is that in the days when so many more children did die so many more people believed in God? When virtually every working class family was touched by this sort of tragedy why did the people then not say en masse, there can be no God in heaven!
And in those parts of the world where many children still die before ever growing up faith is strong. It's only in those parts of the world that have made child mortality very rare that the idea of child mortality makes people doubt whether there can be a God. The idea of child mortality certainly makes us question our faith but the reality of child mortality doesn't seem to have any such effect.
Why can this be?
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Do parents think they are like God?
I'm reading Laurance A. Turner's commentary on Genesis and it's just turned up a very provacative question.
In Genesis 4:1 The first instance of human parenthood occurs after Adam 'knows' Eve and she gives birth to Cain. Now most Bibles describe this in an uncontroversial manner saying that Eve declares that she has created life with the help of the Lord.
But is Eve's cry in 4.1 actually a sinful cry of pride? Turner suggests that it should (or at least could) be translated 'I have created a man as well as the Lord'
This is very different from the NRSVtranslation: 'I have produced a man with the help of the Lord'; or 'with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man' (NIV) or 'By the Lord's help I have acquired a son' (Good News); 'I have gotten a man with Yahweh's help' (WEB); 'I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah' (ASV); or 'I have gotten a man from the Lord' (KJV)
None of these translations makes Eve anything other than humble and gracious in granting the true power of creation to God. But, according to Turner, this could in fact be evidence that the serpent's recent influence is lingering around her, still tempting her to become 'like God'
Obviously, he points out, she could not be saying that she has created the Lord, but she could be suggesting that she is equalling God in having created a man.
Now the suggestion that parenthood brings with it some sort of sinful pride, even a feeling of God-like power, will be offensive blasphemy to many. Many parents say that on becoming parents they feel humble, unworthy and daunted, quite the opposite of God-like.
But it's also true (uncomfortably so) that for many people becoming a parent means acquiring authority, status and dominion. How many people see the duty to provide for their children as an excuse to abdicate all other morality towards others? We like to think that parenthood makes people behave better but for some cowards and bullies it sets them up as gods in their own home.
I think parenthood does carry with it a temptation to set yourself up as a god, to know better than anyone else what to do with your children and to be immune from criticism. Ask any teacher who tries to speak to the parents of disruptive children!
Parents have 'sacred cow' status - it's the height of bad manners to suggest that someone is not a good parent, but there is a lot of terrible parenting out there. If there weren't society would be a lot nicer than it is.
And perhaps one of the causes of bad parenting is the all too human temptation to think that by creating life you become slightly God-like? Perhaps it's something that good parents recognise but bad parents give in to?
In Genesis 4:1 The first instance of human parenthood occurs after Adam 'knows' Eve and she gives birth to Cain. Now most Bibles describe this in an uncontroversial manner saying that Eve declares that she has created life with the help of the Lord.
But is Eve's cry in 4.1 actually a sinful cry of pride? Turner suggests that it should (or at least could) be translated 'I have created a man as well as the Lord'
This is very different from the NRSVtranslation: 'I have produced a man with the help of the Lord'; or 'with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man' (NIV) or 'By the Lord's help I have acquired a son' (Good News); 'I have gotten a man with Yahweh's help' (WEB); 'I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah' (ASV); or 'I have gotten a man from the Lord' (KJV)
None of these translations makes Eve anything other than humble and gracious in granting the true power of creation to God. But, according to Turner, this could in fact be evidence that the serpent's recent influence is lingering around her, still tempting her to become 'like God'
Obviously, he points out, she could not be saying that she has created the Lord, but she could be suggesting that she is equalling God in having created a man.
Now the suggestion that parenthood brings with it some sort of sinful pride, even a feeling of God-like power, will be offensive blasphemy to many. Many parents say that on becoming parents they feel humble, unworthy and daunted, quite the opposite of God-like.
But it's also true (uncomfortably so) that for many people becoming a parent means acquiring authority, status and dominion. How many people see the duty to provide for their children as an excuse to abdicate all other morality towards others? We like to think that parenthood makes people behave better but for some cowards and bullies it sets them up as gods in their own home.
I think parenthood does carry with it a temptation to set yourself up as a god, to know better than anyone else what to do with your children and to be immune from criticism. Ask any teacher who tries to speak to the parents of disruptive children!
Parents have 'sacred cow' status - it's the height of bad manners to suggest that someone is not a good parent, but there is a lot of terrible parenting out there. If there weren't society would be a lot nicer than it is.
And perhaps one of the causes of bad parenting is the all too human temptation to think that by creating life you become slightly God-like? Perhaps it's something that good parents recognise but bad parents give in to?
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Is the Bible the Word of God?
We may as well cut to the chase here. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, literal word of God you may as well know that I don't. I believe that the Bible is the witness of revelation, not revelation itself.
I believe that we live in a fallen world, separated from God by Sin and that we are redeemed from this estrangement through the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is how God communicates to us, by making these things happen – the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Pentecost – these are where we see God at work. God has done all this and he will do more, I believe in eternal life, I believe that his Kingdom will come. God has acted, he acts and he will act. The Bible is the human record of witnesses to this divine action. That means that it must be read with the utmost seriousness so that we may, as Barth puts it, discover the Word in the words. But it is the record of revelation, not revelation itself.
This doesn’t mean that it can be read in the same way as any other human text. We must take seriously that it is written by men who have heard or seen the Word of God but that does not make their own words divine. We need to reach beyond the words of Paul to the Word of God that was spoken to Paul. We must read the Bible with reverence and with faith but we must not make an idol of it. I don’t wish to insult those who believe in the doctrine of inspiration, what they believe is possible since all things are possible with God but I don’t think that it is necessary or even likely.
All of which makes me perfectly placed to be shot by both sides in the current theological climate. I take the content of the Bible far too seriously for most liberals but I know that evangelicals will find me equally suspect for not believing in total inspiration. The accusation will be that I don’t accept ALL of the Bible because I want to pick and choose from what God has to say to me. My answer would be that I am afraid that by reading the Bible in that way I would actually be importing human ideas into the Word of God by concentrating more on what is said by the apostles and prophets than on what is done that they witness. God acts and humans witness this. God’s ‘speech’ is in the events of revelation not in the texts which describe them.
Ultimately the Bible is important because Jesus is in it, not the other way round.
My view on this, as with many things, is broadly taken from Karl Barth, himself far too evangelical for the liberals and too liberal for the evangelicals. He commented "Were I driven to choose between the historical-critical method and the venerable doctrine of inspiration, I should without hesitation adopt the latter, which has a broader, deeper, more important justification. Fortunately, I am not compelled to choose between the two."
I believe that we live in a fallen world, separated from God by Sin and that we are redeemed from this estrangement through the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is how God communicates to us, by making these things happen – the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Pentecost – these are where we see God at work. God has done all this and he will do more, I believe in eternal life, I believe that his Kingdom will come. God has acted, he acts and he will act. The Bible is the human record of witnesses to this divine action. That means that it must be read with the utmost seriousness so that we may, as Barth puts it, discover the Word in the words. But it is the record of revelation, not revelation itself.
This doesn’t mean that it can be read in the same way as any other human text. We must take seriously that it is written by men who have heard or seen the Word of God but that does not make their own words divine. We need to reach beyond the words of Paul to the Word of God that was spoken to Paul. We must read the Bible with reverence and with faith but we must not make an idol of it. I don’t wish to insult those who believe in the doctrine of inspiration, what they believe is possible since all things are possible with God but I don’t think that it is necessary or even likely.
All of which makes me perfectly placed to be shot by both sides in the current theological climate. I take the content of the Bible far too seriously for most liberals but I know that evangelicals will find me equally suspect for not believing in total inspiration. The accusation will be that I don’t accept ALL of the Bible because I want to pick and choose from what God has to say to me. My answer would be that I am afraid that by reading the Bible in that way I would actually be importing human ideas into the Word of God by concentrating more on what is said by the apostles and prophets than on what is done that they witness. God acts and humans witness this. God’s ‘speech’ is in the events of revelation not in the texts which describe them.
Ultimately the Bible is important because Jesus is in it, not the other way round.
My view on this, as with many things, is broadly taken from Karl Barth, himself far too evangelical for the liberals and too liberal for the evangelicals. He commented "Were I driven to choose between the historical-critical method and the venerable doctrine of inspiration, I should without hesitation adopt the latter, which has a broader, deeper, more important justification. Fortunately, I am not compelled to choose between the two."
Sunday, 2 March 2008
One of these quotes is published satire, one is an apocryphal quote and one was spoken on a radio phone-in the other week. There's not much between them, answers below.
A "If English is good enough for Jesus Christ it's good enough for me"
B "...when Jesus Christ founded his church in Canterbury..."
C "...with church leaders like that, Jesus Christ would be spinning in his grave"
Answers: A = apocryphal, B = from "The Agreeable World of Wallace Arnold" column by Craig Brown, C = Caller to Radio 5 live on the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on Shar'iah law.
A "If English is good enough for Jesus Christ it's good enough for me"
B "...when Jesus Christ founded his church in Canterbury..."
C "...with church leaders like that, Jesus Christ would be spinning in his grave"
Answers: A = apocryphal, B = from "The Agreeable World of Wallace Arnold" column by Craig Brown, C = Caller to Radio 5 live on the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on Shar'iah law.
Friday, 29 February 2008
The Road to Hell is Paved With Reasonable Comfort
When I woke up this morning I didn't feel great but then again I didn't feel too bad. Some mornings I've been waking up in physical discomfort with trapped nerves, aching muscles and stiff joints, short of sleep and feeling pretty rough. Very occasionally I wake up feeling totally refreshed and comfortable. This morning I was sort of OK.
It wasn't as bitterly cold as it has been recently but then again it wasn't exactly warm. The news on the radio wasn't exactly good news, it never is, but nothing really grabbed me.
I found myself without any particular short term obligation or need. Over the past week or so as I've been feeling better (with expert physio help) I've been getting done all the things that were piling up: sending off my theology assignments to be marked; answering emails, doing personal admin tasks and generally making arrangements.
So while I wasn't exactly bursting with health, life and motivation I couldn't complain either.
I wondered to myself what Jesus Christ meant to me on such a day, in such a mood and in such a condition. The answer was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Could it be that the only life Jesus doesn't touch is a life that isn't being lived?
We hear a lot about people losing their faith when bad things happen. But perhaps more deadly to faith is the pereception that sometimes nothing happens?
Of course that's not the reality. The idea that nothing in my life, in my relationships, in my family or community, nothing in the world in which I live in has any claim on me is just an illusion. But it's often how we feel.
Jesus Christ is an every present reality, an endless resource, an eternal challenge for every second of our life. But quite often we pretend not to be alive. Being 'dead in our sins' doesn't just mean active and conscious wickedness - it includes a self-numbing indifference, our giving in to the temptation to disengage from our life and the world around us.
Everything isn't fine in my life so the feeling that nothing matters this morning isn't particularly helpful.
I think I need to find the time to read Kierkegaard on authenticity. But before I do that I need to return to my real life where Jesus will be waiting for me. Just like it says in Ephesians 2: 1-5, we are made 'alive in Christ'.
I'm not sure what I believe about hell. I don't know whether it is a place of flames, torture, and damnation. But a good preparation for hell would be an earthly life of mild comfort with neither pain nor pleasure, joy nor sorrow. Of course life on earth isn't like that at all; the idea that it is comes from within us, it is an illusion. Pay any sort of proper attention to your life and it will not be bland and average. It might not be comfortable, it might not be joyous, but Jesus remains relevant and available to every life that is being lived.
It wasn't as bitterly cold as it has been recently but then again it wasn't exactly warm. The news on the radio wasn't exactly good news, it never is, but nothing really grabbed me.
I found myself without any particular short term obligation or need. Over the past week or so as I've been feeling better (with expert physio help) I've been getting done all the things that were piling up: sending off my theology assignments to be marked; answering emails, doing personal admin tasks and generally making arrangements.
So while I wasn't exactly bursting with health, life and motivation I couldn't complain either.
I wondered to myself what Jesus Christ meant to me on such a day, in such a mood and in such a condition. The answer was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Could it be that the only life Jesus doesn't touch is a life that isn't being lived?
We hear a lot about people losing their faith when bad things happen. But perhaps more deadly to faith is the pereception that sometimes nothing happens?
Of course that's not the reality. The idea that nothing in my life, in my relationships, in my family or community, nothing in the world in which I live in has any claim on me is just an illusion. But it's often how we feel.
Jesus Christ is an every present reality, an endless resource, an eternal challenge for every second of our life. But quite often we pretend not to be alive. Being 'dead in our sins' doesn't just mean active and conscious wickedness - it includes a self-numbing indifference, our giving in to the temptation to disengage from our life and the world around us.
Everything isn't fine in my life so the feeling that nothing matters this morning isn't particularly helpful.
I think I need to find the time to read Kierkegaard on authenticity. But before I do that I need to return to my real life where Jesus will be waiting for me. Just like it says in Ephesians 2: 1-5, we are made 'alive in Christ'.
I'm not sure what I believe about hell. I don't know whether it is a place of flames, torture, and damnation. But a good preparation for hell would be an earthly life of mild comfort with neither pain nor pleasure, joy nor sorrow. Of course life on earth isn't like that at all; the idea that it is comes from within us, it is an illusion. Pay any sort of proper attention to your life and it will not be bland and average. It might not be comfortable, it might not be joyous, but Jesus remains relevant and available to every life that is being lived.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
But I don't like Anne Atkins!
'Thought for the day' had already started when I turned on the radio this morning but I soon tuned in to what the speaker was saying and it did what it says on the tin - it gave me something to think about throughout today.
The speaker was describing her life in a barely populated village and questioning the orthodoxy about the population 'explosion'. Do we really not have room for everyone? Or isn't the problem that everyone now wants to live further and further away from everyone else? She had a point, cities have a lot to be said for them - particularly when it comes to learning to live with (and tolerate) your fellow human beings. How many, seemingly idyllic, villages are actually places where ignorance and prejudice fester without ever being challenged? I was particularly impressed that she linked this idea to CS Lewis's 'The Great Divorce' (Hell is a place where people get further and further away from each other) and how she talked about the difference between the simple garden of Eden in Genesis and the vision of the heavenly city, brimming with people, in Revelation.
She was also right to point out how families divide themselves up into separate houses and flats more and more. She's right about this but I this isn't something I'd like to change. Like most people I think I'd rather eat my own limbs than live in a house with three generations of the same family. The old deference and conservatism doesn't last long when it becomes economically possible to live a more independent life. Don't get me wrong, I think families are great, and big extended families do a much better job of bringing up children than smaller ones (there's always someone to talk to who is a little bit, but not too much, older than you) but all living under one roof often destroys relationships that could thrive given more space.
Overall it was an impressive and thought provoking little talk. The only problem was about half way through I started to recognise the voice of the speaker. 'Oh no, it's Anne Atkins' I said. 'But I don't like Anne Atkins!'
She's really annoyed me in the past by mixing the attitudes of the Daily Mail with scripture into one distressing and smug monologue. But I have to admit she was pretty good today.
It's true, isn't it? We find it hard to separate the message from the messenger. How many times, I wonder, have I rejected something good because I don't like the person saying it? And how many times have I persuaded myself that black is white because of warm feelings towards the person saying it?
Which makes a real problem for the church. A lot of people don't like Christians and to be honest a lot of Christians are not very likeable. Many people find the Christians that they meet smug, arrogant, irritating, bland, unattractive, weird... (I could go on for a very long time)
We fall into a trap of thinking that people aren't Christians because they haven't heard about Jesus. But very often the opposite is true: some people are not and never will be Christians because they have heard about Jesus, and they didn't think much of the person they heard it from.
The speaker was describing her life in a barely populated village and questioning the orthodoxy about the population 'explosion'. Do we really not have room for everyone? Or isn't the problem that everyone now wants to live further and further away from everyone else? She had a point, cities have a lot to be said for them - particularly when it comes to learning to live with (and tolerate) your fellow human beings. How many, seemingly idyllic, villages are actually places where ignorance and prejudice fester without ever being challenged? I was particularly impressed that she linked this idea to CS Lewis's 'The Great Divorce' (Hell is a place where people get further and further away from each other) and how she talked about the difference between the simple garden of Eden in Genesis and the vision of the heavenly city, brimming with people, in Revelation.
She was also right to point out how families divide themselves up into separate houses and flats more and more. She's right about this but I this isn't something I'd like to change. Like most people I think I'd rather eat my own limbs than live in a house with three generations of the same family. The old deference and conservatism doesn't last long when it becomes economically possible to live a more independent life. Don't get me wrong, I think families are great, and big extended families do a much better job of bringing up children than smaller ones (there's always someone to talk to who is a little bit, but not too much, older than you) but all living under one roof often destroys relationships that could thrive given more space.
Overall it was an impressive and thought provoking little talk. The only problem was about half way through I started to recognise the voice of the speaker. 'Oh no, it's Anne Atkins' I said. 'But I don't like Anne Atkins!'
She's really annoyed me in the past by mixing the attitudes of the Daily Mail with scripture into one distressing and smug monologue. But I have to admit she was pretty good today.
It's true, isn't it? We find it hard to separate the message from the messenger. How many times, I wonder, have I rejected something good because I don't like the person saying it? And how many times have I persuaded myself that black is white because of warm feelings towards the person saying it?
Which makes a real problem for the church. A lot of people don't like Christians and to be honest a lot of Christians are not very likeable. Many people find the Christians that they meet smug, arrogant, irritating, bland, unattractive, weird... (I could go on for a very long time)
We fall into a trap of thinking that people aren't Christians because they haven't heard about Jesus. But very often the opposite is true: some people are not and never will be Christians because they have heard about Jesus, and they didn't think much of the person they heard it from.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Does the earthquake mean that God is angry with us?
When the brain encounters something that doesn't make sense it tends to use a template of what it has already encountered or thought about to explain it. So when the earthquake hit Sheffield at 1am last night I immediately thought that the house was being shaken as though it was wrapped in a giant hand. My wife heard a great noise but I have no memory of it, just my perception at the time of the house being in a giant hand and being given a gentle shake.
In the Bible, in the past and still in some parts of the world an earthquake is interpreted as God's anger with humanity. Of course we're far too sophisticated to think like that now - but even without us thinking that this is direct retribution for specific acts we might still ask how we fit the fact of earthquakes into our Christian view.
At the beginning of Genesis God brings order to a previously chaotic scene. Random, meaningless and formless nature is composed into a harmonious and purposeful world. The universe seems to be full of planets where this chaos still reins and life is not possible and I find this a great source of faith - it makes it seem all the more incredible that the earth is set up as it is - and while it's possible, I suppose, for this to be random it seems much more likely to be as a result of some sort of design. The idea that this is random, while possible, involves a certain commitment to a certain way of looking at the world, just as my own view that God created the world does.
Throughout the Old Testament there are references to natural disasters in which the peace and harmony God brings about in the creation of the world seems to be sneaking back into the picture. Unsurprisingly the religious imagination responds to these events with a religious interpretation - God is angry.
But there are no earthquakes in the Garden of Eden, and there will be no earthquakes in the Kingdom of God. This is a fallen world where eternal life, complete peace and harmony, and an unbroken relationship between creature and its creator have been disrupted. Even so the glass is more than half full. Even in a world where death and destruction are able to make their mark they are rare compared to the peace and stability that the creation provides for most of us most of the time.
But the earthquake can remind us that God is angry. Disease, Earthquakes, Tsunamis, all these things should help us to remember that we live in a corrupted universe in which humans have turned away from God. And these things become to us God's wrath when we do not comprehend them. God's wrath is, according to Karl Barth, 'the questionableness of life is so far as we do not apprehend it....the whole world is the footprint of God; yes, but, in so far as we choose scandal rather than faith, the footprint in the vast riddle of the world is the footprint of his wrath.'
We were created to live in a perfect world in obedience and harmony with God, receiving his eternal protection and blessing, but we chose freedom from God. Eventually we will return to God and there will be no more earthquakes, no more disease, and no more tsunamis. These things are a source of existential terror to those without this faith but the terror can be overcome by faith here and now even if we have to wait for the rest.
In the Bible, in the past and still in some parts of the world an earthquake is interpreted as God's anger with humanity. Of course we're far too sophisticated to think like that now - but even without us thinking that this is direct retribution for specific acts we might still ask how we fit the fact of earthquakes into our Christian view.
At the beginning of Genesis God brings order to a previously chaotic scene. Random, meaningless and formless nature is composed into a harmonious and purposeful world. The universe seems to be full of planets where this chaos still reins and life is not possible and I find this a great source of faith - it makes it seem all the more incredible that the earth is set up as it is - and while it's possible, I suppose, for this to be random it seems much more likely to be as a result of some sort of design. The idea that this is random, while possible, involves a certain commitment to a certain way of looking at the world, just as my own view that God created the world does.
Throughout the Old Testament there are references to natural disasters in which the peace and harmony God brings about in the creation of the world seems to be sneaking back into the picture. Unsurprisingly the religious imagination responds to these events with a religious interpretation - God is angry.
But there are no earthquakes in the Garden of Eden, and there will be no earthquakes in the Kingdom of God. This is a fallen world where eternal life, complete peace and harmony, and an unbroken relationship between creature and its creator have been disrupted. Even so the glass is more than half full. Even in a world where death and destruction are able to make their mark they are rare compared to the peace and stability that the creation provides for most of us most of the time.
But the earthquake can remind us that God is angry. Disease, Earthquakes, Tsunamis, all these things should help us to remember that we live in a corrupted universe in which humans have turned away from God. And these things become to us God's wrath when we do not comprehend them. God's wrath is, according to Karl Barth, 'the questionableness of life is so far as we do not apprehend it....the whole world is the footprint of God; yes, but, in so far as we choose scandal rather than faith, the footprint in the vast riddle of the world is the footprint of his wrath.'
We were created to live in a perfect world in obedience and harmony with God, receiving his eternal protection and blessing, but we chose freedom from God. Eventually we will return to God and there will be no more earthquakes, no more disease, and no more tsunamis. These things are a source of existential terror to those without this faith but the terror can be overcome by faith here and now even if we have to wait for the rest.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Shari'ah Law in the UK
My MA tutor and most of my fellow students were Anglicans, it was 1997 and they were discussing who would be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Someone suggested Rowan Williams and the tutor, a professor who holds doctorates in both theology and sociology couldn't help laughing. "That would be wonderful, I'd love it to be Rowan Williams but it never will be" he said.
Well it was and it is. The idea of a first-rate academic theologian leading the national church is something that many educated Christians thought could never happen, but now that it has the idea of going back to someone not quite so bright is depressing.
It's been said in the recent furore over his comments on Shari'ah law that it's his massive brain that is the problem - that he doesn't understand the difference between the role of an academic theologian and a church leader, but that's unfair.
Theology is difficult and so unsurprisingly his theological works are complex and not always easy to follow. But he has used a different voice as archbishop, particularly in the media -twice in the last few months I've heard him on the radio using brilliant soundbites. He talked about people "looking at the Christian story and saying 'I'm going to make that story my story'" - a brilliant way of capturing narrative as a theological device. And when talking about the duty of those in the worldwide Anglican communion with problems over homosexuality not to boycott the Lambeth conference he said that if they refused to meet with their opponents they would be "walking away from the cross".
This is brilliant stuff. It shows that he has the ability to think deeply AND express himself clearly.
So I take issue with all those who criticized him for opening his mouth on the subject of Shari'ah law in the UK, I think he has a duty to raise pressing and uncomfortable questions and to start a debate.
But while I'm glad he's spoken out, and I hope he contineus to do so, I do think he's wrong about this.
He is interested in the idea of how religious laws can co-exist with the laws of the state. The headlines were all about Islamic law but really I think he was concerned about the preservation of Christian law but then conceeded that it would be wrong to protect Christian law without affording the same rights to Muslims. It's a very fair point in that respect, his bishops sit in the house of Lords and before too long that privlege is going to have to be withdrawn or extended to other denominations and faiths.
I suspect that we might be seeing here a rerun of the debate between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Or to attempt a pithy soundbite worthy of Dr Williams it's a debate about whether our faith is 7 days a week or just for sundays.
We should resist the idea that the laws of our land are disconnected from faith communities. All the laws that have been passed with the aim of countering injustice, promoting equality of opportunity, inclusion and support for the vulnerable: are we not justified in saying that these laws, in so far as they meet these aims, are Christian laws? Equally Muslims can and should describe as Islamic all those aspects of British law, all those activities of the British state which meet Islamic objectives (Compassion, Justice etc.)
And our faith, whatever religion we are, gives us beliefs and a duty to promote them. If our beliefs have any sort of value then we must argue for them to become part of UK law not simply to be kept by our own kind but ignored by others. If our faith tells us that it is important to combat poverty and protect children then we must, as electors and as citizens play our full part in bringing about and supporting laws that achieve this. These are Christian laws and these are Islamic laws. They are also Humanist laws.
And if our faith leads us to beliefs that are rejected by mainstream society then can we ask the state to fund, support or enforce such laws? As consenting adults we can agree to be bound by such rules but religious laws don't tend to make such a distinction.
Children whose parents believe they are demon posessed (not Islamic I realise, often African Christians) are sometimes mistreated for religious reasons. But those reasons, however devoutly held by the parents are so completely rejected by the rest of us that we do not allow sincerely held religious beliefs, in these instances, to override the rights of the individual.
Once we accept this principle there can't be any grey areas. Vulnerable members of all faith communities rely on the law of the land to guarantee their rights as individuals. And if our beliefs have no persuasive force in the democratic law making process then they should not have any other sort of force. Ultimately a law has to be enforceable or it is meaningless. All religious believers have the opportunity and the duty to persuade society that its laws should take account of our beliefs and values. And if we really believe them why should we keep them to ourselves?
Finally it's worth emphasising that many Muslims were aghast at the suggestion that Shari'ah law could be given any formal status in British law. I'd particularly recommend the work of Tariq Ramadan who argues that Muslims in Europe should be claiming all those aspects of European culture (human rights, the welfare state) as being Muslim concepts.
Well it was and it is. The idea of a first-rate academic theologian leading the national church is something that many educated Christians thought could never happen, but now that it has the idea of going back to someone not quite so bright is depressing.
It's been said in the recent furore over his comments on Shari'ah law that it's his massive brain that is the problem - that he doesn't understand the difference between the role of an academic theologian and a church leader, but that's unfair.
Theology is difficult and so unsurprisingly his theological works are complex and not always easy to follow. But he has used a different voice as archbishop, particularly in the media -twice in the last few months I've heard him on the radio using brilliant soundbites. He talked about people "looking at the Christian story and saying 'I'm going to make that story my story'" - a brilliant way of capturing narrative as a theological device. And when talking about the duty of those in the worldwide Anglican communion with problems over homosexuality not to boycott the Lambeth conference he said that if they refused to meet with their opponents they would be "walking away from the cross".
This is brilliant stuff. It shows that he has the ability to think deeply AND express himself clearly.
So I take issue with all those who criticized him for opening his mouth on the subject of Shari'ah law in the UK, I think he has a duty to raise pressing and uncomfortable questions and to start a debate.
But while I'm glad he's spoken out, and I hope he contineus to do so, I do think he's wrong about this.
He is interested in the idea of how religious laws can co-exist with the laws of the state. The headlines were all about Islamic law but really I think he was concerned about the preservation of Christian law but then conceeded that it would be wrong to protect Christian law without affording the same rights to Muslims. It's a very fair point in that respect, his bishops sit in the house of Lords and before too long that privlege is going to have to be withdrawn or extended to other denominations and faiths.
I suspect that we might be seeing here a rerun of the debate between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Or to attempt a pithy soundbite worthy of Dr Williams it's a debate about whether our faith is 7 days a week or just for sundays.
We should resist the idea that the laws of our land are disconnected from faith communities. All the laws that have been passed with the aim of countering injustice, promoting equality of opportunity, inclusion and support for the vulnerable: are we not justified in saying that these laws, in so far as they meet these aims, are Christian laws? Equally Muslims can and should describe as Islamic all those aspects of British law, all those activities of the British state which meet Islamic objectives (Compassion, Justice etc.)
And our faith, whatever religion we are, gives us beliefs and a duty to promote them. If our beliefs have any sort of value then we must argue for them to become part of UK law not simply to be kept by our own kind but ignored by others. If our faith tells us that it is important to combat poverty and protect children then we must, as electors and as citizens play our full part in bringing about and supporting laws that achieve this. These are Christian laws and these are Islamic laws. They are also Humanist laws.
And if our faith leads us to beliefs that are rejected by mainstream society then can we ask the state to fund, support or enforce such laws? As consenting adults we can agree to be bound by such rules but religious laws don't tend to make such a distinction.
Children whose parents believe they are demon posessed (not Islamic I realise, often African Christians) are sometimes mistreated for religious reasons. But those reasons, however devoutly held by the parents are so completely rejected by the rest of us that we do not allow sincerely held religious beliefs, in these instances, to override the rights of the individual.
Once we accept this principle there can't be any grey areas. Vulnerable members of all faith communities rely on the law of the land to guarantee their rights as individuals. And if our beliefs have no persuasive force in the democratic law making process then they should not have any other sort of force. Ultimately a law has to be enforceable or it is meaningless. All religious believers have the opportunity and the duty to persuade society that its laws should take account of our beliefs and values. And if we really believe them why should we keep them to ourselves?
Finally it's worth emphasising that many Muslims were aghast at the suggestion that Shari'ah law could be given any formal status in British law. I'd particularly recommend the work of Tariq Ramadan who argues that Muslims in Europe should be claiming all those aspects of European culture (human rights, the welfare state) as being Muslim concepts.
Sunday, 23 December 2007
Blair Converts to Catholicism!
Former prime minister Tony Blair has finally done what was widely expected and converted to Roman Catholicism.
There's been a certain amount of indignation from Anne Widdecombe who points out that Blair has not taken the Catholic line on abortion in several votes in the House of Commons. Has he changed his mind, she wants to know?
I don't really think that's the point. The greatest appeal of the Roman Catholic Church is not its teaching but its claim to be the original church of Christ.
Perhaps he is following a path that he has already trod in secular politics. There was always a feeling that Blair was a late convert to the Labour Party; and it's perhaps suprising that a man of his generation, background and beliefs didn't join the SDP. But he judged that his dreams needed to be achieved within the Labour party, even if it needed to be thoroughly transformed before this was possible.
This sits very neatly with the Roman Catholic cry that whatever objections we might have we have a greater duty to belong to the original church - that we should be protesting Catholics rather than Protestants.
He's never really talked about his faith, for fear of being labelled a 'nutter', so we can only speculate. So here goes:
1 He really believes not only the truth of Catholic teaching but its authority
2 He's pretty vague about his beliefs but wanted to worship with the rest of his family (all Catholics)
3 He's desparate for absolution as tens of thousands of people have lost their lives as a direct result of his decisions.
4 He wants to be the Pope
5 He wants to use the Roman Catholic Church in the same way that he used the Labour Party, to build a political power base.
6 He wants to 'save' the Catholic Church in the same way that he's 'saved' Britain, the Monarchy, the Labour Party, Iraq, Northern Ireland etc.
Now more than anything I want the Pope to tell him that he was wrong about Iraq.
There's been a certain amount of indignation from Anne Widdecombe who points out that Blair has not taken the Catholic line on abortion in several votes in the House of Commons. Has he changed his mind, she wants to know?
I don't really think that's the point. The greatest appeal of the Roman Catholic Church is not its teaching but its claim to be the original church of Christ.
Perhaps he is following a path that he has already trod in secular politics. There was always a feeling that Blair was a late convert to the Labour Party; and it's perhaps suprising that a man of his generation, background and beliefs didn't join the SDP. But he judged that his dreams needed to be achieved within the Labour party, even if it needed to be thoroughly transformed before this was possible.
This sits very neatly with the Roman Catholic cry that whatever objections we might have we have a greater duty to belong to the original church - that we should be protesting Catholics rather than Protestants.
He's never really talked about his faith, for fear of being labelled a 'nutter', so we can only speculate. So here goes:
1 He really believes not only the truth of Catholic teaching but its authority
2 He's pretty vague about his beliefs but wanted to worship with the rest of his family (all Catholics)
3 He's desparate for absolution as tens of thousands of people have lost their lives as a direct result of his decisions.
4 He wants to be the Pope
5 He wants to use the Roman Catholic Church in the same way that he used the Labour Party, to build a political power base.
6 He wants to 'save' the Catholic Church in the same way that he's 'saved' Britain, the Monarchy, the Labour Party, Iraq, Northern Ireland etc.
Now more than anything I want the Pope to tell him that he was wrong about Iraq.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Are Christians being marginalised?
Radio 5 live's morning phone-in today was asking if Christianity is being marginalised in the UK. It focused largely on instances of Christmas cards or greetings being banned in various institutions for fear of offending other faiths.
Christianity no longer has any real power and authority in our society yet for many people nowadays it's something that others need protecting from rather than receiving protection itself. It's not that long ago that belonging to the church was the equivalent of belonging to the communist party behind the iron curtain, it was what you did to become part of the establishment. The collective memory of Christianity is that it fluctates between being oppressive and irrelevant, having in its time been used to justify slavery, homophobia and sexism.
For centuries the church has either turned a blind eye to or actively assisted injustice. It has had a privileged position in society and has expected respect without doing anything to earn it. Christianity may have lost its power over society but most people are not yet ready to think of us alongside other vulnerable minorities that need protection.
Maybe we need to become completely disassociated from the state. Despite most people's ignoring of the church bishops still sit in the house of Lords and the head of state (The Queen) is head of the Church of England. Its hard to argue that we are an oppressed and misunderstood minority when we have such symbolic power in the country still.
There's a lot that we have to do to change the perception of our faith in the UK. But I do think there are some grounds for complaint towards the media.
I wish that the media, in particular the BBC, would:
1 Make the distinction between what certain rent-a-quote spokespeople have to say on certain issues and what most Christians actually, believe say and do. The people who want to prosecute the BBC for blasphemy or who want legal protection to discriminate against homosexuals do not speak for me!
2 Invite Christians to speak on big issues such as asylum and immigration, poverty and global warming. These are the things that preoccupy large numbers of Christians but the impression you get from news media is that Christians spend their life in a state of outrage to do with sexuality and blasphemy. It's just not true!
3 Treat Christians and Christianity the same way that they treat any other person with deeply held beliefs - mock us, criticise us, laugh at us, but in the same way and to the same extent that you do this to others. If it's OK to laugh at someone's beliefs then it's OK regardless of which beliefs these are. If it's not OK to make fun of Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Buddhists then it's not OK to make fun of Christians.
Christianity no longer has any real power and authority in our society yet for many people nowadays it's something that others need protecting from rather than receiving protection itself. It's not that long ago that belonging to the church was the equivalent of belonging to the communist party behind the iron curtain, it was what you did to become part of the establishment. The collective memory of Christianity is that it fluctates between being oppressive and irrelevant, having in its time been used to justify slavery, homophobia and sexism.
For centuries the church has either turned a blind eye to or actively assisted injustice. It has had a privileged position in society and has expected respect without doing anything to earn it. Christianity may have lost its power over society but most people are not yet ready to think of us alongside other vulnerable minorities that need protection.
Maybe we need to become completely disassociated from the state. Despite most people's ignoring of the church bishops still sit in the house of Lords and the head of state (The Queen) is head of the Church of England. Its hard to argue that we are an oppressed and misunderstood minority when we have such symbolic power in the country still.
There's a lot that we have to do to change the perception of our faith in the UK. But I do think there are some grounds for complaint towards the media.
I wish that the media, in particular the BBC, would:
1 Make the distinction between what certain rent-a-quote spokespeople have to say on certain issues and what most Christians actually, believe say and do. The people who want to prosecute the BBC for blasphemy or who want legal protection to discriminate against homosexuals do not speak for me!
2 Invite Christians to speak on big issues such as asylum and immigration, poverty and global warming. These are the things that preoccupy large numbers of Christians but the impression you get from news media is that Christians spend their life in a state of outrage to do with sexuality and blasphemy. It's just not true!
3 Treat Christians and Christianity the same way that they treat any other person with deeply held beliefs - mock us, criticise us, laugh at us, but in the same way and to the same extent that you do this to others. If it's OK to laugh at someone's beliefs then it's OK regardless of which beliefs these are. If it's not OK to make fun of Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Buddhists then it's not OK to make fun of Christians.
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Boring Preachers
I'm reading 'Conversations with Barth on Preaching' by William H.Willimon. At the beginning of chapter two he quotes from Barth's 'Homiletics':
Preachers must not be boring. To a large extent the pastor and boredom are synonomous concepts. Listeners often think that they have already heard what is being said in the pulpit. They have long since known it themselves. The fault certainly does not lie with them alone. Against boredom the only defence is again being biblical. If a sermon is biblical, it will not be boring. Holy Scripture is in fact so interesting and has so much that is new and exciting to tell us that listeners cannot even think about dropping off to sleep.
That's me told, then! The urge to 'have something to say' rather than to 'say what should be said' is powerful. A big motivation for me to become a minister is the experience of listening to boring or inadequate sermons and thinking I can do better, but now that I'm actually taking services and posting sermons on the internet each week I have to admit it isn't easy.
Reflecting on sermons I've delivered in person I think Barth is dead right. Mostly I've been disappointed with my 'performance' but the brief moments when I've really felt that those listening were truly engaged with what was being said was when I've basically been repeating the red meat of the Gospel. All you need to do is stand up and tell people about the Gospel and it will be attractive, engaging, shocking and challenging. The gospel is all these things, I'm not!
I think learning to preach might be more about learning what not to do. When I was a drama student one director used to shout at us 'stop acting!' Good actors make you think 'what a good story' not 'what a good actor'. Good preaching should be invisible, the congregation should be thinking 'isn't the Gospel strange/beautiful/terrifying etc.' not 'didn't he speak well?'
I've got a lot to learn!
Preachers must not be boring. To a large extent the pastor and boredom are synonomous concepts. Listeners often think that they have already heard what is being said in the pulpit. They have long since known it themselves. The fault certainly does not lie with them alone. Against boredom the only defence is again being biblical. If a sermon is biblical, it will not be boring. Holy Scripture is in fact so interesting and has so much that is new and exciting to tell us that listeners cannot even think about dropping off to sleep.
That's me told, then! The urge to 'have something to say' rather than to 'say what should be said' is powerful. A big motivation for me to become a minister is the experience of listening to boring or inadequate sermons and thinking I can do better, but now that I'm actually taking services and posting sermons on the internet each week I have to admit it isn't easy.
Reflecting on sermons I've delivered in person I think Barth is dead right. Mostly I've been disappointed with my 'performance' but the brief moments when I've really felt that those listening were truly engaged with what was being said was when I've basically been repeating the red meat of the Gospel. All you need to do is stand up and tell people about the Gospel and it will be attractive, engaging, shocking and challenging. The gospel is all these things, I'm not!
I think learning to preach might be more about learning what not to do. When I was a drama student one director used to shout at us 'stop acting!' Good actors make you think 'what a good story' not 'what a good actor'. Good preaching should be invisible, the congregation should be thinking 'isn't the Gospel strange/beautiful/terrifying etc.' not 'didn't he speak well?'
I've got a lot to learn!
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
A Teddy named Mohammed
From BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7114439.stm
Bid to free teddy insult teacher
British officials are trying to secure the release of a British schoolteacher arrested in Sudan for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Gillian Gibbons, of Liverpool, may face blasphemy charges for insulting Islam's Prophet. A conviction could mean six months in jail, 40 lashes or a fine.
Her colleagues said she had made an "innocent mistake" by letting the six and seven-year-olds choose the name.
Bid to free teddy insult teacher
British officials are trying to secure the release of a British schoolteacher arrested in Sudan for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Gillian Gibbons, of Liverpool, may face blasphemy charges for insulting Islam's Prophet. A conviction could mean six months in jail, 40 lashes or a fine.
Her colleagues said she had made an "innocent mistake" by letting the six and seven-year-olds choose the name.
Lots of countries develop this sort of insanity at various stages in their development, this is exactly the sort of thing that happened for many centuries in the UK, the US and througout the developed Christian world.
There's a great line in the film 'The Killing Fields' "maybe what we underestimated was the kind of insanity seven million dollars worth of bombing could produce" - Sydney Schanberg making the link between the brutalising of Cambodia and the emergence of the Khmer Rouge.
Countries like Sudan and Afghanistan have failed to develop, have been ravaged by war and civil war and have become pretty crazy places as a result. We passed this way ourselves and resorted to burning, drownings and stonings of witches as well as the wrong sort of Christians.
That's not to say we should accept the situation, but lets keep in in proportion (one bizarre incident in a very messed up country) and in context (a phase that all societies, including our own, pass through).
Evil, power and stupidity use all available means including religion. Lets hope she's freed as soon as possible.
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Do we really need green theology?
Isn't the need to save the planet a rather obvious moral imperative? I mean, we don't have a specific theology saying that we should brake to avoid a child running into the road, so why do we need to be persuaded that actually the Bible is telling us to be good environmentalists? It gives the impression that we're robots who can't do the right thing unless someone shows us a verse from the Bible to tell us to do it (or not to do it!) Jesus gave us Himself and the Holy Spirit - a living faith that guides us and empowers us to do the right thing!
Yes it's possible to read parts of Genesis in a green way, but apart from the above point that we shouldn't need to, it also leads to a theology that is not Christ centred. Jesus didn't tell us to look after the environment, he told us to be ethical grown-ups and to work out what to do based on a few simple but awesome commandments: love your neigbour as yourself, do unto others, love your enemies and so on. It should take NO THOUGHT AT ALL to realise that doing your bit for the environment (at the very least) is covered by these.
Where we do chime with the green movement is in regard to materialism and consumerism. There is an argument, which we should be part of, about our whole way of living and working and the values these are based upon. But the green movement is, not surprisingly, focusing everything on global warming with the straightforward message that we need to change our way of living to survive.
When the green movement says that we need to change regardless of global warming we can develop a close relationship. When the discussion is about saving the planet we're in the same boat as everyone else (excuse the Noah's ark analogy) and we just have to do our obvious and human duty.
And lets face it, we Christians have poured over scripture for two thousand years without discovering a message about the environment. The suspicion people will have is that green theology is just Christians jumping on the bandwagon, and rebranding Christianity.
We should never see Christianity as a means to an end, as a way of delivering some 'higher and purer' ideal such as social justice or even climate change survival.
Yes it's possible to read parts of Genesis in a green way, but apart from the above point that we shouldn't need to, it also leads to a theology that is not Christ centred. Jesus didn't tell us to look after the environment, he told us to be ethical grown-ups and to work out what to do based on a few simple but awesome commandments: love your neigbour as yourself, do unto others, love your enemies and so on. It should take NO THOUGHT AT ALL to realise that doing your bit for the environment (at the very least) is covered by these.
Where we do chime with the green movement is in regard to materialism and consumerism. There is an argument, which we should be part of, about our whole way of living and working and the values these are based upon. But the green movement is, not surprisingly, focusing everything on global warming with the straightforward message that we need to change our way of living to survive.
When the green movement says that we need to change regardless of global warming we can develop a close relationship. When the discussion is about saving the planet we're in the same boat as everyone else (excuse the Noah's ark analogy) and we just have to do our obvious and human duty.
And lets face it, we Christians have poured over scripture for two thousand years without discovering a message about the environment. The suspicion people will have is that green theology is just Christians jumping on the bandwagon, and rebranding Christianity.
We should never see Christianity as a means to an end, as a way of delivering some 'higher and purer' ideal such as social justice or even climate change survival.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Christian feminist blogs
I think that feminism and Christianity are completely compatible, indeed Christians should be feminists. But I've been looking through the blogosphere at Christian feminist blogs and haven't found anyone writing about why feminists should become Christians.
Most Christian blogs come from the USA where many more people have an explicitly Christian background. A common theme of the Christian feminist blogs I've seen is that it is possible for a feminist to stay within the church or to remain a Christian. Here in the UK the situation is very different, most feminists don't come from a Christian background so how and why does a feminist become a Christian?
Most Christian blogs come from the USA where many more people have an explicitly Christian background. A common theme of the Christian feminist blogs I've seen is that it is possible for a feminist to stay within the church or to remain a Christian. Here in the UK the situation is very different, most feminists don't come from a Christian background so how and why does a feminist become a Christian?
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
Fallen Humanity
From BBC News..
Man jailed for urinating on woman
A man who urinated on a woman as she lay dying and shouted "this is YouTube material" has been sentenced to three years in prison.
Anthony Anderson also covered Christine Lakinski with shaving foamafter she collapsed in a Hartlepool street.
We'd like to think that it was a uniquely evil person who did this - but the uncomfortable fact is that a crowd of people watched and laughed as it happened. The Bible is right, there is something rotten in humanity. I'm profoundly relieved that I believe in a religion which recognises evil AND redeems it.
Man jailed for urinating on woman
A man who urinated on a woman as she lay dying and shouted "this is YouTube material" has been sentenced to three years in prison.
Anthony Anderson also covered Christine Lakinski with shaving foamafter she collapsed in a Hartlepool street.
We'd like to think that it was a uniquely evil person who did this - but the uncomfortable fact is that a crowd of people watched and laughed as it happened. The Bible is right, there is something rotten in humanity. I'm profoundly relieved that I believe in a religion which recognises evil AND redeems it.
Persecuted Christians
At church the other week we had a talk from two representatives of 'Open Doors' an organisation which supports persecuted Christians around the world. There's no denying that there is horrific persecution of Christians, often in Islamic countries and these two really walk the walk in doing something about it. However I was aghast when one of them said 'There is no love in Islam, Christianity is the only religion with love in it.' I was so annoyed I audibly exclaimed 'rubbish!'
I spoke to him afterwards and took issue with his statement. At first he was adamant and trotted out alot of ignorant cliches and stereotypes about Muslims but after a few minutes he agreed to 'refine' his statement to a theological point about the nature of the relationship between the individual and the deity. I ended up agreeing with him on this and congratulating him on his work.
There's little point speaking up for Christian religious liberty by slagging off other religions. Christianity has its own shameful history of persecution and its surely counterproductive not to acknowledge this.
I did a bit of internet research on 'Open Doors' and found that it's actually quite narrow in its theology. There are other organisations such as 'Release International' and 'Christian Solidarity Worldwide' who do the same work but without such a narrow theological outlook and they promote the concept of religious liberty for all.
Anyway the two speakers had an effect. They made me think about what I can do to support persecuted Christians, but it will probably be by joining another organisation. I'm going to see if the church will support me applying to be a church representative for CSW (Christian Solidarity Worldwide)
See for yourself at these sites/links
www.releaseinternational.org/
www.csw.org.uk/
www.od.org/
I spoke to him afterwards and took issue with his statement. At first he was adamant and trotted out alot of ignorant cliches and stereotypes about Muslims but after a few minutes he agreed to 'refine' his statement to a theological point about the nature of the relationship between the individual and the deity. I ended up agreeing with him on this and congratulating him on his work.
There's little point speaking up for Christian religious liberty by slagging off other religions. Christianity has its own shameful history of persecution and its surely counterproductive not to acknowledge this.
I did a bit of internet research on 'Open Doors' and found that it's actually quite narrow in its theology. There are other organisations such as 'Release International' and 'Christian Solidarity Worldwide' who do the same work but without such a narrow theological outlook and they promote the concept of religious liberty for all.
Anyway the two speakers had an effect. They made me think about what I can do to support persecuted Christians, but it will probably be by joining another organisation. I'm going to see if the church will support me applying to be a church representative for CSW (Christian Solidarity Worldwide)
See for yourself at these sites/links
www.releaseinternational.org/
www.csw.org.uk/
www.od.org/
Thursday, 1 November 2007
Alan Johnston and prayer
Alan Johnston, BBC correspondent in Gaza who was held as a hostage was interviewed on radio 5 live the other day. Simon Mayo asked him if he prayed at all during his ordeal, he replied that it didn't seem right to do so because he had never prayed before. It wasn't just that he didn't want to be a hypocrite - he had already witnessed so much suffering of innocent people that he had come to the firm conclusion that God does not control our individual lives in the way that religious belief suggests.
This sums up succinctly a major reaction to the claims of Christianity - we are told to accept the will of God, but also to pray for God to act in our lives in particular ways and this is hard for people to buy. I'd like to think that this is a creative tension in a truth that we can't understand fully, it's hard to think that God responds to our prayer in the way described so often in the Bible, yet we are told to pray not just with acquiesence and confession but with petitions. So how can we hold these two seemingly contradictory ideas together?
If God answered prayers in any way that was so regular and reliable as to be observable the meaning of faith would be destroyed - it would be simple self-interest to pray in order to get what you want.
Not only would it be illogical, then for God to answer every prayer, it is also pretty clear that it just doesn't happen. It could be answered that maybe God only answers prayers that are worthy and pure - but even then most of us would agree that there is plenty of evidence that this doesn't happen either.
Yet we are told to pray to God and to make requests of Him, what can be the purpose or benefit of this? Doesn't it just lead to disappointment and loss of faith when our prayers aren't answered?
For me the answer goes back to Augustine. He claimed that it is our will that is fallen, and that it is our will which needs divine assistance. When we pray we are training our will, trying to bring our will into harmony with the divine will. If we pray properly then we don't just ask God for things - Christian prayer should include ALL of the following:
We acknowledge the true nature of the relationship between ourselves and the God that we are praying to - one in which we can make no demands or claims.
Indeed if we really grasp the differences between ourselves and God we are moved to profess awe and adoration of His being and creation.
This should lead to an awareness of our own shortcomings and we should confess these freely.
It is only at this point that we are invited/ordered to make our prayers of intercession (things that we want God to do). Hopefully our prayers of adoration, thanksgiving and confession will have filtered out any requests for things that are stupid or egotistical. Ideally we will now be praying for things that we are told ARE the will of God - such as an end to war or justice and reconciliation around the world. We know what would make earth more like heaven and we should pray for it to happen.Hopefuly we are sufficiently humble that our requests focus on the needs of others - and we are told that they should even include our enemies. And in amongst all this we are told that we may pray, too, for ourselves.
Implicit in our 'wish prayers' is the full understanding that we have no right to expect our prayer to be answered in the way we want and yet we are permitted - even encouraged to make this request. By making this prayer we will be enriched in ways that we can't fully understand: our wishes will be purified and grounded. Our thoughts and desires will be uplifted and put in their proper place. The desires, wants and needs that prayer deals with are there whether we pray or not. Prayer teaches us to deal with them, prayerfully.
This sums up succinctly a major reaction to the claims of Christianity - we are told to accept the will of God, but also to pray for God to act in our lives in particular ways and this is hard for people to buy. I'd like to think that this is a creative tension in a truth that we can't understand fully, it's hard to think that God responds to our prayer in the way described so often in the Bible, yet we are told to pray not just with acquiesence and confession but with petitions. So how can we hold these two seemingly contradictory ideas together?
If God answered prayers in any way that was so regular and reliable as to be observable the meaning of faith would be destroyed - it would be simple self-interest to pray in order to get what you want.
Not only would it be illogical, then for God to answer every prayer, it is also pretty clear that it just doesn't happen. It could be answered that maybe God only answers prayers that are worthy and pure - but even then most of us would agree that there is plenty of evidence that this doesn't happen either.
Yet we are told to pray to God and to make requests of Him, what can be the purpose or benefit of this? Doesn't it just lead to disappointment and loss of faith when our prayers aren't answered?
For me the answer goes back to Augustine. He claimed that it is our will that is fallen, and that it is our will which needs divine assistance. When we pray we are training our will, trying to bring our will into harmony with the divine will. If we pray properly then we don't just ask God for things - Christian prayer should include ALL of the following:
We acknowledge the true nature of the relationship between ourselves and the God that we are praying to - one in which we can make no demands or claims.
Indeed if we really grasp the differences between ourselves and God we are moved to profess awe and adoration of His being and creation.
This should lead to an awareness of our own shortcomings and we should confess these freely.
It is only at this point that we are invited/ordered to make our prayers of intercession (things that we want God to do). Hopefully our prayers of adoration, thanksgiving and confession will have filtered out any requests for things that are stupid or egotistical. Ideally we will now be praying for things that we are told ARE the will of God - such as an end to war or justice and reconciliation around the world. We know what would make earth more like heaven and we should pray for it to happen.Hopefuly we are sufficiently humble that our requests focus on the needs of others - and we are told that they should even include our enemies. And in amongst all this we are told that we may pray, too, for ourselves.
Implicit in our 'wish prayers' is the full understanding that we have no right to expect our prayer to be answered in the way we want and yet we are permitted - even encouraged to make this request. By making this prayer we will be enriched in ways that we can't fully understand: our wishes will be purified and grounded. Our thoughts and desires will be uplifted and put in their proper place. The desires, wants and needs that prayer deals with are there whether we pray or not. Prayer teaches us to deal with them, prayerfully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
