Something caught my eye, whilst quickly flicking through the Radio Times (24-30 May 2014). Chris Packham is quoted blaming Christianity for the decline of species:
"Christianity doesn't help: we're made in God's image so everything is there to be exploited by us. It doesn't help people's attitudes" (page 26)
It's unlikely that Chris will ever read this blog post, but I thought it needed a reply. Chris appears to regard Christian belief/theology as instrumental in generating attitudes which disregard the environmental consequences of our actions.
My first reaction is that Christians are being credited with an awful lot of influence. We're in the midst of a debate about whether Britain is a Christian country, and whether churches/faith communities should have schools, chaplains in hospitals etc. Many would question whether many people really do hold any Christian belief in a way that influences decisions, such as Chris Packham would suggest.
However, in cases where belief influences people, it is true that it can work both ways. One body of thought has held that humans were give dominion over creation, and that meant they could essentially do what they liked. My own hunch is that is largely a retrospective justification from the industrial age.
There is, however, a much more scary way of thinking that carries a "Christian" badge. Christians (often fundamentalists) who hold a so-called "end-time" theology regard this material world as a temporary provision before it all comes to an end and the "saved" (i.e. those who believe the same as they do) can live in heaven. That means that it doesn't really matter how much oil we burn, as it will all be over soon. Environmentalism is, therefore, a complete waste of time and effort. It's a theology very agreeable to oil companies and climate-change deniers.
My problem with Chris Packham's comment is that it completely disregarded the role many Christians play in preserving the environment in the UK and overseas. Many Christians understand the 'dominion' they are given in terms of stewardship, not ownership. If you have any notion of a divine origin for the world, then humanity is accountable for how its resources are stewarded and used. As Psalm 24:1 puts it "the earth is the Lord's and all that is in it". A thankful response for the privilege of sharing the wonders of this world should surely be to look after it, and to ensure others can enjoy it too.
Furthermore, it's clear that environmental damage in one part of the world can have ramifications in distant locations. Being considerate of the neighbour you live next door to is no longer a sufficient understanding of what a neighbour is. It's not enough simply to care for the person on your street; our decisions need to take into account our global neighbours. Our connectedness increases the size of our neighbourhood, and the resources we consume are too often exploited on the doorsteps of people much more vulnerable than we are. By challenging that, we express our care for our fellow human beings.
So, how does that work out in action that achieves anything? Here in the UK, there is Christian Ecology Link, we have a Church of England initiative called "Shrinking the footprint", and ancient churchyards are being turned into mini nature reserves. Meanwhile, many Christian relief and development agencies are working hard on environmental issues, ranging from climate change to water supplies, biodiversity projects, soil erosion, and many more.
So, Chris, I am sorry for the Christians who think that being given responsibility for the earth means they can do what they like. I'm not convinced that's what's driving most environmental destruction that concerns you. I think we all know that's got more to do with money. But I hope you can see from theology and from practical action around the world that we're not all like that, and we never have been.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
Clergy, poverty and moral authority
I was initially quite surprised by the tone of a recent article in the Independent. As a newspaper which is politically critical of the government, you'd expect it to be positive about others offering criticism. But no. There is a moderate defence of welfare cuts, coupled with a dismissal of the recent intervention by the Archbishop of Westminster and the recent letter signed by Anglican Bishops, Methodist chairs of district and URC and Quaker leaders recently published in the Daily Mirror.
One of the weaker arguments of the editorial is that the church leaders represent a "tiny fraction of the population", this coming from a paper with a circulation of a little over 70,000, when there are rather more than 1,000,000 attending the Church of England (not to mention our ecumenical allies).
However, this misses the point. The article also implies that the welfare cuts and austerity agenda are moral because they are endorsed by the majority:
"Is the pursuit of policies that are supported by the majority of the electorate of no value, for example? And would it be a more moral course to fail to tackle our dysfunctional welfare system and even more dysfunctional public finances, risking not only the standard of living of all but also the taxes out of which benefits are paid?" full article
Whether the majority of the UK population endorse current austerity policy is an interesting question in itself. Even if they did, this wouldn't automatically mean that such policies were beyond moral questioning. There have been times in our history when the prevailing view needed to be challenged. When those campaigning against the slave trade started, they were a small minority, but that didn't make their moral case invalid. Neither would it address the very real question of whether this government's austerity policy was the best way out of the financial crisis, but that's for another blog post!
I'd like to suggest that many clergy are actually remarkably well placed to comment on the effects of current policy on the poor. Many of us have people knocking on our vicarage doors asking for help with food, energy bills or clothing. It's hard to know what to do, and it leaves us all with a feeling of not doing enough. That's because clergy, unlike many other professionals, live in contact with people in need and live in the middle of the communities they serve. We meet people on the street, outside the school, in the pub and in the paper shop. That doesn't make us special - it just comes with the role. People come to the church with their needs, and we hear a lot about them, simply because we're here. Quite a few church leaders have been vicars and ministers in similar circumstances, and even if they haven't, the ministers they lead have plenty of opportunities to share and to show what is going on in their patch.
Perhaps the most instructive thing about the Independent editorial is that it indicates a shift in credibility and reputation for the Church, and especially for its senior leaders. When the Faith In The City report was published by the Church of England in 1985, it stung the government, and was welcomed well beyond the active membership of the Church. In the period when the Labour party was in turmoil, the Church was seen as providing genuine alternative critique and even opposition to some of the policies having a detrimental impact on the poorest areas of England, and by implication the whole of the UK.
I doubt that could happen now. Perhaps the decrease in church affiliation is part of it, but I suspect it's the public perception of the church's leaders that is a bigger problem. Some the scandals in churches over the neglect of child protection, the public statements on gay issues and equal marriage, and the endless Synod debates over women as bishops haven't commended us to the population as a source of moral leadership worth listening to.
This is a loss, as I think the contents of the church leaders' letter and the capacity of the churches to refer to real hands-on experience in communities across the nation would be well-worth listening to.
One of the weaker arguments of the editorial is that the church leaders represent a "tiny fraction of the population", this coming from a paper with a circulation of a little over 70,000, when there are rather more than 1,000,000 attending the Church of England (not to mention our ecumenical allies).
However, this misses the point. The article also implies that the welfare cuts and austerity agenda are moral because they are endorsed by the majority:
"Is the pursuit of policies that are supported by the majority of the electorate of no value, for example? And would it be a more moral course to fail to tackle our dysfunctional welfare system and even more dysfunctional public finances, risking not only the standard of living of all but also the taxes out of which benefits are paid?" full article
Whether the majority of the UK population endorse current austerity policy is an interesting question in itself. Even if they did, this wouldn't automatically mean that such policies were beyond moral questioning. There have been times in our history when the prevailing view needed to be challenged. When those campaigning against the slave trade started, they were a small minority, but that didn't make their moral case invalid. Neither would it address the very real question of whether this government's austerity policy was the best way out of the financial crisis, but that's for another blog post!
I'd like to suggest that many clergy are actually remarkably well placed to comment on the effects of current policy on the poor. Many of us have people knocking on our vicarage doors asking for help with food, energy bills or clothing. It's hard to know what to do, and it leaves us all with a feeling of not doing enough. That's because clergy, unlike many other professionals, live in contact with people in need and live in the middle of the communities they serve. We meet people on the street, outside the school, in the pub and in the paper shop. That doesn't make us special - it just comes with the role. People come to the church with their needs, and we hear a lot about them, simply because we're here. Quite a few church leaders have been vicars and ministers in similar circumstances, and even if they haven't, the ministers they lead have plenty of opportunities to share and to show what is going on in their patch.
Perhaps the most instructive thing about the Independent editorial is that it indicates a shift in credibility and reputation for the Church, and especially for its senior leaders. When the Faith In The City report was published by the Church of England in 1985, it stung the government, and was welcomed well beyond the active membership of the Church. In the period when the Labour party was in turmoil, the Church was seen as providing genuine alternative critique and even opposition to some of the policies having a detrimental impact on the poorest areas of England, and by implication the whole of the UK.
I doubt that could happen now. Perhaps the decrease in church affiliation is part of it, but I suspect it's the public perception of the church's leaders that is a bigger problem. Some the scandals in churches over the neglect of child protection, the public statements on gay issues and equal marriage, and the endless Synod debates over women as bishops haven't commended us to the population as a source of moral leadership worth listening to.
This is a loss, as I think the contents of the church leaders' letter and the capacity of the churches to refer to real hands-on experience in communities across the nation would be well-worth listening to.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Sermon on Genesis Chapter 1
Sermon for February 23, 2014 on Genesis 1:1 – 2:3
On December 24 1968, Apollo 8 came round the moon and for the first time, human beings saw the earth rise over a horizon. On that mission they read over the radio from orbit above the moon Genesis chapter 1. We’ve just heard that story of Creation from Genesis Chapter 1. What did you think when your heard it? Was it as you picture how it must have happened, or is it so far removed from what you understand that it’s completely irrelevant?Science tells us that the universe is about 13.2 thousand million years old, and the earth is about 4.5 thousand million years old. This is based on many different scientific observations and calculations, and on the assumption that the scientific processes that enable our complex world to function are consistent. The same scientific laws that mean the lights come on, and I weigh 11 stone 6 have applied and worked throughout the life of the universe and give us that evidence.
On the other hand, if we go with the Bible’s timescale, it’s all much more recent than that. Bishop Ussher of Armagh once calculated from the Bible that the world began in 4004 BC. Some have calculated it as a bit further back than that, but the point remains that a literal reading of the Bible means the world could only be a few thousand years old at most.
How widely is the Bible’s timescale believed? In 2012 a Gallup poll recorded that 46% of Americans believed that God created humans in their present form sometime in the last 10,000 years. Many also believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old. There are now schools in the UK, where creationism, as it is known, is taught on the curriculum alongside scientific analysis as an equal theory.
Meanwhile, there is an increasingly vocal humanist and atheist voice in the media who not only accept the scientific data, but see the discoveries and insights of science as final proof that religion is nonsense. Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion won’t even bother debating with people who take Genesis literally.
"Just as I wouldn't expect a gynaecologist to have a debate with somebody who believes in the Stork-theory of reproduction, I won't do debates with Young Earth creationists," he said.
So where does that leave us? Does thinking about these things worry or disturb us? Perhaps we would prefer not to think about it, in case it unsettles the faith we have. The problem is that both extremes – the atheists and the creationists end up arguing with each other as if their views are the only two you can hold. And we end up squeezed between people who are downright hostile to our faith, and people whose beliefs defy all the scientific evidence, but say we should believe them to be proper Christians.
None of this is new, of course. Once scientists started making discoveries that challenged the Bible’s account of things the debate started, and we see it most sharply with Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection, or evolution as we usually refer to it. As Christians, we know that without the Bible, our faith makes no sense. It gives us the big story that helps us understand why we are here. Are the only choices to discard the Bible because of science or to discard science by putting blind faith in the Bible? Do you have to be an atheist to be a good scientist?
Speaking as someone with a degree in chemistry, I want to say an emphatic 'no'! Many eminent scientists in a range of expertise have a deeply held Christian faith. The two don't have to be seen as contradicting each other.
So here’s 3 starting points to answer the atheists on one side and the fundamentalists on the other about Genesis 1.
1. Genesis 1 wasn’t written as a scientific text book.
Scientific thinking and method as we know it didn’t exist until fairly recently. At the time Genesis was written, possibly up to 3000 years ago, people understood the world very differently. The world was in a dome, with water above that sometime came through as rain, or rose as floods. So Genesis wasn’t written to answer modern science’s questions. That means that if we go to the Bible looking for things it never set out to tell us, we get funny answers.Genesis 1 addresses questions about God and about the world, and about human beings and their place within it. It isn’t about the modern disciplines of physics, chemistry or astronomy - it never intended to be. People who know about these things say it’s written in the form of a poem. It’s painting a picture, not recording a documentary.
The Great War - World War 1 - is in the news a lot at the moment*. If you want history, you read history books about the war (and some are busy re-writing those at the moment). But if you want to know what it felt like, or the how it impacted the big questions of belief or faith, you need to read Wilfred Owen or the other war poets. Don't read poetry for science, or science for poetry.
2. Genesis 1 is about God.
Other cultures at the time had stories that look like Genesis. There are other creation and flood stories - one was in the news recently, describing the ark like a huge coracle. But the other cultures had gods who got in a mess, who didn’t always have control. Some of them essentially lived inside creation, and struggled within it. But Genesis 1 speaks of a God who is involved in the universe but beyond it. Look at the text: "In the beginning, God… God said…, God said..., God made... etc.The God described here isn’t tangled up and held captive by the chaos, He turns it into created order. This is about one God, a supreme God, and a creative God who shares his creativity with creatures he can have a relationship with. This is new stuff in the ancient world, but the author of Genesis tells about the God of Israel in a form familiar to the people of his day.
3. Genesis 1 is about us.
This passage contains one of the most dangerous ideas for the Western world. It could bring down capitalism, and revolutionise the way the world works. Know what it is? It is that we are stewards, not owners. God is generous here – he gives food, skills and abilities, the beauty of the earth and its wonder, the amazing possibilities of being human. But when he places human beings in dominion over creation it’s not “here’s the keys, do what you like”. This earth is somebody else’s property, and the people are accountable.Our world works on a different basis. Economies are based on people earning, buying, owning and consuming. It relies on people acting as if the only criterion is whether they can afford it, or at least can they find the money from somewhere. But stewardship asks different questions. How would I explain my decisions to spend? Would I share? Do I understand the earth’s resources as on trust? Do I see myself as accountable to God? That’s called stewardship. Ironically the Greek word for stewardship is 'oikonomia' – the word we get economics from.
If we get obsessed with proving things literally in Genesis that defy science and logic, it’s a dead end. Worse, if we get bogged down in that, we forget what it is really trying to say to us.
In Genesis 1 the writer is saying that we need to understand our God, our place in the world, in the order of things, and the wonderful privilege and responsibilities of living within that world. If we could only appreciate that more, perhaps the world would be a safer, more just and more equal place for all to enjoy.
* the post was written in 2014, approaching the centenary of the outbreak of the Great War.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Greenbelt 2013
Greenbelt reached it 40th edition this year. If you're not familiar with Greenbelt, it's an arts festival at Cheltenham race course, with a Christian background, but by no means limited to Christian input. Music, drama, literature, and talks addressing matters of faith and justice all feature, along with a good dose of silliness and fun. There are always several venues functioning, so there is plenty of choice as to how to spend the time. There are also plenty of stalls, (organic/fair trade/responsibly sourced) catering vans and displays to browse if you want to take a bit of time out. So what were my picks for 2013?
There is usually some opening worship so we went along to Jazz Church in the Big Top. Some classic hymns to new arrangements mixed with a jazz take on more contemporary ones, including "Heaven" by Gungor. Not something you could sustain very often, but a great idea and a fresh take on some familiar tunes. I also got along to Ben Cantelon on Sunday doing set of contemporary worship songs in a (dare I say) more conventional way. Andy Flannagan closed things off on Monday with an interesting mix of him, a DJ and a man on a trombone. Somehow it worked.
Other options over the weekend, apart from the main worship on Sunday morning included eucharists from Blessed, an alt-worship sacramental community, another used music from Les Miserables, there was a U2charist and a goth mass. You could get close to nature with Forest Church, of you prefer it quiet, Quakers and Franciscans offer alternatives!
The range of music on offer is always a highlight for me. You can usually find a good selection of singer-songwriters around the place at the Performance Cafe (this year changed to a venue not a cafe!), the CD tent, the Christian Aid tent and the Shed - the youth venue. Martyn Joseph is usually on the list and he also hosts a session (The Rising) with musicians each day to talk about their work and share songs. We caught him talking to old-timer Garth Hewitt and two newer artists, Carrie Rodriguez and Blair Dunlop. The latter 2 were so good we spent 2 hours sitting on the floor of the Performance cafe for their afternoon sets. Blair Dunlop is a great guitarist and writes interesting songs; Carrie Rodriguez is more country influenced but avoids the country cliches. Ably assisted by Luke Jacobs on guitar and sometimes singing and playing the violin at the same time, she had real quality. Also caught Stylusboy from Coventry and Andy Howie from Scotland, but missed plenty more.
The word 'box' seemed to dominate music on Saturday. Boxes is a solo project by Carey Willetts of the band Athlete (who headlined our first Greenbelt in 2009). Playing solo with a variety of backing effects he did a good set. Later The Boxettes appeared. 4 singers and world champion beat boxer Bellatrix with no instrumentation or backing track, they delivered a great energetic set. More followed at the Performance Cafe, including an improvisation using three words from the audience. They're still unsigned and have far more talent than most 'girl groups', so somebody get them a contract! Also caught Black Rebel Motorcycle Club for some serious rock.
The talks programme is always interesting, usually challenging, often inspiring and rarely without something controversial in there somewhere. Caught a nice little session with Martyn Joseph speaking about songwriting. Graham Cray spoke about what kind of church seems to be emerging for the future. Maybe I've been to too many sessions and read too many books on this, but I didn't find this very inspiring. However, Jim Wallis gave a very challenging, inspiring and yet very accessible address on 10 personal decisions you can make for the common good. I missed most of Steve Chalke, but I gather he was very good, but I did catch Rachel Mann on being a trans lesbian priest in the church today. that's not a talk I'd heard before, and it had a lot of insights.
The Christian Aid tent had a comprehensive programme. regular live music from Harry Bird and the Rubber Wellies, Paul Field and others. Interviews and panel discussions took place throughout and we also got some poetry from Harry Baker and comedy from Paul Kerensa, who writes for Miranda and other radio and TV shows. Meanwhile the cafe team made it a place to take a break and get some refreshment.
What else? Well there's always something going on. Giant puppets, a stage where anyone can have a go at a song, art installations, book launches, a beer tent (The Jesus Arms) and bumping into people you haven't seen for years.
This year there was little rain, no mud, and a new layout to avoid the quagmire of 2012. They did well, given the constraints, and we're sure to be back in future years.
 |
| Jazz Church |
 |
| Andy Flannagan and friends |
Other options over the weekend, apart from the main worship on Sunday morning included eucharists from Blessed, an alt-worship sacramental community, another used music from Les Miserables, there was a U2charist and a goth mass. You could get close to nature with Forest Church, of you prefer it quiet, Quakers and Franciscans offer alternatives!
The range of music on offer is always a highlight for me. You can usually find a good selection of singer-songwriters around the place at the Performance Cafe (this year changed to a venue not a cafe!), the CD tent, the Christian Aid tent and the Shed - the youth venue. Martyn Joseph is usually on the list and he also hosts a session (The Rising) with musicians each day to talk about their work and share songs. We caught him talking to old-timer Garth Hewitt and two newer artists, Carrie Rodriguez and Blair Dunlop. The latter 2 were so good we spent 2 hours sitting on the floor of the Performance cafe for their afternoon sets. Blair Dunlop is a great guitarist and writes interesting songs; Carrie Rodriguez is more country influenced but avoids the country cliches. Ably assisted by Luke Jacobs on guitar and sometimes singing and playing the violin at the same time, she had real quality. Also caught Stylusboy from Coventry and Andy Howie from Scotland, but missed plenty more.
 |
| The Boxettes at The Performance Cafe |
 |
| Panel discussion featuring Jim Wallis and Richard Coles |
 |
| Comedy from Paul Kerensa |
What else? Well there's always something going on. Giant puppets, a stage where anyone can have a go at a song, art installations, book launches, a beer tent (The Jesus Arms) and bumping into people you haven't seen for years.
This year there was little rain, no mud, and a new layout to avoid the quagmire of 2012. They did well, given the constraints, and we're sure to be back in future years.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Is theism getting a bad press?
I'm not very sure how to phrase this post correctly. I have been musing for a while about a change I've observed over the time I have been ordained. It seems that there are now significantly more atheist voices who are more vocal and critical of belief in God, especially in the media and in public life. The question is: why?
Looking at the kinds of digs atheists make online, they're not always very sophisticated or original. Some atheists even seem to mirror religious fundamentalists in their absolutism. Even when the critique is more considered, it's usually the case that Christians have been struggling with the same issues for centuries. Suffering, theodicy, Old Testament wrath vs New testament compassion, etc are all there in theology textbooks (but not any neat answers). Maybe that's the problem: people who want neat answers find a messy God difficult.
If there is a trend, my first hunch is that the percentage of people who don't believe in God may not have changed as much as we think; it's just that their presence is felt more now. It's not as if atheism was invented when Richard Dawkins started selling books about it - people who didn't believe have been around for a long time.
I also suspect that quite a lot of the British never really believed in God in any very specific way, if at all. However, at most they described themselves as agnostic. Not a few of them probably went along to church, because it was a 'good thing' and saw it as supporting community and family. The 'supernatural' bit passed them by, and there are still churchgoers for whom that is true. The stronger tag of atheist probably seemed a bit definite for those 20th century sensibilities.
If there is a trend, my first hunch is that the percentage of people who don't believe in God may not have changed as much as we think; it's just that their presence is felt more now. It's not as if atheism was invented when Richard Dawkins started selling books about it - people who didn't believe have been around for a long time.
I also suspect that quite a lot of the British never really believed in God in any very specific way, if at all. However, at most they described themselves as agnostic. Not a few of them probably went along to church, because it was a 'good thing' and saw it as supporting community and family. The 'supernatural' bit passed them by, and there are still churchgoers for whom that is true. The stronger tag of atheist probably seemed a bit definite for those 20th century sensibilities.
What's become clear in recent years is that attitudes to organised faith/religion have changed. The Church of England was once seen as basically benign, if rather odd, eccentric, ineffectual and from a different era. Church of England schools and colleges would be seen as 'nice' places to study, even by those who didn't practise the faith in any committed way. There is now a debate as to whether these institutions should receive any public support at all, or even whether churches and faith groups qualify as charities.
So why isn't theism seen as benign for wider society any more? Religious conflicts must be part of the picture. These aren't new, either, and nor is sectarian terrorism. There was plenty of that during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. However, more recent developments such as suicide bombing and the description of such as martyrdoms has pointed to a difficult question. If it is believed that human existence doesn't depend on this material world, but upon a relationship with the divine, then someone can acquire an attitude that says this life doesn't really matter. And in case Christians start getting superior at this point, that tradition is there in our faith too. It hasn't worked itself out in suicide bombing, but in medieval times, being killed on the Crusades was regarded as tantamount to martyrdom. How do we hold that 'this isn't everything', yet still value the material world as real and precious?
Ethics and values have changed the goalposts too. Churches are often seen as maintaining sexist and homophobic values in an era when society's norms and the laws of the land have moved on from traditional standpoints. If the perception out there is growing that theism = prejudice and discrimination, then it's hardly surprising to hear a more vocal critique from theosceptics. (Have I just invented that word? Must look it up later)
If my hunches bear any relation to reality, I'm not particularly worried about these shifts in attitude. One the one hand, Christians should expect opposition if they are being true to the teaching of Jesus - it certainly came his way. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't be a lot more unpopular about poverty, economic exploitation and injustice.
On the other hand, we also need to listen. The Bible and the Christian tradition are complex, and it's easy to confirm our own pet prejudices with careful selection of our sources. Sometimes a radical challenge from outside our comfortable circle of like-minded can jolt us into re-examining what we think and why we think it.
Perhaps most of all we need to be more willing to live more radical lives. Maybe the reason more people openly say they don't believe any more is that they can see precious little reason for belief in the lives of those who say they do.
If my hunches bear any relation to reality, I'm not particularly worried about these shifts in attitude. One the one hand, Christians should expect opposition if they are being true to the teaching of Jesus - it certainly came his way. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't be a lot more unpopular about poverty, economic exploitation and injustice.
On the other hand, we also need to listen. The Bible and the Christian tradition are complex, and it's easy to confirm our own pet prejudices with careful selection of our sources. Sometimes a radical challenge from outside our comfortable circle of like-minded can jolt us into re-examining what we think and why we think it.
Perhaps most of all we need to be more willing to live more radical lives. Maybe the reason more people openly say they don't believe any more is that they can see precious little reason for belief in the lives of those who say they do.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Greenbelt 2011 Diary: Monday
Image by Getty Images via @daylifeAlways feel a bit wistful on the last day of something like this. Just as you're getting used to camping, and have worked out the good food vans, and also have a clear idea where the decent loos are, it all comes to an end. Also tends to be the day when you bump into friends you were hoping to see all weekend, but somehow didn't.The final Greenbelt day kicked off with a session led by Nadia Bolz-Weber (from House for all Sinners and Saints in Colorado) on the process of preparing a sermon. I've heard plenty of talks on how to preach - most of them very sound and very dull - and given a few myself. This was much more interesting, as she talked us through her week. Starting with reading the text for Sunday on Tuesday morning, and then processing all the things that happened and trying to discern the gospel - the good news - for her community. Having done that, she then preached the sermon. She used a fantastic image of wrestling with the text all week, preaching the sermon, and walking away limping. Despite being associated with the 'emergent' movement, she doesn't go in for tech or trendy presentation. She quite likes the idea of chuch being a bit odd.
As a recovering addict (clean 20 yrs) and having had quite a life, some of that colour comes out in her speaking and language, but the Lutheran theology that helped her embrace the possibility of faith still runs through her thought in a very compelling way.
Then it was an opportune moment to deconstruct the tent - didn't want to be doing that a) in the rain, b) in the dark, c) during something I really wanted to go to. Tent down and packed and lunch eaten, it was off to hear Andy Graystone's talk: Parts of me are dying. Andy is director of the Church and Media Network, which seeks to resource both the Church and the media in relating to and understanding one another. He has worked for BBC religion and produced radio and TV programmes.
Andy has an early diagnosed cancer, and spoke in a very amusing and engaging way about his experiences, the choices before him, and how he understands what is happening to him. One point particularly stood out - the terminology about cancer. He is uncomfortable with the fighting/battling talk, along with hero/victim terminology. As he put it, he sometimes feels an unwilling conscript in a war, not that he wouldn't want to be clear of cancer - it's the culture and mindset those terms imply. He also talked through how it focusses the mind on whether you actually believe in life after death or not.
The it was off to mainstage for a bit of Ahab. 'folk flavoured country-rock' was the description - an American influenced Uk band. Good fun and great live. They will soon be supporting Bellowhead on tour. Bit more Iain Archer on mainstage, but having already seen him twice, had a last look around. Then back for Kate Rusby. I'm not a full-on folkie, but she's very accessible, her voice is great, and I've rarely seen someone enjoy performing live quite so much. Apparently her first Greenbelt experience was as a teenager in 1990!
Then it was time for us to leave. Ron Sexsmith and Mavis Staples were to follow, so it was a strong line-up, but the M5/M6 called and we wanted to get home on Monday. Whether you're a camper or go for the soft option of an off-site hotel, whether you like it loud or quiet, whether you're a Christian or not, there'll be something somewhere in a Greenbelt festival that will make it worth your while coming.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Never too late to learn
I suepect most clergy have some scepticism about "in-service" training events, and I am no exception. So it was with some curiosity that I turned up for a course for new area deans at Hinsley Hall in Leeds. A remarkable venue, it used to be a Methodist training college, but more recently was acquire by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Leeds as a pastoral and conference centre. One room is still called the John Wesley Room in acknowledgment!
Organised by some of the Yorkshire Dioceses (Ripon & Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield and Wakefield), the course was the first of its kind that was feasible for me to attend. The content was very good, and the group of people attending were good company. It was especially useful to be with people from other Dioceses where models of working were different (as were levels of staffing!)
As is often the case, I don't know how it will emerge in the way I do my area-deaning, but hopefully it will mean that I have some useful ideas and ask the right questions in the right places!
Friday, September 17, 2010
A response to atheists
As I write this, the media is full of news about the papal visit. The headlines and articles are a jumble of points, relating to child abuse by priests and whether there was a cover-up, criticism from more strident atheists about a state visit by a religious leader, questions around sexuality and related issues, and other wider questions about whether activities run by agencies with a religious background can really be good for the whole of society. The problem with all of the noise that’s being made is that cheap shots about wayward priests, or even militant religious groups around the world, get put alongside serious debates about God and the role of religion in society. So is there any way Christians can respond to all of this in a positive way?
The first thing to avoid is argument about who’s better (or worse) than whom. History is littered with the tragedies and mistakes of those who have acted in the name of religion - from the Crusades to 9/11. We could equally quote atheist regimes such as the USSR under Stalin or Mao’s China in the catalogue of cruelty. But God’s existence or the debates about the worth of state-funded Church schools can’t be settled by some crude calculation of these events. The fact there were nasty people carrying an atheist or a Christian label doesn’t really help us today. For Christians the fact of what we call sin is hardly a surprise – it’s to be expected. The Gospel isn’t about proving we’re better than other people, but about reconciliation for people who fail.
A second pitfall in the current climate is the focus on the allegations that the present Pope failed to act in cases where priests had committed abuse. A recent Panorama demonstrated that the issue is extremely serious, and there are still key questions that need to be answered, but there is a difference between naivety or incompetence, and wilful concealment. The issue won’t (and shouldn’t) go away, so I am sure that much more will emerge as time goes on as to where culpability lies. However, even if the Pope is culpable of serious errors in this area, it would be hugely unfair to smear all Catholics as a result. A failure in leadership in this area damages trust in those who hold responsibility and in the institution they serve, but it’s not decisive proof that everything Catholicism (or individual Catholics) does or stands for must be suspect or damaging.
I’m not even convinced that trying to have any debate at a more intellectual level with people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens gets us anywhere either. In some ways they can end up being a mirror image of religious fundamentalists in their pronouncements – absolutely unmoveable and unwilling to see anything good in the other side.
Some of the Pope's statements about secularism in Europe do seem rather dramatic, but something has changed over recent years. Churches used to be portrayed as generally benign institutions (albeit with some flawed exceptions) - and often the object of kindly joking. The shift to a point where church schools are now seen as a problem by a significant voice in society represents a shift in culture.
Christians could still be heroes in the 1960s (Martin Luther King) and even the last Pope was seen as instrumental in the changes which eventually brought freedom and democracy to Eastern Europe in the 1980s. Now the Church is seen as an opponent rather than a source of freedom.
It's OK to have prayers and rituals in places of worship, but the public sphere should be secular (based on the questionable assumption that secular = neutral). The rise of Christian fundamentalism and the religious right on one hand, and Islamic extremism on the other, seems to have questioned the motives of everyone with a faith.
It's tempting to do the thought experiment where 2 people say to each other in a Pythonesque way "what have the Christians ever done for us", with architecture, sponsoring great art, founding universities, providing healthcare, free education, abolition of the slave trade being some of the answers. "Well apart from art, architecture, hospitals.... what have they ever done for us..." the conversation would continue.
In the end, the Pope's visit raises specific questions with regard to issues that he has been involved in - both in what he teaches and the failures of the Catholic Church with regard to safeguarding. However, it highlights issues that were already there in public debate about the role of religion in society, rather than creates any new ones. I suspect that big events and big gestures aren't actually the way any Christian individual or community can commend their faith or themselves. In that sense, on the big public stage we can't 'win' - even if we thought that 'winning' was what it was about (which I don't).
Up and down the land Christians and churches run and host groups and activities for kids, young families, lonely pensioners, people struggling with issues like addiction, they accommodate youth clubs and uniformed organisations, choirs, lunch clubs, after-school groups and so on. If you waved a magic wand and got rid of the Christian contribution to society tomorrow, communities throughout Britain would have significant amounts of their life removed, and not simply the active worshippers. People may not be in church on Sundays in huge numbers (although attendance has stabilised) but the positive impact of local churches extends much further into the community than is often realised, especially where other community facilities and resources are few and far between.
Perhaps the best argument Christians and the Churches can put are the many small, but good stories that come out of those many situations, both for people of faith and people of none. The big story in the news is the Papal visit, but the stories that actually change lives are probably much nearer to home.
The first thing to avoid is argument about who’s better (or worse) than whom. History is littered with the tragedies and mistakes of those who have acted in the name of religion - from the Crusades to 9/11. We could equally quote atheist regimes such as the USSR under Stalin or Mao’s China in the catalogue of cruelty. But God’s existence or the debates about the worth of state-funded Church schools can’t be settled by some crude calculation of these events. The fact there were nasty people carrying an atheist or a Christian label doesn’t really help us today. For Christians the fact of what we call sin is hardly a surprise – it’s to be expected. The Gospel isn’t about proving we’re better than other people, but about reconciliation for people who fail.
A second pitfall in the current climate is the focus on the allegations that the present Pope failed to act in cases where priests had committed abuse. A recent Panorama demonstrated that the issue is extremely serious, and there are still key questions that need to be answered, but there is a difference between naivety or incompetence, and wilful concealment. The issue won’t (and shouldn’t) go away, so I am sure that much more will emerge as time goes on as to where culpability lies. However, even if the Pope is culpable of serious errors in this area, it would be hugely unfair to smear all Catholics as a result. A failure in leadership in this area damages trust in those who hold responsibility and in the institution they serve, but it’s not decisive proof that everything Catholicism (or individual Catholics) does or stands for must be suspect or damaging.
I’m not even convinced that trying to have any debate at a more intellectual level with people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens gets us anywhere either. In some ways they can end up being a mirror image of religious fundamentalists in their pronouncements – absolutely unmoveable and unwilling to see anything good in the other side.
Some of the Pope's statements about secularism in Europe do seem rather dramatic, but something has changed over recent years. Churches used to be portrayed as generally benign institutions (albeit with some flawed exceptions) - and often the object of kindly joking. The shift to a point where church schools are now seen as a problem by a significant voice in society represents a shift in culture.
Christians could still be heroes in the 1960s (Martin Luther King) and even the last Pope was seen as instrumental in the changes which eventually brought freedom and democracy to Eastern Europe in the 1980s. Now the Church is seen as an opponent rather than a source of freedom.
It's OK to have prayers and rituals in places of worship, but the public sphere should be secular (based on the questionable assumption that secular = neutral). The rise of Christian fundamentalism and the religious right on one hand, and Islamic extremism on the other, seems to have questioned the motives of everyone with a faith.
It's tempting to do the thought experiment where 2 people say to each other in a Pythonesque way "what have the Christians ever done for us", with architecture, sponsoring great art, founding universities, providing healthcare, free education, abolition of the slave trade being some of the answers. "Well apart from art, architecture, hospitals.... what have they ever done for us..." the conversation would continue.
In the end, the Pope's visit raises specific questions with regard to issues that he has been involved in - both in what he teaches and the failures of the Catholic Church with regard to safeguarding. However, it highlights issues that were already there in public debate about the role of religion in society, rather than creates any new ones. I suspect that big events and big gestures aren't actually the way any Christian individual or community can commend their faith or themselves. In that sense, on the big public stage we can't 'win' - even if we thought that 'winning' was what it was about (which I don't).
Up and down the land Christians and churches run and host groups and activities for kids, young families, lonely pensioners, people struggling with issues like addiction, they accommodate youth clubs and uniformed organisations, choirs, lunch clubs, after-school groups and so on. If you waved a magic wand and got rid of the Christian contribution to society tomorrow, communities throughout Britain would have significant amounts of their life removed, and not simply the active worshippers. People may not be in church on Sundays in huge numbers (although attendance has stabilised) but the positive impact of local churches extends much further into the community than is often realised, especially where other community facilities and resources are few and far between.
Perhaps the best argument Christians and the Churches can put are the many small, but good stories that come out of those many situations, both for people of faith and people of none. The big story in the news is the Papal visit, but the stories that actually change lives are probably much nearer to home.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Doing it by the book
This year I have set a new record. In 18 years of being a priest in the good ol' C of E, I officiated at 3 services of Book of Common Prayer Holy Communion (or 1662 for short): Long Itchington, Preston Bagot and Longridge if my memory is still functioning. I had attended a few over the years, but it's different when you're up front. By Christmas 2009 I had had already quadrupled that total, as we have it every week here at MPC at 8am. It wasn't a result of a conscious effort to avoid it, I just didn't serve in churches that used it; nor did they have 8am communion services.
Now anyone that knows me will be aware that I'm not my sparkling best first thing in the morning, so 8am communion every Sunday has proved a challenge, especially when conducting a service in language from Shakespeare's era. However, I have managed to remain coherent every Sunday, pronounced everything correctly, and put the correct length pauses in for all the subclauses in the very long sentence structure.
Having a year's worth behind me to reflect upon, I do find it intriguing that people get up to attend church that early in the morning. When I had a parish in Coventry, a neighbouring mainly middle-class parish had quite a thriving 8am communion service (modern language service, talk and 2 hymns) with about 40-50 there. They were people who wanted to do church early, so they had the rest of the day for their leisure activities, such as sport, hiking, boating, etc.
I don't know if that's true for any of our 8 o'clockers. Some come because they find the business and length of the 10am too much; others come at that time of day as it's their opportunity to share in communion using the old wording - in a language very different from what they would use in everyday life. Although we call it 1662, the service is a revised version of one originally compiled in 1552, yet it remains part of the official prayer book of the Church of England. Over the years I have come across many different reasons for people choosing these services. Some see modern language liturgy as vulgar or dumbing down, some want to preserve our historical heritage, and other have a theological agenda, seeing the Book of Common Prayer as a reformed Protestant foothold in a church infected with other theological tendencies. I suspect most people go because it is what they are used to or what they grew up with.
I have come across a few BCP enthusiasts who extol its virtues and like it done 'by the book', which is ironic, because we never do it by the book. For a start, a large section of the communion service is left out (the Exhortation) and the congregation usually joins in with prayers that the book says should only be said by the priest, such as the Lord's Prayer at the opening, the opening collect and what we usually refer to as the Prayer of Humble Access (don't worry if you've no idea what these are). Most congregations also give a response when the gospel is read, although the BCP contains no such words. I did once hear of a vicar who was pressured into resuming BCP communion by his congregation, so he decided to do it completely by the book - reading everything out and then refusing to give anyone communion because they hadn't given him a week's notice, which is what the book requires! I guess he didn't have a great relationship with his people...
Meanwhile, we'll stick to doing it not by the book, just like we always don't.
Now anyone that knows me will be aware that I'm not my sparkling best first thing in the morning, so 8am communion every Sunday has proved a challenge, especially when conducting a service in language from Shakespeare's era. However, I have managed to remain coherent every Sunday, pronounced everything correctly, and put the correct length pauses in for all the subclauses in the very long sentence structure.
Having a year's worth behind me to reflect upon, I do find it intriguing that people get up to attend church that early in the morning. When I had a parish in Coventry, a neighbouring mainly middle-class parish had quite a thriving 8am communion service (modern language service, talk and 2 hymns) with about 40-50 there. They were people who wanted to do church early, so they had the rest of the day for their leisure activities, such as sport, hiking, boating, etc.
I don't know if that's true for any of our 8 o'clockers. Some come because they find the business and length of the 10am too much; others come at that time of day as it's their opportunity to share in communion using the old wording - in a language very different from what they would use in everyday life. Although we call it 1662, the service is a revised version of one originally compiled in 1552, yet it remains part of the official prayer book of the Church of England. Over the years I have come across many different reasons for people choosing these services. Some see modern language liturgy as vulgar or dumbing down, some want to preserve our historical heritage, and other have a theological agenda, seeing the Book of Common Prayer as a reformed Protestant foothold in a church infected with other theological tendencies. I suspect most people go because it is what they are used to or what they grew up with.
I have come across a few BCP enthusiasts who extol its virtues and like it done 'by the book', which is ironic, because we never do it by the book. For a start, a large section of the communion service is left out (the Exhortation) and the congregation usually joins in with prayers that the book says should only be said by the priest, such as the Lord's Prayer at the opening, the opening collect and what we usually refer to as the Prayer of Humble Access (don't worry if you've no idea what these are). Most congregations also give a response when the gospel is read, although the BCP contains no such words. I did once hear of a vicar who was pressured into resuming BCP communion by his congregation, so he decided to do it completely by the book - reading everything out and then refusing to give anyone communion because they hadn't given him a week's notice, which is what the book requires! I guess he didn't have a great relationship with his people...
Meanwhile, we'll stick to doing it not by the book, just like we always don't.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Hope for Justice
Last night at Manchester Apollo, I was providing transport for my son, Jono, to get to "The Stand". This was an event organised by Hope For Justice, which is campaigning to end human trafficking. The statistics are scary, and slavery is a reality, even within the UK. It's clearly a huge problem across the world, and the people involved on the frontline of helping people escape and then come to terms with their traumatic experiences face real dangers.
Hope for Justice campaigns in a number of ways - awareness-raising, legal issues, rescue and support, campaigning and, of course, fundraising. The Stand 2010 was an event with video, drama, music, prayer and a hard-hitting talk from Tony Campolo.
It was very refreshing to go to something which was contemporary and had a lot of energy and passion, but wasn't about the people gathered. There was no sense that this was about having a religious experience, or that the audience/congregation were there to be receivers or consumers of stuff from the front. This was about a problem in society and the world which needs urgent action, and a key part of being faithful Christians was about working for justice for captives. There was also no sense that this was evangelism 'in disguise'. The motivation wasn't that people rescued might be converts, but that it's the right thing to be working for anyway. There was also a very positive view of working with allies, whether Christian or not. Perhaps the biggest surprise was that people in the 'sex industry' were recognised as being on a spectrum, and some are willing to provide information and evidence with regard to trafficked women and girls.
Music for worship came from Ben Cantelon and Graham Kendrick. They represent the latest and the established in the area of worship music. Cantelon seemed more at ease with the format (gig venue, high volume) than Kendrick, but the older guy can still deliver.
Tony Campolo never pulls his punches, and he spoke very passionately about justice, and also how attitudes in society towards making women 'commodities' can help to create a climate where there is demand. He gave an interesting example of common ground with a passionate feminist on this issue, with whom he had plenty of other differences.
What's perhaps the most disturbing is that this may well be an issue on all of our doorsteps.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v6RUVuiVv1_e44VXknm-qxcfI7xvy_dwfk-yXOhnGFIJLJLsr7R3Hkd-cb91ZDuEThleMBO2rVcHYOEDa-IwtyijZYyfwSTrnR9Q1mU7dLOfwl80qJQ2pOEeAsW51T1C14GOWszIuKWnbYKvrp6PWF=s0-d)
Hope for Justice campaigns in a number of ways - awareness-raising, legal issues, rescue and support, campaigning and, of course, fundraising. The Stand 2010 was an event with video, drama, music, prayer and a hard-hitting talk from Tony Campolo.
It was very refreshing to go to something which was contemporary and had a lot of energy and passion, but wasn't about the people gathered. There was no sense that this was about having a religious experience, or that the audience/congregation were there to be receivers or consumers of stuff from the front. This was about a problem in society and the world which needs urgent action, and a key part of being faithful Christians was about working for justice for captives. There was also no sense that this was evangelism 'in disguise'. The motivation wasn't that people rescued might be converts, but that it's the right thing to be working for anyway. There was also a very positive view of working with allies, whether Christian or not. Perhaps the biggest surprise was that people in the 'sex industry' were recognised as being on a spectrum, and some are willing to provide information and evidence with regard to trafficked women and girls.
Music for worship came from Ben Cantelon and Graham Kendrick. They represent the latest and the established in the area of worship music. Cantelon seemed more at ease with the format (gig venue, high volume) than Kendrick, but the older guy can still deliver.
Tony Campolo never pulls his punches, and he spoke very passionately about justice, and also how attitudes in society towards making women 'commodities' can help to create a climate where there is demand. He gave an interesting example of common ground with a passionate feminist on this issue, with whom he had plenty of other differences.
What's perhaps the most disturbing is that this may well be an issue on all of our doorsteps.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Christian Vote
I was interested to see the BBC web page on the effect Christians can have on an election outcome. The power of the religious right in the USA is well documented, but politicians are generally a bit more shy about their faith over here. The New Labour "we don't do God" story is well known, as was Tony Blair's Christian affiliation, but it's an interesting question as to whether the Christian community has any significant effect.
Apparently Christians are more likely to vote than the population in general. It's believed around 80% of practising Christian vote; however they are only a minority of the overall population. It would be interesting to know what the equivalent statistics for other faith communities and also for atheists would be. I suspect that anyone with a commitment to a world-view, rather than being generally 'agnostic' or 'lapsed' has a greater motivation to vote. The exceptions might be those who see extremism as the only way out, or in a very different way, those whose faith means that they are suspicious of engaging with anything 'wordly' like politics.
There are some declarations around to rally Christian interest. Westminster 2010 bills itself a "declaration of Christian conscience". I have sympathy with some of the statements made, such as the stated concern about the poor, the vulnerable and victims of human trafficking. However, it seems to be an alliance of people with a variety of concerns, which also includes some quite socially conservative (with a small 'c') attitudes on family etc. There is a tacit assumption that if you're properly Christian, then you will sign up to it all. I haven't
More open-ended in its aims is the Faithworks declaration, which simply seeks to uphold the positive contribution of Christians and Christian agencies to society in general. Whilst I think that's largely (but not exclusively or uniquely) true, I do wonder why it needs a Declaration? If Christian voluntary activity is good news for local communities, shouldn't that speak for itself? Or maybe we need to be more canny with the media, rather than sign declarations?
Perhaps more generally helpful is the fact that Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI) have been assisting churches to get together and organise General Election hustings meetings. Some have happened already, but you can find out if there is one in your area here. These offer an opportunity to question candidates and meet them. In my experience, the question raised in these meetings can be be very different from the Paxman interviews on TV. Issues of overseas aid, millennium development goals and more haven't had a lot of press recently.
CTBI also have something you can sign up to - the Sanctuary Pledge. Supported by major faith groups and denominations, it asks candidates to be committed to using positive language and attitudes towards those seeking asylum or sanctuary in the UK. The website has a facility to email candidates, and the commitments don't require you or the candidates to hold any religious faith.
Responses (or lack of them) could be revealing.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tygrSC_D_qcHJG1Iflbwu4E-wtn9CVZoyhHmEeaqqnCmsNfq7mi2aZxXuOff3osl3VxJfzOXX85zyAiI2_hS0zzlkcas9ic8NNmqueOOuWRkW6df3juTa_ErM63xmqqlRaFHlZ0w4iuY2O9gtZkE3Y=s0-d)
Apparently Christians are more likely to vote than the population in general. It's believed around 80% of practising Christian vote; however they are only a minority of the overall population. It would be interesting to know what the equivalent statistics for other faith communities and also for atheists would be. I suspect that anyone with a commitment to a world-view, rather than being generally 'agnostic' or 'lapsed' has a greater motivation to vote. The exceptions might be those who see extremism as the only way out, or in a very different way, those whose faith means that they are suspicious of engaging with anything 'wordly' like politics.
There are some declarations around to rally Christian interest. Westminster 2010 bills itself a "declaration of Christian conscience". I have sympathy with some of the statements made, such as the stated concern about the poor, the vulnerable and victims of human trafficking. However, it seems to be an alliance of people with a variety of concerns, which also includes some quite socially conservative (with a small 'c') attitudes on family etc. There is a tacit assumption that if you're properly Christian, then you will sign up to it all. I haven't
More open-ended in its aims is the Faithworks declaration, which simply seeks to uphold the positive contribution of Christians and Christian agencies to society in general. Whilst I think that's largely (but not exclusively or uniquely) true, I do wonder why it needs a Declaration? If Christian voluntary activity is good news for local communities, shouldn't that speak for itself? Or maybe we need to be more canny with the media, rather than sign declarations?
Perhaps more generally helpful is the fact that Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI) have been assisting churches to get together and organise General Election hustings meetings. Some have happened already, but you can find out if there is one in your area here. These offer an opportunity to question candidates and meet them. In my experience, the question raised in these meetings can be be very different from the Paxman interviews on TV. Issues of overseas aid, millennium development goals and more haven't had a lot of press recently.
CTBI also have something you can sign up to - the Sanctuary Pledge. Supported by major faith groups and denominations, it asks candidates to be committed to using positive language and attitudes towards those seeking asylum or sanctuary in the UK. The website has a facility to email candidates, and the commitments don't require you or the candidates to hold any religious faith.
Responses (or lack of them) could be revealing.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Election Reflection
The campaign seems to be warming up, courtesy of a somewhat unexpected result from the leaders' debate: Nick Clegg is now recognisable. I always thought he had everything to gain, as polls often indicate the leader of the third party is much less recognisable. However, I would have thought even his closest allies and biggest fans didn't expect quite such acclaim, or a new catchphrase: "I agree with Nick". At least it's freshened things up a bit.
The poster campaigns haven't exactly been great. First we had David Cameron's face, then the "I haven't voted Tory before..." set, both of which are brilliantly spoofed at www.mydavidcameron.com. The one with George Osborne reading Economics for Dummies is my personal favourite. Then came Gordon Brown smiling, along with various failings attributed to him. The one laugh in the part of the debate I saw was generated by Brown thanking Cameron for making sure it was a photo where he smiled. Second unlikely headline "Brown gets the only laugh".
The problem with the debate and the posters is that they go against something which is fundamental to UK general elections - we don't directly elect a prime minister. Every constituency elects someone to represent them in Parliament. Most candidates belong to political parties, although they don't have to, and even many current MPs have support as a result of them being good constituency representatives, rather than the party badge they wear. So do you vote for the local person, the party or for Nick/David/Gordon (that's the order they stood on the TV debate)?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uDbuALOe8R4OvbcXbu76uXUN6fCsAsLxsozqaW-Nujnw-7u2OhWJKlb_SAYq93abXvuDb7SXDrnaKHWbgKSegKi15FeF7Insp32AYsPb5jYPrOFoPOgcTm1bJx2Ljf2eKj_SRfcnElbeLPipawEsr5=s0-d)
The poster campaigns haven't exactly been great. First we had David Cameron's face, then the "I haven't voted Tory before..." set, both of which are brilliantly spoofed at www.mydavidcameron.com. The one with George Osborne reading Economics for Dummies is my personal favourite. Then came Gordon Brown smiling, along with various failings attributed to him. The one laugh in the part of the debate I saw was generated by Brown thanking Cameron for making sure it was a photo where he smiled. Second unlikely headline "Brown gets the only laugh".
The problem with the debate and the posters is that they go against something which is fundamental to UK general elections - we don't directly elect a prime minister. Every constituency elects someone to represent them in Parliament. Most candidates belong to political parties, although they don't have to, and even many current MPs have support as a result of them being good constituency representatives, rather than the party badge they wear. So do you vote for the local person, the party or for Nick/David/Gordon (that's the order they stood on the TV debate)?
The latest talk is of a 'hung' parliament being the likely outcome. Usually seen in a very negative light in Britain (partly because 1974 and 1929 weren't great years for British government) it is now being talked about more positively. I seem to remember that the old SDP-Liberal Alliance preferred the term 'balanced Parliament' at one time, but it never caught on. Although here it has been seen as potentially a source of instability, it needn't be so - other European countries have navigated it successfully in the past. UK governments have increasingly taken for granted that they can get legislation through, and there is a general sense that the House of Commons has become less important for scrutiny and debate. If a minority government were elected, or some form of coalition were formed, maybe the actual elected representatives would have to be taken more seriously. I can't help thinking that a more diverse Commons could only be good for democracy at this point in Britain.
And if you'd like to hear a message from Nick, Dave and Gordon to Christians, click here for a video made for Christians in Politics, and see if it helps you make your mind up. (Other parties are standing at the General Election, of course)
And if you'd like to hear a message from Nick, Dave and Gordon to Christians, click here for a video made for Christians in Politics, and see if it helps you make your mind up. (Other parties are standing at the General Election, of course)
Monday, April 05, 2010
Start The Week
There's something about people who can get up early in the morning. Whenever I have referred to my difficulty with mornings, at best I get pity, at worst scorn. Why is it morally superior to be able to get up in a morning, compared to being able to be active well past midnight? [not that I usually am, because I have to try and get up!] And it doesn't work to try and adjust your 'time zone'. When training for the ministry, I did a placement with a vicar who did morning prayer every day at 7am, so people commuting to work could join him. I got to bed between 10 & 1030 most nights, but still felt exhausted, whereas a midnight bedtime/8am get up would have been fine.
It was hugely reassuring to see a programme about all this a few months ago. Apparently we all have an internal clock that runs at about 24 hrs a day. However, some people run a little quicker than 24 hrs per biological 'day', and others slower. Hence some people are better at night, and others in the morning. Vindication at last.
So it has been good to start slowly today. Normal Sundays are challenging, having to be ready, dressed, prepared and compos mentis for an 8am service, but a 6-30am threw the system completely. This morning I woke up slowly, listening to the Today programme and then a fascinating edition of Start the Week. The guest list was brilliant: Philip Pullman, Abp. Rowan Williams, Professor Mona Siddiqui and David Baddiel. Apart from the comments on the Catholic Church (much quoted out of context) it was an intriguing conversation about belief, truth, values, institutions and communities. A surprisingly good-spirited encounter between Rowan Williams and Philip Pullman, who appear to have a genuine mutual respect.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sTQ1Vzg-ZkMUFUXVAyenlBu8KIf1P9Q9U5-hyuuLPZhjMWzigt2A-rR3PfzLSmllNMpebfpLRHlknLmBrZQQg5lh00yP_QKAMNd5SZfXQvyZJH4MrdiyBkbejMSVS09FVWOegFT67MCBBfPDjrPo1i=s0-d)
It was hugely reassuring to see a programme about all this a few months ago. Apparently we all have an internal clock that runs at about 24 hrs a day. However, some people run a little quicker than 24 hrs per biological 'day', and others slower. Hence some people are better at night, and others in the morning. Vindication at last.
So it has been good to start slowly today. Normal Sundays are challenging, having to be ready, dressed, prepared and compos mentis for an 8am service, but a 6-30am threw the system completely. This morning I woke up slowly, listening to the Today programme and then a fascinating edition of Start the Week. The guest list was brilliant: Philip Pullman, Abp. Rowan Williams, Professor Mona Siddiqui and David Baddiel. Apart from the comments on the Catholic Church (much quoted out of context) it was an intriguing conversation about belief, truth, values, institutions and communities. A surprisingly good-spirited encounter between Rowan Williams and Philip Pullman, who appear to have a genuine mutual respect.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Lent Blog 17: Diocesan Synod
I can tell that title has got you excited already!
Church of England Synods are gathering of elected representatives from clergy and lay people, alog with some representative co-opted members. There are 3 levels: Deanery (local area, little power), Diocesan (whole Diocese), General (national for England).
One item on the Blackburn Diocesan Synod this morning related to Urban Priority Area parishes - i.e. those with the greatest level of economic and social deprivation within cities and towns. The understandable concern was that the Church of England shouldn't withdraw its presence from those areas, as some other denominations have been forced to do.
My question was this: what does the presence of the good old C of E look like? All too often we can think it means the continuance of church services in the same way that we always did them in the same locations where we always held them. The problem is with the term 'withdrawal'. We risk getting into thinking of 'presence ' in a UPA that is more like the mentality of an occupying force than a missionary church.
What if parish ministry in some challenging UPAs was more like guerilla tactics than occupying army (I don't like military analogies either, but stay with me here) What about a parish without a parish church building? What if we just bought time at a multifaith centre (like many University Chaplaincies share prayer space)? What if 'presence' in a UPA parish didn't involve any of the usual ecclesiastical duties for the priest at all - ie no church building and perhaps even no Sunday worship? What if they were free just to get to know people and start meeting, prayer, gathering as and when it seemed appropriate?
As a University Chaplain, I knew that many colleagues had no church 'kit' to support them in their quest to be a presence. They had an office and a mandate to be around. What if we appointed priests in UPA parishes that couldn't afford buildings or parish share to do that? We might be more present in that form than we are where priests are holding services for a few people in a cold church that they can't afford.
It seems to me that the issue isn't about withdrawal vs staying; it's about our understanding of what being present might look like. I suspect the C of E isn't yet bold enough to make the sorts of decision that might effect that kind of culture shift, but we've got to start the thinking now.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sp_8kiwbhRc4tb1kbCIxjEjYQecccNSrRSQCdaOw6QCxZvaTZSq4msLDpI7WyATwqhQwE4t-7cVXdwnurMI5_faEgbxIy_AOC3XeaYUNPhd9_MTHHoVN_ik3BdwjPtGU0WS5L6ZwVNydoZbEr73Kz7=s0-d)
Church of England Synods are gathering of elected representatives from clergy and lay people, alog with some representative co-opted members. There are 3 levels: Deanery (local area, little power), Diocesan (whole Diocese), General (national for England).
One item on the Blackburn Diocesan Synod this morning related to Urban Priority Area parishes - i.e. those with the greatest level of economic and social deprivation within cities and towns. The understandable concern was that the Church of England shouldn't withdraw its presence from those areas, as some other denominations have been forced to do.
My question was this: what does the presence of the good old C of E look like? All too often we can think it means the continuance of church services in the same way that we always did them in the same locations where we always held them. The problem is with the term 'withdrawal'. We risk getting into thinking of 'presence ' in a UPA that is more like the mentality of an occupying force than a missionary church.
What if parish ministry in some challenging UPAs was more like guerilla tactics than occupying army (I don't like military analogies either, but stay with me here) What about a parish without a parish church building? What if we just bought time at a multifaith centre (like many University Chaplaincies share prayer space)? What if 'presence' in a UPA parish didn't involve any of the usual ecclesiastical duties for the priest at all - ie no church building and perhaps even no Sunday worship? What if they were free just to get to know people and start meeting, prayer, gathering as and when it seemed appropriate?
As a University Chaplain, I knew that many colleagues had no church 'kit' to support them in their quest to be a presence. They had an office and a mandate to be around. What if we appointed priests in UPA parishes that couldn't afford buildings or parish share to do that? We might be more present in that form than we are where priests are holding services for a few people in a cold church that they can't afford.
It seems to me that the issue isn't about withdrawal vs staying; it's about our understanding of what being present might look like. I suspect the C of E isn't yet bold enough to make the sorts of decision that might effect that kind of culture shift, but we've got to start the thinking now.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Lent Blog 7: An encounter with Calvin
Image via WikipediaOne theme that struck me was that although Calvin and his allies were keen to put the Bible in people's hands - hence the Geneva Bible - the Bible came with comprehensive notes as to how it should be read. In other words, he replaced one form of church authority with another. In some Christian circles today, people describe their views/policies/structures/ethics as 'Biblical' to contrast them with 'human' views. Some (but not all) who come from this Calvinist/Reformed tradition can portray themselves as the carriers of the unpolluted message and be very suspicious of those who do not sign up to the same methodology.
In fact, of course, any 'Biblical' view is not simply an unblemished and unfiltered reading of Scripture with no presuppositions; it is affected by a whole set of theological assumptions. Maybe we all need to be a bit more humble and a bit more modest about our grasp on truth. It's not that I don't believe it; it's just rather hard to filter out from our own prejudices and preferences.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tZTFue_W6SM01QMUf9mHIb6xyE8vXfUNQrqjzHXQkNOC1OYhEwkM00gcBhO6gx4WlyJQTItv8LuoZ6qlwSvxkKPTakX6-hwXhBK7rZaGili4EDmlWfqRZtYdpRGlje3DXXXLUpHIVj7FzM6tHZgVs=s0-d)
Monday, February 22, 2010
Lent Blog 5: Unexpected Bible Readers
The 2011 Trust website has announced a new project as part of its celebrations of 400 years of the Authorised Version of the Bible (or King James Version as it is often known). The idea is to broaden the appreciation of the AV from those with Christian faith to those who appreciate its literary style, and the huge influence it has had on forming the English language.
No surprises with some of the line-up: Andrew Motion, Patricia Routledge, even John Bercow. The eye-catching name in the list is Richard Dawkins. He chooses a passage from Song of Songs. It's just interesting that he was prepared to be associated with the project at all.
Take a look on the 2011 Trust website.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sxO-bjp3K9qqo3ifn4zTh4M8dkzNKB3siGBrhQZrp9SIUcZjtqbWk3v58S_XXXoFZPASUdZ1bfAi7tGZCYkKl70Xm3gT3Q4SmpTVZ8IE5Cb9on9aEzipN1S4zpAndOJJQTWasGqIh5fnN-KWMEUD0=s0-d)
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Lent Blog 3: when is Lent?
Was amused by the reaction of some friends about what days are in Lent. If you can work through the entry in the online Catholic Encyclopaedia, you'll see the exact timing and observance of Lent has changed over the centuries. However, the prevailing view in the Western Church seems to be that Lent runs from Ash Wednesday to Easter Eve (or some hold Maundy Thursday), omitting the Sundays. These are seen as days when the fasting of Lent could be relaxed a little (not a full reprieve, sorry!)
A further slight reprieve was traditionally allowed on the 4th Sunday of Lent or Laetere Sunday (Mothering Sunday to most people) when some concessions to celebration were traditionally allowed. A similar reprieve was traditional on the 3rd Sunday of Advent. You can even wear rose-coloured vestments, but I'll pass on that.
If you go by the Ash Wed - Easter Eve chronology and miss out the Sundays, that's 40 days. Easy innit?![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u8Cf9rRiwaUDBSFvQ1EzzcsQr9JpRLhOWpWhzd_7VHeYode6aP1yvWO9wKlJzyIHeQosLWKIuwnATlVS7EhBZxccP6diX4Cgm-b5uksVq4Ke1VrVxepmnq9VYwTh76dMom0kVX7FxGHu1LSxeJZI0=s0-d)
A further slight reprieve was traditionally allowed on the 4th Sunday of Lent or Laetere Sunday (Mothering Sunday to most people) when some concessions to celebration were traditionally allowed. A similar reprieve was traditional on the 3rd Sunday of Advent. You can even wear rose-coloured vestments, but I'll pass on that.
If you go by the Ash Wed - Easter Eve chronology and miss out the Sundays, that's 40 days. Easy innit?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
A Bit of Ecumenical Cooperation
The Christmas Carol Service at Central Methodist Church, Morecambe's has been relocated to Morecambe Parish Church, due to electrical problems in their building. We have happily agreed to help our friends to hold their service by making our building available to them tomorrow.
The service will be a traditional service of carols and readings, and takes place tomorrow at 3pm at Holy Trinity, Poulton-le-Sands. Everyone is welcome!
View Larger Map![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_txX2_8oDlOiJmuR1Axx3x-ieNrA5lY_gpY3koIL3bTJDILuuT28v1oDs44FhNGD-90ttwDJh7odMBv3qEYw4ZOioXFSb3Di4nPujZXRiok0Sfj-GsMRyirUf6GpU2gDrMBmhG_VyVzAnpf9hDGaYU9=s0-d)
The service will be a traditional service of carols and readings, and takes place tomorrow at 3pm at Holy Trinity, Poulton-le-Sands. Everyone is welcome!
View Larger Map
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
400 years of the Authorized Version
On May 2, 2011 it will be 400 years since the Authorized Version (often referred to as the King James Version) of the Bible was first published. To mark this, you can even get a widget to add to blogs and websites to give you a countdown to the anniversary. An odd juxtaposition of high tech and heritage.
The AV wasn't the first translation of the Bible into the common tongue of people living in England (calling it English might be a bit misleading!) Parts of the Bible had been translated into vernacular going back to the time of the Venerable Bede, and the first full translation into English was completed by Wyclif in the 14th century. The first printed Bible in English was the Coverdale Bible of 1535, which in turn drew on Tyndale's earlier translation work. In fact Tyndale's Bible is regarded as the main foundation for what became known as the AV.
What distinguishes the AV is that it not only had official sanction (earlier versions had also received that), it was the widespread acceptance as the definitive translation of its era. Along with the Book of Common Prayer and the plays of Shakespeare, it shaped the English language, and gave us many phrases that continue to be used to this day. It also shaped the style and form of English used in subsequent translations, such as the Revised Standard Version and New International Version.
More recent translations have access to older manuscripts and greater scope of scholarship, and are certainly more understandable for the modern-day reader in English. However, even if you regard it as a piece of English literature and no more, it has to be acknowledged that it is a tremendous piece of work.
Read more about the celebrations here http://www.2011trust.org/
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s_jCaqW0hSBqwiJ3VJhNB6e4td1BKiQ0QIe2sPAhGsBqowYam3QpSwj-ivgxzh2EaO7lkI4izjAd0C1y3O9dwuqRn0GbZ-sjE27T9k9B2h-oF7ZFFIBLhg2hL8EGiV0i4Iqc3VDtg81qlx1EZ0ZUo=s0-d)
The AV wasn't the first translation of the Bible into the common tongue of people living in England (calling it English might be a bit misleading!) Parts of the Bible had been translated into vernacular going back to the time of the Venerable Bede, and the first full translation into English was completed by Wyclif in the 14th century. The first printed Bible in English was the Coverdale Bible of 1535, which in turn drew on Tyndale's earlier translation work. In fact Tyndale's Bible is regarded as the main foundation for what became known as the AV.
What distinguishes the AV is that it not only had official sanction (earlier versions had also received that), it was the widespread acceptance as the definitive translation of its era. Along with the Book of Common Prayer and the plays of Shakespeare, it shaped the English language, and gave us many phrases that continue to be used to this day. It also shaped the style and form of English used in subsequent translations, such as the Revised Standard Version and New International Version.
More recent translations have access to older manuscripts and greater scope of scholarship, and are certainly more understandable for the modern-day reader in English. However, even if you regard it as a piece of English literature and no more, it has to be acknowledged that it is a tremendous piece of work.
Read more about the celebrations here http://www.2011trust.org/
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Authority of the Bible: official views
Every now and then I do a post on this subject, as it's one that comes up regularly at University and also affects many contemporary debates, such as that going on in the Episcopal church of the USA at the moment at their General Convention.
I thought it might be interesting to look up the 'official' view of a number of churches to see what they actually said.
Church of England
Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Methodist
following from a Methodist catechism
The Bible is the record of God's self revelation, supremely in Jesus Christ , and is a means through which he still reveals himself, by the Holy Spirit.
Methodist Church of Great Britain website
Baptist Union
taken from the "What is a Baptist?" area.
The Bible is described as the 'Word of God' because Baptists believe that its writers were inspired by God's Spirit. As such, it has authority to guide both what we believe and how we live our lives.
and
That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.
taken from Baptist Union Website
Evangelical Alliance
Interesting this one, as this is the umbrella organisation for Churches, missionary societies, etc which hold the Bible as their supreme authority. They have a basis of faith, which constituent organisations sign up to. Item 3 is:
The divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God—fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.
I found it interesting that none of the above used the controversial words 'infallible' or 'inerrant' in their definitions. Increasingly people from the conservative wing of Christianity are talking about 'orthodox' and 'mainstream' using terms like these, when in fact they haven't been the normative Christian standpoint at all; in fact they are a relatively recent doctrinal development in the way they are understood in contemporary theology.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uoV4_pkr2FceHTD2BfNpKNve6-5WPv9NEZseXR5n0Hh0AgO8tIe2liUIDTHXhNC9PWmPRaee_we8j16ZM_yImwfFJCUsdHJBYPQSQW6mMNXO4gdoxzbkDUvEC5BC--bwXJGjEy7w9z3l0iHptU0K7Y=s0-d)
I thought it might be interesting to look up the 'official' view of a number of churches to see what they actually said.
Church of England
Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Methodist
following from a Methodist catechism
The Bible is the record of God's self revelation, supremely in Jesus Christ , and is a means through which he still reveals himself, by the Holy Spirit.
Methodist Church of Great Britain website
Baptist Union
taken from the "What is a Baptist?" area.
The Bible is described as the 'Word of God' because Baptists believe that its writers were inspired by God's Spirit. As such, it has authority to guide both what we believe and how we live our lives.
and
That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.
taken from Baptist Union Website
Evangelical Alliance
Interesting this one, as this is the umbrella organisation for Churches, missionary societies, etc which hold the Bible as their supreme authority. They have a basis of faith, which constituent organisations sign up to. Item 3 is:
The divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God—fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.
I found it interesting that none of the above used the controversial words 'infallible' or 'inerrant' in their definitions. Increasingly people from the conservative wing of Christianity are talking about 'orthodox' and 'mainstream' using terms like these, when in fact they haven't been the normative Christian standpoint at all; in fact they are a relatively recent doctrinal development in the way they are understood in contemporary theology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)