The secret of beauty is not in what is seen it is in what is not seen, you can not replicate great master pieces, your can not capture love, because it is not something wholly present but something transcendent. Likewise, beauty is not passing away (saeculum) but rather eternal.
The myth of this world is that beauty is about what is seen, understood, and temporary. But Christians know this to be false for scripture assures us that what is seen is temporary but what is unseen is eternal. We are taught to see the world holistically; materially, emotionally, and spiritually – to look beyond images to the heart and soul of a person.
The great preacher, Charles Spurgeon once said ‘an ounce of heart knowledge was worth all the head knowledge in the world’ and he was right but there is a deeper call for people to hear the Spirit in their depths. For beauty (and the beauty of God) is not something formed just between the heart of a subject and an object itself but between the testimony of the Spirit to one’s soul.
I imagine some readers might think that I’ve finally lost touch with reality, but search yourselves – is not the world in the bosom of God, are there not moments of perfect contentment when you feel totally at one in communion with God. It is these moments that the world seems most completely beautiful, when you glimpse with your soul something of heaven.
You cannot describe such moments, you cannot capture them physically, nor are they purely emotional experiences (though they may be emotional), but they are something more, they are spiritual. It is perhaps the feeling one gets when one finds oneself in step with God – a note to self on beauty seek communion, look beyond the images, feel more than emotion, listen to the Spirit.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
some quick thoughts on models of atonement
1. sacrificial (salvation is bought by blood) – the nature of God is presented here as one who demands blood sacrifice, but the OT states that God demands obedience rather than sacrifice.
2. judicial (salvation through punishment on our behalf) - often presented as a way of reconciling justice and holiness with the mercy and love of God, but unpopular in post-Christendom context as Christianity is moving away rather than towards the seat of power and judgement (but perhaps this can be reconciled).
3. merit (salvation Christ won favour of God) – to what extent does Christ have to win the favour of God for our salvation (marcion theology).
- vulnerable to questions concerning the definition of sin (wrong done to fellow people but ultimately to God) criticism of deontic models which make God seem petty.
4. exemplary (set an example for us) – fails to deal with sin as an ontological reality.
5. participatory – through participation in Christ’s death and resurrection we become alive to God in Christ Jesus. Our person is changed as we put off the old person and become a new person (the old person is morally culpable). I fear this either lends itself to a dualistic (Gnostic) understanding of human nature, or to a bizarre metaphysical proposal.
6. a hybrid of the participatory model that recognises salvation deals with the ontological and relational problem whilst our sin is dealt with as a deontological problem through Jesus suffering in our place.
- in this theory of atonement biblical language of ransom, suffering, and sacrifice remain valid and are supported by a true and Trinitarian understanding of God’s nature, whilst the emphasis remains upon the relational within the participatory model. And of course none of this denies the significance of Christ’s death as a witness and example of resistance against the domination system.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Religion and Politics- what to do?
Please note- I struggled to write this because it really cuts to the heart of who I am as a Christian, who I want to be, how I want to live, and how I want others to learn to live as well, it also leaves me wondering whether there is a viable Christian political agenda- on the right or the left.
I think the religion and politics issues are really dangerous- as an evangelical it often hurts me to be characterised as a greedy, wasteful, arrogant, persecuting bigot. I think we as a church have a duty to respond to issues of poverty, global warming (and other green issues), and militarism (the myth of redemptive violence). I’m not sure how we can set these issues apart from our views on homosexuality, euthanasia (or assisted dying), and Christian education and formation.
Our secular governments trust in economic policies that protect our individual economies nurturing stable growth these policies set other nations (some of the worlds poorest) at a disadvantage economically. As Christians, we may want to criticise these policies but if we legislate against the policies the secular American wheat farmer goes out of business someone else pays the cost of our political agenda- the result is bitterness towards the Christian theocratic agenda and towards Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.
I was speaking to a Canadian who works for the Commonwealth, yesterday, focussing on world health issues (most notably HIV AIDS). We discussed the Christian role in combating the aids pandemic across Africa; he noted that in some countries the church is providing 50% of the overall health care. It is an amazing testimony to Jesus Christ who healed lepers, reconciled community and outcast, and preached an alternative lifestyle that the Church continues to be Christ’s hands and feet and voice in the contemporary world. However, you can’t legislate for community reconciliation or Christian moral values these things come about as we accept the discipline of the Father, follow in the footsteps of Jesus and receive renewal through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Consider another situation ‘global warming’ at the moment, our nations are placing blind faith in further scientific and technological developments save us from an environmental catastrophe. We might want to say as the People of God actually living God’s way and being good stewards of the earth will save us from global melt down. But, it depends where you put your trust and in whom you put your trust for many the cost of following Christ with our natural resources is far too high- so how do we work this out?
We can either trust in our democratic right by legislate against homosexuality, bad stewardship (or what we perceive is bad stewardship) of the environment, assisted dying, and health care. Alternatively, we can pursue the Christian theocratic agenda through the Church, which acknowledges Christ as its head. In this situation, we provide an example to the world of good (faithful) sexual ethics good stewardship, good palliative care (and good dying), good (holistic) health care.
I know it is a difficult choice, particularly when it means allowing for suffering (perhaps that’s what it felt like for God when he allowed us to go our own way), but it is surely the better way for a people who believe that there is both judgement and life after death.
What do you think? Is there a way to square the circle that I haven't seen? What does it mean to live 'in' but not 'of' the world?
I think the religion and politics issues are really dangerous- as an evangelical it often hurts me to be characterised as a greedy, wasteful, arrogant, persecuting bigot. I think we as a church have a duty to respond to issues of poverty, global warming (and other green issues), and militarism (the myth of redemptive violence). I’m not sure how we can set these issues apart from our views on homosexuality, euthanasia (or assisted dying), and Christian education and formation.
Our secular governments trust in economic policies that protect our individual economies nurturing stable growth these policies set other nations (some of the worlds poorest) at a disadvantage economically. As Christians, we may want to criticise these policies but if we legislate against the policies the secular American wheat farmer goes out of business someone else pays the cost of our political agenda- the result is bitterness towards the Christian theocratic agenda and towards Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.
I was speaking to a Canadian who works for the Commonwealth, yesterday, focussing on world health issues (most notably HIV AIDS). We discussed the Christian role in combating the aids pandemic across Africa; he noted that in some countries the church is providing 50% of the overall health care. It is an amazing testimony to Jesus Christ who healed lepers, reconciled community and outcast, and preached an alternative lifestyle that the Church continues to be Christ’s hands and feet and voice in the contemporary world. However, you can’t legislate for community reconciliation or Christian moral values these things come about as we accept the discipline of the Father, follow in the footsteps of Jesus and receive renewal through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Consider another situation ‘global warming’ at the moment, our nations are placing blind faith in further scientific and technological developments save us from an environmental catastrophe. We might want to say as the People of God actually living God’s way and being good stewards of the earth will save us from global melt down. But, it depends where you put your trust and in whom you put your trust for many the cost of following Christ with our natural resources is far too high- so how do we work this out?
We can either trust in our democratic right by legislate against homosexuality, bad stewardship (or what we perceive is bad stewardship) of the environment, assisted dying, and health care. Alternatively, we can pursue the Christian theocratic agenda through the Church, which acknowledges Christ as its head. In this situation, we provide an example to the world of good (faithful) sexual ethics good stewardship, good palliative care (and good dying), good (holistic) health care.
I know it is a difficult choice, particularly when it means allowing for suffering (perhaps that’s what it felt like for God when he allowed us to go our own way), but it is surely the better way for a people who believe that there is both judgement and life after death.
What do you think? Is there a way to square the circle that I haven't seen? What does it mean to live 'in' but not 'of' the world?
Saturday, October 28, 2006
On Giving One’s Life
A homily for Remembrance Sunday
In contemporary society, the notion of sacrifice is unpopular to have a cause to live and die for brings to mind fundamentalists, extremists, and terrorists. Our understanding of sacrifice is tainted by these dangerous individuals who seem to have such reckless disregard for life, even their own lives.
So instead of offering up our lives, we seek to preserve them, pickling ourselves with beauty products, visiting the altar-less temples of health spas, and when that fails to save us many undergo the surgeon’s knife. In this world of immortal youth, death is chased from view; confined to high walled cemeteries where the bereaved, those for whom death is no longer an anathema, go to remember. Still for the world outside those places of remembrance, death is the elephant in the room, the final taboo.
Then we have a day like today, a moment in which the rules are suspended; where the sacrifice and death are bought out from behind high walls and paraded through the streets. It is today that we remember the courage of those who gave their lives for our future, and paid the ultimate price for our freedom. And for some of us we look back on a time we cannot remember, a time when people believed in a cause, in black and white, in right and wrong.
Still for us outside these moments of remembrance, causes, and the sacrifices made on behalf of them, are dangerous shadowy rumours whispered in private meetings at the dead of night. Instead, we safe people seek comfort and convenience, far be it from us to sacrifice our security for the cause of another, let alone our lives.
However, it is ironic given our distaste of sacrifice that we end up making the greatest sacrifice of all marginalising the foreigner, oppressing the poor, denying the dispossessed their rights. So, today we remember those who sacrificed their lives for us and we receive God’s challenge to us, inviting us to stake our lives on His altar.
In contemporary society, the notion of sacrifice is unpopular to have a cause to live and die for brings to mind fundamentalists, extremists, and terrorists. Our understanding of sacrifice is tainted by these dangerous individuals who seem to have such reckless disregard for life, even their own lives.
So instead of offering up our lives, we seek to preserve them, pickling ourselves with beauty products, visiting the altar-less temples of health spas, and when that fails to save us many undergo the surgeon’s knife. In this world of immortal youth, death is chased from view; confined to high walled cemeteries where the bereaved, those for whom death is no longer an anathema, go to remember. Still for the world outside those places of remembrance, death is the elephant in the room, the final taboo.
Then we have a day like today, a moment in which the rules are suspended; where the sacrifice and death are bought out from behind high walls and paraded through the streets. It is today that we remember the courage of those who gave their lives for our future, and paid the ultimate price for our freedom. And for some of us we look back on a time we cannot remember, a time when people believed in a cause, in black and white, in right and wrong.
Still for us outside these moments of remembrance, causes, and the sacrifices made on behalf of them, are dangerous shadowy rumours whispered in private meetings at the dead of night. Instead, we safe people seek comfort and convenience, far be it from us to sacrifice our security for the cause of another, let alone our lives.
However, it is ironic given our distaste of sacrifice that we end up making the greatest sacrifice of all marginalising the foreigner, oppressing the poor, denying the dispossessed their rights. So, today we remember those who sacrificed their lives for us and we receive God’s challenge to us, inviting us to stake our lives on His altar.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
To the United Reformed Church
I think we are at a stage nationally where we will have to close church buildings, move congregations and focus resources. I know to some that sounds callous but we are getting to the point where our current model of ministry won’t work- we simply don’t have the money or ministers and to carry on as we are will be impossible within the next ten years. It is no good to have a mentality of maintenance for decline; it is time we took the bull by the horns cut the ministers, projects, or church buildings that are a dead weight around our necks and resourced innovative new initiatives, church plants, and flagship congregations.
It is time we sought visionary leaders rather than the church management- our ministers are not called to serve churches they are called to serve God and ordination recognises this call. It is this fact that makes ministry a vocation rather than a job! It is time we learnt to release and support ministers for mission rather than insisting they do ministry- ‘the way it has always been done’. We should recognise that missiology drives ecclesiology not the other way around i.e. the church is the motor for mission not the destination of mission.
I am a believer in ecumenism, but not ecumenical partnership driven by falling numbers and closing congregations. It has to be a mission orientated ecumenism; it is my belief that this is far more about organic, grass roots projects than organisational union. The most successful ecumenical initiatives have not been formed institutionally, but they have developed through cooperation for mission. In every case, they involve people giving up the desire to insist people come to our church and start thinking about our church (Catholics, Protestants, and Pentecostals) going to them.
The west, in the twenty-first century, has to be one of the most challenging times in which to be in Christian ministry. I know it has been said before that the church is in decline and young man there is no guarantee that you will be in ministry in twenty years time etc. etc. It is my belief that this is now true unless ministers are released to mission led ministry and unless ministers have the ability to meet the demands of mission led ministry then they may not be in ministry in twenty years time. I know there will be those who accuse me of negativity, of despair, of pedalling self-fulfilling prophecies but believe me that is not my intention. I am just convinced that the church will live on and the fact that God is still calling people in the ministry of the URC is proof that the church will live on but whether it will be called the United Reformed Church or have the same structures of the URC is in doubt.
I want to finish this with a final plea to ministers and to churches please be mission minded, serve without expecting reward, love those who seem unlovely, and seek the Kingdom above all.
It is time we sought visionary leaders rather than the church management- our ministers are not called to serve churches they are called to serve God and ordination recognises this call. It is this fact that makes ministry a vocation rather than a job! It is time we learnt to release and support ministers for mission rather than insisting they do ministry- ‘the way it has always been done’. We should recognise that missiology drives ecclesiology not the other way around i.e. the church is the motor for mission not the destination of mission.
I am a believer in ecumenism, but not ecumenical partnership driven by falling numbers and closing congregations. It has to be a mission orientated ecumenism; it is my belief that this is far more about organic, grass roots projects than organisational union. The most successful ecumenical initiatives have not been formed institutionally, but they have developed through cooperation for mission. In every case, they involve people giving up the desire to insist people come to our church and start thinking about our church (Catholics, Protestants, and Pentecostals) going to them.
The west, in the twenty-first century, has to be one of the most challenging times in which to be in Christian ministry. I know it has been said before that the church is in decline and young man there is no guarantee that you will be in ministry in twenty years time etc. etc. It is my belief that this is now true unless ministers are released to mission led ministry and unless ministers have the ability to meet the demands of mission led ministry then they may not be in ministry in twenty years time. I know there will be those who accuse me of negativity, of despair, of pedalling self-fulfilling prophecies but believe me that is not my intention. I am just convinced that the church will live on and the fact that God is still calling people in the ministry of the URC is proof that the church will live on but whether it will be called the United Reformed Church or have the same structures of the URC is in doubt.
I want to finish this with a final plea to ministers and to churches please be mission minded, serve without expecting reward, love those who seem unlovely, and seek the Kingdom above all.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
A Christian's Job
I was recently asked what my role as Christian was and here is my reply-
I think the best place to start is to explain a bit about myself and my perspectives on life. I am an evangelical Christian but I live in the United Kingdom and like most British people I am bemused by much that passes for evangelical American Christianity.
1. because it presumes that the proper subject of Christian ethics is America rather than the Church.
2. because it strikes me that a truly evangelical Christian faith has more to say about the poor and the oppressed than human sexuality.
I suspect that much of the conservative wing of the church is captive to a politically partisan and non-Christian ideology. I could be described as 'postmodern' in some circles as I do not place much stock in universal foundations for knowledge- for example during the Tsunami villages who saw the sea retract in Indonesia fled to the mountains because ancient stories suggested this was a sign of impending disaster- in many contexts we would laugh at their superstitions but how true do we know those myths to be now.
In terms of ethical decisions I am not convinced that what is possible and permissable (scientifically or democratically) is necessarily what is best theologically. However, I do not believe that forcing others to live by theological convictions that they do not share with Christians is helpful or justifiable.
So what do I think the way ahead must be- well it involves freedom of religious conviction (not pluralism nor deism or atheistic civil religion, rather plurality). In the education system this may either involve more independent religious schools (Muslim, Hindu, Christian etc.) or freedom of religion within institutional schools.
I think that banning expressions of worship for fear that it offends others represents an infringement upon civil liberties. I am not saying that such people should be forced to pray or join in but nor do I think people should be stopped from expressing their faith. I am convinced that not having faith in the spiritual or in a personal creator God is not a default or neutral position and the continuing growth of Christianity worldwide seems to testify to this fact.
In a sense I am saying that it is not my job to submit my faith to your measurement of truthfulness. Instead, it is my job to live by my faith in such a way that people commend me for integrity of character and sincerity of conviction. My job far from being to justify my own lifestyle choices is to resist justifying them to accept that they are different from others around me and to resist conforming to a monocultural (atheistic or pluralistic) understanding of life.
In this way I hope to commend my faith to others. The Amish community's recent reaction to the Carl Robert's murders is a good example of this faith in action. It is my belief that there exists a most excellent way and I am attempting to walk it.
I think the best place to start is to explain a bit about myself and my perspectives on life. I am an evangelical Christian but I live in the United Kingdom and like most British people I am bemused by much that passes for evangelical American Christianity.
1. because it presumes that the proper subject of Christian ethics is America rather than the Church.
2. because it strikes me that a truly evangelical Christian faith has more to say about the poor and the oppressed than human sexuality.
I suspect that much of the conservative wing of the church is captive to a politically partisan and non-Christian ideology. I could be described as 'postmodern' in some circles as I do not place much stock in universal foundations for knowledge- for example during the Tsunami villages who saw the sea retract in Indonesia fled to the mountains because ancient stories suggested this was a sign of impending disaster- in many contexts we would laugh at their superstitions but how true do we know those myths to be now.
In terms of ethical decisions I am not convinced that what is possible and permissable (scientifically or democratically) is necessarily what is best theologically. However, I do not believe that forcing others to live by theological convictions that they do not share with Christians is helpful or justifiable.
So what do I think the way ahead must be- well it involves freedom of religious conviction (not pluralism nor deism or atheistic civil religion, rather plurality). In the education system this may either involve more independent religious schools (Muslim, Hindu, Christian etc.) or freedom of religion within institutional schools.
I think that banning expressions of worship for fear that it offends others represents an infringement upon civil liberties. I am not saying that such people should be forced to pray or join in but nor do I think people should be stopped from expressing their faith. I am convinced that not having faith in the spiritual or in a personal creator God is not a default or neutral position and the continuing growth of Christianity worldwide seems to testify to this fact.
In a sense I am saying that it is not my job to submit my faith to your measurement of truthfulness. Instead, it is my job to live by my faith in such a way that people commend me for integrity of character and sincerity of conviction. My job far from being to justify my own lifestyle choices is to resist justifying them to accept that they are different from others around me and to resist conforming to a monocultural (atheistic or pluralistic) understanding of life.
In this way I hope to commend my faith to others. The Amish community's recent reaction to the Carl Robert's murders is a good example of this faith in action. It is my belief that there exists a most excellent way and I am attempting to walk it.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
The Emerging Church Manifesto
Well I've always been scared of being considered moderate so heres to saying good bye to the chances of that happening!
It is time to cut the froth, the coffee and candles, turn off the Apple Macs, and grasp the serious theological vision of thinkers such as Lesslie Newbigin and Stanley Hauerwas. We are living in an alien culture and social order, and we have given in to worshipping the false god of technological, capitalist, democratic government. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the lie that to be ‘in the world’ means we must participate fully in a western democratic society, in its technological developments, in its financial structures (and the often dubious benefits of those structures), and in its politics.
In Christendom, we entered into a pact with secular society (a kin to buying horses from Egypt or yoking oneself with the unbeliever) and we are living with that legacy. It was a bit like a suzerainty treaty and the state was our suzerain, meaning the state always had the upper hand (and led us around by the nose). For a long time this compromise worked for the church, we established schools, built hospitals, we were highly thought of in society, our bishops represented us in the House of Lords and the common man was expected to attend ‘worship’. The problem is that after 1500 years, the Local Education Authority no longer feels the need for our input education, the Local Health Authority manages our hospitals, and people don’t want or have to attend church. It is clear now that our social order is governed by principles opposed to those of Jesus Christ.
It is so distressing to see that the church has lost so much influence in society and yet I am glad that the compromises we made are out in the open. I am pleased because we now have the opportunity to build a church that is more faithful to its Lord. However, we may have to start from scratch because the established ‘church’ or ‘churches’ remain fatally compromised both financially, legally, and politically. I also think that this time is going to be far more difficult than it was the last time because we have to compete against the schools and hospitals the secular state annexed and corrupted. However, we were part of the glue that held society together and without the religious sponsorship social order will continue to decline and the government will get increasingly prescriptive.
In contrast to this approach, the Christian community will not be ruled by force but by commitment to participation within a common life together. It is from this closer communion that we will establish hospitals and schools that will compete with secular institutions. In a Christian hospital, you will not be offered an abortion but alternative support and care, not that people have to accept this they are welcome to go elsewhere. In a Christian hospital, you will not be offered the right to assisted euthanasia but better palliative care to enable you to die with dignity (nor will it be necessary to prolong your life using technology when you feel it is your time to go home). In Christian schools, we will not give spiritual development apart from practical disciplines and education, instead we will teach that although science suggests that the world is evolving due to the ‘survival of the fittest’ our faith teaches us to care for the poor and the weak.
In short, we will provide hospitals that minister holistically to whole people rather than distinguishing falsely between the body and the spirit. The emerging church will provide schools that teach children about the material and spiritual world in which we live (the future church will not be deceived by dualistic notions). It will no longer be said that the ‘emperor rules in time and Christ in eternity’ because the Christ’s kingdom will be now and not yet.
One last comment, as I sit back and reflect upon this manifesto for the emerging church it occurs to me that the state will not like the church of the future, we should expect persecution but worse than persecution we should expect to meet our Constantine… we must be clear we have learnt our lesson- the only suzerain we need is our Lord Jesus Christ. So let us renew our covenant with God and never make the same mistake again.
It is time to cut the froth, the coffee and candles, turn off the Apple Macs, and grasp the serious theological vision of thinkers such as Lesslie Newbigin and Stanley Hauerwas. We are living in an alien culture and social order, and we have given in to worshipping the false god of technological, capitalist, democratic government. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the lie that to be ‘in the world’ means we must participate fully in a western democratic society, in its technological developments, in its financial structures (and the often dubious benefits of those structures), and in its politics.
In Christendom, we entered into a pact with secular society (a kin to buying horses from Egypt or yoking oneself with the unbeliever) and we are living with that legacy. It was a bit like a suzerainty treaty and the state was our suzerain, meaning the state always had the upper hand (and led us around by the nose). For a long time this compromise worked for the church, we established schools, built hospitals, we were highly thought of in society, our bishops represented us in the House of Lords and the common man was expected to attend ‘worship’. The problem is that after 1500 years, the Local Education Authority no longer feels the need for our input education, the Local Health Authority manages our hospitals, and people don’t want or have to attend church. It is clear now that our social order is governed by principles opposed to those of Jesus Christ.
It is so distressing to see that the church has lost so much influence in society and yet I am glad that the compromises we made are out in the open. I am pleased because we now have the opportunity to build a church that is more faithful to its Lord. However, we may have to start from scratch because the established ‘church’ or ‘churches’ remain fatally compromised both financially, legally, and politically. I also think that this time is going to be far more difficult than it was the last time because we have to compete against the schools and hospitals the secular state annexed and corrupted. However, we were part of the glue that held society together and without the religious sponsorship social order will continue to decline and the government will get increasingly prescriptive.
In contrast to this approach, the Christian community will not be ruled by force but by commitment to participation within a common life together. It is from this closer communion that we will establish hospitals and schools that will compete with secular institutions. In a Christian hospital, you will not be offered an abortion but alternative support and care, not that people have to accept this they are welcome to go elsewhere. In a Christian hospital, you will not be offered the right to assisted euthanasia but better palliative care to enable you to die with dignity (nor will it be necessary to prolong your life using technology when you feel it is your time to go home). In Christian schools, we will not give spiritual development apart from practical disciplines and education, instead we will teach that although science suggests that the world is evolving due to the ‘survival of the fittest’ our faith teaches us to care for the poor and the weak.
In short, we will provide hospitals that minister holistically to whole people rather than distinguishing falsely between the body and the spirit. The emerging church will provide schools that teach children about the material and spiritual world in which we live (the future church will not be deceived by dualistic notions). It will no longer be said that the ‘emperor rules in time and Christ in eternity’ because the Christ’s kingdom will be now and not yet.
One last comment, as I sit back and reflect upon this manifesto for the emerging church it occurs to me that the state will not like the church of the future, we should expect persecution but worse than persecution we should expect to meet our Constantine… we must be clear we have learnt our lesson- the only suzerain we need is our Lord Jesus Christ. So let us renew our covenant with God and never make the same mistake again.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Against the Post-Constantinian Agenda
I find myself growing increasingly bored of the post-Constantian agenda not because I believe it is inherently wrong it’s just poorly advocated. I agree that the church must be prepared to forgo some of the privileges it received as a sponsor of the state but that isn’t the churches job to tell the state to disinvest in the church. It is the churches role to be critical of the areas in which the state has distorted its ministry and forced it to act in the interests of earthly citizenship.
In the future we may lose funding for Christian schools but the church should work to create communities that can sponsor Christian education of the highest standard that is not dependent on state funding. It seems to me that the state may design chapels in hospitals as inter-faith environments or even remove places of worship from state hospitals altogether but the church must subvert these decisions by creating Christian hospitals that provide a different quality of care for ill, elderly, and dying. This must involve investing in prayer and healing centres, with a focus on palliative care rather than sanctioning assisted dying (as pressure is put on the state to legalise euthanasia).
Indeed let the church arise with a positive post-Constantian agenda rather than a pathetic capitulation to the secular status quo. It is for us to teach the world how to live as God intended, not for us to sacrifice our influence on the altar of secular politics. Although, we may only recover the identity and shape of a viable Christian community for the twenty-first century when the nations we are find ourselves dispersed amongst are so decadent and corrupt that the Christian legacy is no longer remembered.
In the future we may lose funding for Christian schools but the church should work to create communities that can sponsor Christian education of the highest standard that is not dependent on state funding. It seems to me that the state may design chapels in hospitals as inter-faith environments or even remove places of worship from state hospitals altogether but the church must subvert these decisions by creating Christian hospitals that provide a different quality of care for ill, elderly, and dying. This must involve investing in prayer and healing centres, with a focus on palliative care rather than sanctioning assisted dying (as pressure is put on the state to legalise euthanasia).
Indeed let the church arise with a positive post-Constantian agenda rather than a pathetic capitulation to the secular status quo. It is for us to teach the world how to live as God intended, not for us to sacrifice our influence on the altar of secular politics. Although, we may only recover the identity and shape of a viable Christian community for the twenty-first century when the nations we are find ourselves dispersed amongst are so decadent and corrupt that the Christian legacy is no longer remembered.
spiritual and political- a moral quandary
I have a moral quandary- I know these problems don’t get us anywhere but this one is being played out before our eyes. America and Britain invade Iraq, Christians oppose this action, not because we don’t believe that invading Iraq as part of war on terrorism could reduce the threat of terrorism (although it seems clear now that it hasn’t) but because we believe we are called to suffer (and even die) for divine purposes. I can see how the decision not to go to war was obvious but what happens when you have gone to war, do you pull out when your casualties start mounting leaving a vacuum that results in a bloody civil war or do you stay knowing you made the wrong decision in the first place and suffering and dying because of that decision?
I am struck by something Hauerwas wrote in Resident Aliens, referring to the issue of abortion he pointed out that the good news of the gospel was not ‘you’re not allowed an abortion so deal with it’ the good news of the gospel is ‘you don’t have to live that way we can show you a different way to live’. Our nations have made a terrible mistake by going into Iraq (in a bid to avoid the suffering of another 11th September) they have unleashed terrible blood shed on that land, but if they pull out (in an attempt to avoid more soldiers dying) there will be a bloody civil war. Our countries made a decision and this choice has changed the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians (for better or for worse) now our countries must take responsibility for their actions.
I hear conservatives talking about closing and banning abortion clinics, but if we are going to force pregnant women to carry through with their child birth then we must take responsibility for caring for them (for bearing them up in the hard times). I think in Iraq if we take the decision to pull our troops out in an effort to reduce our national and personal suffering then we must have a plan for bearing with those who suffer the consequences of our actions. Once again I want to state my support for Christian Peace Teams who are surely leading the way in the effort to solve this quandary.
Perhaps, we may legitimately say that after the decision to go to war was made we have no more to say about this matter? (but is that right- we have be able to live in a fallen world).
I am struck by something Hauerwas wrote in Resident Aliens, referring to the issue of abortion he pointed out that the good news of the gospel was not ‘you’re not allowed an abortion so deal with it’ the good news of the gospel is ‘you don’t have to live that way we can show you a different way to live’. Our nations have made a terrible mistake by going into Iraq (in a bid to avoid the suffering of another 11th September) they have unleashed terrible blood shed on that land, but if they pull out (in an attempt to avoid more soldiers dying) there will be a bloody civil war. Our countries made a decision and this choice has changed the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians (for better or for worse) now our countries must take responsibility for their actions.
I hear conservatives talking about closing and banning abortion clinics, but if we are going to force pregnant women to carry through with their child birth then we must take responsibility for caring for them (for bearing them up in the hard times). I think in Iraq if we take the decision to pull our troops out in an effort to reduce our national and personal suffering then we must have a plan for bearing with those who suffer the consequences of our actions. Once again I want to state my support for Christian Peace Teams who are surely leading the way in the effort to solve this quandary.
Perhaps, we may legitimately say that after the decision to go to war was made we have no more to say about this matter? (but is that right- we have be able to live in a fallen world).
Friday, September 29, 2006
Reflections on Encountering Church, the recent Christian Research UK findings, and one change I would like to make to the United Reformed Church.
According to the recent church census carried out by Dr Peter Brierley the United Reformed Church is losing church members at a higher rate than any other denomination in the United Kingdom. The Overall rate of decline is at 15% whilst the Catholic Church declines at 14% and evangelical churches decline at just 9%. The good news is that this is an improvement on the last figures which revealed that 65% of churches are in decline and only 21% of churches were growing now only 50% of churches are in decline and around 36% of churches are growing. However, I take the Rev Dr David Peel’s point that using such reasoning in 1880 regarding the rise of horse drawn transport would have suggested that by 1920 London would have been buried in under a foot of horse manure![1]
It is nevertheless a serious issue but it is not the be-all-and-end-all we may still remain confident in God who has sustained his church for the past two thousand years. It also cannot be denied that Christianity worldwide is growing phenomenally. However, these facts should give us cause for some serious reflection on our life and witness:
I am concerned that we have in the words of Richard Church, ‘no theology of conversion’. This is not a plea for an evangelical interpretation of conversion. It is an observation that we find it difficult to articulate the change that occurs in a person when they accept the Father’s forgiveness, commit to following to Jesus Christ, and surrender to the power of the Holy Spirit. The gospel is not primarily about life after death it is about beginning life again today. Indeed, I believe Christian Aid got it right (in more ways than one) when they said ‘we believe in life before death’.
The URC is good at working for social action and justice but it is weak at the task of evangelism, sharing the gospel of God’s love and salvation with those yet to believe. In Christendom culture the church could assume basic knowledge of the Bible and Christian beliefs, in our post-Christendom world we can assume no such basic understanding. I do not believe that we should ignore social initiatives or direct money away from these projects into evangelistic events rather we should invest in church ventures that combine these aspects of Christian faith.
The task of evangelism must no longer be seen as the responsibility of a few within the church the ‘ecclesiola in ecclesia’ (church within a church). Evangelism must be seen as the responsibility of the whole community to make evident the reason for the hope that they have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15). This is not simply an intellectual discipline but a practical, emotional, and communal practice.
It is clear that Christian faith concerns the whole person not the autonomous individual but a person with relationships, friends and family. We must be aware that to confess faith in Jesus Christ can sometimes mean a person disassociating from existing communities and sub-cultures or being shunned by their existing network of friends. It is imperative therefore that the Christian fellowship be prepared to take responsibility for such radical change in lifestyle.[2]
In our settled so-called ‘Christendom’ we had little need for apostolic, prophetic, or evangelistic offices in the church. This is reflected in our ministerial appointments; often ministers are people called to pastoral and teaching ministries (a model we find in the pastoral epistles) rather than apostolic, prophetic or evangelistic ministries (found in the earlier epistles such as Ephesians). We need to appoint more apostles, prophets, or evangelists to restore, mentor, and encourage these ministries within our local churches.
[1] Peel D, Encountering Church (London: United Reformed Church, 2006), p.8
[2] Kallenberg BJ, Live to Tell; Evangelism for a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2002), p.32
(here's something I wrote today- let me know what you think- its not polished it is very URC but I think the insights can be applied elsewhere)
It is nevertheless a serious issue but it is not the be-all-and-end-all we may still remain confident in God who has sustained his church for the past two thousand years. It also cannot be denied that Christianity worldwide is growing phenomenally. However, these facts should give us cause for some serious reflection on our life and witness:
I am concerned that we have in the words of Richard Church, ‘no theology of conversion’. This is not a plea for an evangelical interpretation of conversion. It is an observation that we find it difficult to articulate the change that occurs in a person when they accept the Father’s forgiveness, commit to following to Jesus Christ, and surrender to the power of the Holy Spirit. The gospel is not primarily about life after death it is about beginning life again today. Indeed, I believe Christian Aid got it right (in more ways than one) when they said ‘we believe in life before death’.
The URC is good at working for social action and justice but it is weak at the task of evangelism, sharing the gospel of God’s love and salvation with those yet to believe. In Christendom culture the church could assume basic knowledge of the Bible and Christian beliefs, in our post-Christendom world we can assume no such basic understanding. I do not believe that we should ignore social initiatives or direct money away from these projects into evangelistic events rather we should invest in church ventures that combine these aspects of Christian faith.
The task of evangelism must no longer be seen as the responsibility of a few within the church the ‘ecclesiola in ecclesia’ (church within a church). Evangelism must be seen as the responsibility of the whole community to make evident the reason for the hope that they have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15). This is not simply an intellectual discipline but a practical, emotional, and communal practice.
It is clear that Christian faith concerns the whole person not the autonomous individual but a person with relationships, friends and family. We must be aware that to confess faith in Jesus Christ can sometimes mean a person disassociating from existing communities and sub-cultures or being shunned by their existing network of friends. It is imperative therefore that the Christian fellowship be prepared to take responsibility for such radical change in lifestyle.[2]
In our settled so-called ‘Christendom’ we had little need for apostolic, prophetic, or evangelistic offices in the church. This is reflected in our ministerial appointments; often ministers are people called to pastoral and teaching ministries (a model we find in the pastoral epistles) rather than apostolic, prophetic or evangelistic ministries (found in the earlier epistles such as Ephesians). We need to appoint more apostles, prophets, or evangelists to restore, mentor, and encourage these ministries within our local churches.
[1] Peel D, Encountering Church (London: United Reformed Church, 2006), p.8
[2] Kallenberg BJ, Live to Tell; Evangelism for a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2002), p.32
(here's something I wrote today- let me know what you think- its not polished it is very URC but I think the insights can be applied elsewhere)
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Something cutting edge from the heart of Methodism
I’m having an amazing time here at Methodist Church House. I’ve just had a really great conversation with Jonathon Green of the Sanctuary, at Methodist Central Hall. I’m really impressed with his vision and ideas for building the Christian community in the centre of London. He is open to people from a vast number of traditions although he comes from an Evangelical Charismatic background originally. His diversity of experience and approach to uncompromising openness is really inspiring (may be my heart is softening to some emerging church practitioners).
I am really pleased I picked up the phone today, so often a call just depresses me or turns me off the whole fresh expressions thing (sorry Graham and co if your reading this) but this was different. I look forward to meeting up with Jonathon in October and I’ll let you know how it goes. For now, I recommend you either visit the website or drop by Jonathon’s blog to check out whats happening.
Every blessing,
James
I am really pleased I picked up the phone today, so often a call just depresses me or turns me off the whole fresh expressions thing (sorry Graham and co if your reading this) but this was different. I look forward to meeting up with Jonathon in October and I’ll let you know how it goes. For now, I recommend you either visit the website or drop by Jonathon’s blog to check out whats happening.
Every blessing,
James
Monday, September 11, 2006
vindicated - the amazing blog of kyle potter
vindicated - the amazing blog of kyle potter:
"When a church says it's 'relevant,' I assume they are less faithful to the proclamation of God in Jesus Christ.
I think they mean to say, 'our sermons and expositons of the Scriptures appeal to the values and lifestyles of people in our society.' I don't think the Christian proclamation is very appealing to the typical American lifestyle or its values, and it shouldn't be. 'Relevant' means, 'we're offering you a way into what you think is a good or better life,' and 'Jesus makes good things better.' Has anybody seen that recent popular devotional book, Just Add Jesus? That's just the kind of stuff I'm talking about."
Friends,
let me recomend the amazing blog of Kyle Potter-
I find he writes with wit and humour covering a wide range of topics.
"When a church says it's 'relevant,' I assume they are less faithful to the proclamation of God in Jesus Christ.
I think they mean to say, 'our sermons and expositons of the Scriptures appeal to the values and lifestyles of people in our society.' I don't think the Christian proclamation is very appealing to the typical American lifestyle or its values, and it shouldn't be. 'Relevant' means, 'we're offering you a way into what you think is a good or better life,' and 'Jesus makes good things better.' Has anybody seen that recent popular devotional book, Just Add Jesus? That's just the kind of stuff I'm talking about."
Friends,
let me recomend the amazing blog of Kyle Potter-
I find he writes with wit and humour covering a wide range of topics.
Friday, September 08, 2006
'There but for the Grace of God go I'
I was thinking about our age of ‘naming and shaming’ and political scandals. Is it right that the press expose the private lives of politicians and celebrities to the world? How we should, as Christians, respond to such revelations?
It was a few years ago, when I first heard a young Liberal Democrat politician asked to comment on a Conservative politician's public indiscretion on Newsnight. It was the sort of question politician’s dream of, the opportunity to rub the opposition’s nose in his or her own mess. You can imagine my surprise then when the aspiring politician replied ‘there but for the Grace of God go I’. It was that answer and no other that won my respect.
I think that sometimes it is not the publication of the truth that disturbs me but rather my own ugly and pious response to newspaper revelations. Rita Skeeter is not a complete work of fiction news writers do play with the truth. Sometimes they publish gossip and scandal, or the truth but with lewd details that indulge our own unspoken pretence towards self-righteousness.
We need to resist the temptation towards condemnation and self-righteousness, proclaim the Gospel of grace, recognise that the wages of sin are death, and that the cross calls us to forgiveness and reconciliation to one another and to God.
What do you think? Am I going soft?
It was a few years ago, when I first heard a young Liberal Democrat politician asked to comment on a Conservative politician's public indiscretion on Newsnight. It was the sort of question politician’s dream of, the opportunity to rub the opposition’s nose in his or her own mess. You can imagine my surprise then when the aspiring politician replied ‘there but for the Grace of God go I’. It was that answer and no other that won my respect.
I think that sometimes it is not the publication of the truth that disturbs me but rather my own ugly and pious response to newspaper revelations. Rita Skeeter is not a complete work of fiction news writers do play with the truth. Sometimes they publish gossip and scandal, or the truth but with lewd details that indulge our own unspoken pretence towards self-righteousness.
We need to resist the temptation towards condemnation and self-righteousness, proclaim the Gospel of grace, recognise that the wages of sin are death, and that the cross calls us to forgiveness and reconciliation to one another and to God.
What do you think? Am I going soft?
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Pilgrimage of Faith
I was reading interface this afternoon a website designed to promote dialogue between Christian faith and contemporary culture and I was struck by a debate about the Pilgrimage of Faith. For those of you who are not Methodist, Pilgrimage of Faith is the debate about different Christian people's attitudes towards homosexuality. I have copied my observations about the pilgrimage of faith below:
I wonder what you think about being part of a wounded church? How has your church managed differences over opinions of homosexuality? Can the church bless lifelong homosexual partnerships? Can the church remain indifferent to such an integral part of a persons identity as sexuality? What can we say about homosexuality from the Bible? Are we too focused on issues of sexuality and too unresponsive towards issues of justice?
Christians of all persuasions are struggling with this journey of faith discovery and we are held together on this journey not by a shared understanding of our destination but by our love for one another. As an evangelical this love leads me to recognise that the division of the church is a greater sin than homosexuality. I recognise liberal Christians feel that the church not recognising homosexuality as an integral part of human nature is equally sinful but continue to seek the unity of the church. However, this means that both conservative and liberal Christians must live within a wounded church.
Living within a wounded church is a painful experience it is also an opportunity for growth in humility and discipleship. I hope that whether we are liberal or conservative we can treat those we meet with love and learn from them as they seek to discover what it means to follow the living Lord Jesus.
I wonder what you think about being part of a wounded church? How has your church managed differences over opinions of homosexuality? Can the church bless lifelong homosexual partnerships? Can the church remain indifferent to such an integral part of a persons identity as sexuality? What can we say about homosexuality from the Bible? Are we too focused on issues of sexuality and too unresponsive towards issues of justice?
Thursday, August 17, 2006
dead to this world... serious consequences?
In a recent email dialogue on Romans 12:1-5 I was asked to clarify what I mean't when I wrote that to claim 'yourself as dead to this world and alive to Christ seems to me to have some serious consequences for proving the will of God in all things'. The following email is my reply-
Dear Gary,
I feel these verses are most pertinent to the issue of baptism- in baptism we are making are effectively dying to the principalities and powers of the world to rise set free from the powers of this world secure in our salvation in Jesus Christ. It was this conviction that gave the martyrs in church history the courage to follow Jesus even to death on the cross at the hands of the domination system (for them the Roman Empire). I believe that the act of baptism is an act of civil disobedience in it we are transferring our loyalty from temporal rulers to the Jesus Christ and his coming kingdom.
If this is a true and accurate interpretation of Scripture then we are required to witness to the ‘now and the not yet’ of the kingdom through opposing even rebelling against unjust asylum laws, tariffs imposed on imports, war-mongering (and the whole myth of redemptive violence), the list goes on. However, such a subversive agenda may have serious consequences for Christians around the globe. I cannot give my loyalty to any so called 'Christendom' because it remains out of sync with the upside-down Kingdom of God described in the beatitudes.
So far, I have globalised and pushed my interpretation of scripture to the extreme to make clear my meaning. I still believe that there is much work to do through living counter-cultural lives. I believe that any rebellion starts in someone’s home through standing up for the sanctity of marriage, buying fairly traded goods, campaigning against war as a legitimate means to an end, and all manner of personal holiness issues such as not spending money frivolously, watching pornography, bullying the slightly odd dude in the workplace, getting drunk etc.
Moreover, there are serious charismatic issues- for example, taking serious the fight against spiritual principalities and powers manifest in systems which dehumanise us like the workplace, legal system, tax system, political system. But not only manifest in these systems, also in peoples homes where they have flirted with the occult, had an incestuous relationship, allowed the seeds of marital discord to take root, or sibling rivalries to develop. We also need to recognise that even some Christians find themselves in spiritual bondage to consumerism (greed), pornography, domestic violence, certain forms of feminism and masculine, let alone non-Christians who may have to overcome these challenges on the road to faith.
At baptism, I was given a glimpse of the new kingdom God was calling me to become a part of but the rabbit hole goes deeper than I realise and I daily discover new challenges for the church to overcome. In truth if I knew how hard some of this Christian living would be I may not have started down this road but I know now that to live with the reality of God in my life is to see the world as it really is and that is far better than to live with scales over my eyes.
Anyway, I guess I understand that the church is called to live on fundamentally different principles to the rest of the world afterall for Christians 'to live is Christ to die is gain' and because of this we are always going to be resident aliens. I hope that you will still happy to call me brother after reading this and I pray every blessing for you and your family.
Yours in Christ,
James
I'm sure I have missed much out that you could add- please do!
Dear Gary,
I feel these verses are most pertinent to the issue of baptism- in baptism we are making are effectively dying to the principalities and powers of the world to rise set free from the powers of this world secure in our salvation in Jesus Christ. It was this conviction that gave the martyrs in church history the courage to follow Jesus even to death on the cross at the hands of the domination system (for them the Roman Empire). I believe that the act of baptism is an act of civil disobedience in it we are transferring our loyalty from temporal rulers to the Jesus Christ and his coming kingdom.
If this is a true and accurate interpretation of Scripture then we are required to witness to the ‘now and the not yet’ of the kingdom through opposing even rebelling against unjust asylum laws, tariffs imposed on imports, war-mongering (and the whole myth of redemptive violence), the list goes on. However, such a subversive agenda may have serious consequences for Christians around the globe. I cannot give my loyalty to any so called 'Christendom' because it remains out of sync with the upside-down Kingdom of God described in the beatitudes.
So far, I have globalised and pushed my interpretation of scripture to the extreme to make clear my meaning. I still believe that there is much work to do through living counter-cultural lives. I believe that any rebellion starts in someone’s home through standing up for the sanctity of marriage, buying fairly traded goods, campaigning against war as a legitimate means to an end, and all manner of personal holiness issues such as not spending money frivolously, watching pornography, bullying the slightly odd dude in the workplace, getting drunk etc.
Moreover, there are serious charismatic issues- for example, taking serious the fight against spiritual principalities and powers manifest in systems which dehumanise us like the workplace, legal system, tax system, political system. But not only manifest in these systems, also in peoples homes where they have flirted with the occult, had an incestuous relationship, allowed the seeds of marital discord to take root, or sibling rivalries to develop. We also need to recognise that even some Christians find themselves in spiritual bondage to consumerism (greed), pornography, domestic violence, certain forms of feminism and masculine, let alone non-Christians who may have to overcome these challenges on the road to faith.
At baptism, I was given a glimpse of the new kingdom God was calling me to become a part of but the rabbit hole goes deeper than I realise and I daily discover new challenges for the church to overcome. In truth if I knew how hard some of this Christian living would be I may not have started down this road but I know now that to live with the reality of God in my life is to see the world as it really is and that is far better than to live with scales over my eyes.
Anyway, I guess I understand that the church is called to live on fundamentally different principles to the rest of the world afterall for Christians 'to live is Christ to die is gain' and because of this we are always going to be resident aliens. I hope that you will still happy to call me brother after reading this and I pray every blessing for you and your family.
Yours in Christ,
James
I'm sure I have missed much out that you could add- please do!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
suggestions box
As you can see I've added some links to bible gateway, moravian daily texts, hauerwas online, and to blogs mostly harmless, the ashram, and normal life adventure. I'm interested in any links you feel we should establish or remove? So suggestions in the comments box.
Monday, August 14, 2006
living, breathing, feeling theology
I was talking to one of my colleagues at Methodist Church House today about the future of church. She mentioned new projects such as the church of saint pixels and the infamous ship of fools website. We were both alarmed at the consumerist nature and the lack of discipleship in such so-called ‘expressions’ of the Christian faith. It was her observation that when disagreements develop within ‘real’ rather than ‘virtual’ communities people are challenged to reconcile with one another as they will have to pray side by side with each other the following week.
Our discussion then turned to inherited models of church and ministry. She observed the feudal nature of the Anglican Church and the modernist nature of Methodist church. Begging the question what will church look like in the twentieth century? I expressed my belief that in a world which is characterised by disposability rather than sustainability the church must be counter-cultural and draw closer together. I observed that within earliest Methodism class meetings provided this sort of togetherness (and discipleship for holiness).
My colleague picked up on my mention of the Methodist class system and commented on the tradition of itinerancy (both inherent within the local preaching system and the Methodist understanding of ministerial appointments). I expressed dismay at these systems, which I feel very often separate ministers and preachers from the local church. She did not contradict my position but made it clear that she felt much more comfortable with itinerancy than with the class system.
I was reading Stanley Hauerwas’ Sanctify Them In Truth yesterday and I realise this tied in with our conversation. In the introduction to the book, Hauerwas’ observes that sanctification and truth are very rarely linked in contemporary theology or philosophy. He then goes on to express his understanding of why sanctification and truth should be integral to one another.
Hauerwas is dismayed that theology too often seems to speak to theologians and it does not seem to be in the service of the church. He wants theologians to give up on producing the comprehensive book of abstract theology and instead produce theology that is in service of Church’s life and politics. This sort of theology is the reason for the odd shape of Hauerwas’ own writing, which appears to be part theology, part essay, part homiletics, and part ethics.
I guess that I want ministers to be steeped in the fellowship of the church. I want preachers to be held accountable for what they say by the community they are addressing. I want the community they are addressing to be held responsible for implementing the theological convictions they agree to. I want a living, breathing, feeling truth (not some cheap imitation).
Our discussion then turned to inherited models of church and ministry. She observed the feudal nature of the Anglican Church and the modernist nature of Methodist church. Begging the question what will church look like in the twentieth century? I expressed my belief that in a world which is characterised by disposability rather than sustainability the church must be counter-cultural and draw closer together. I observed that within earliest Methodism class meetings provided this sort of togetherness (and discipleship for holiness).
My colleague picked up on my mention of the Methodist class system and commented on the tradition of itinerancy (both inherent within the local preaching system and the Methodist understanding of ministerial appointments). I expressed dismay at these systems, which I feel very often separate ministers and preachers from the local church. She did not contradict my position but made it clear that she felt much more comfortable with itinerancy than with the class system.
I was reading Stanley Hauerwas’ Sanctify Them In Truth yesterday and I realise this tied in with our conversation. In the introduction to the book, Hauerwas’ observes that sanctification and truth are very rarely linked in contemporary theology or philosophy. He then goes on to express his understanding of why sanctification and truth should be integral to one another.
Hauerwas is dismayed that theology too often seems to speak to theologians and it does not seem to be in the service of the church. He wants theologians to give up on producing the comprehensive book of abstract theology and instead produce theology that is in service of Church’s life and politics. This sort of theology is the reason for the odd shape of Hauerwas’ own writing, which appears to be part theology, part essay, part homiletics, and part ethics.
I guess that I want ministers to be steeped in the fellowship of the church. I want preachers to be held accountable for what they say by the community they are addressing. I want the community they are addressing to be held responsible for implementing the theological convictions they agree to. I want a living, breathing, feeling truth (not some cheap imitation).
A personal Jesus?
I found this an interesting article by professor John Suk (I am unconvinced by his reasoning but I can see what he wants to correct). I would not go as far as the professor but it does provide a corrective to some self-centred approaches to Christian faith.
However, I wonder if the thing which upsets him most is not that someone might have 'a personal relationship' but rather that 'a personal relationship' can to easily become 'a personal Jesus' i.e. a Jesus like me or even a Jesus who likes me. If that is true then we need not to oppose the view that Jesus might relate either personally or communally (He does both to some extent) but rather we should oppose the view that Jesus is anyone other than the person revealed to us by scripture, present with us in the breaking of bread, and made known in the power of the Holy Spirit which he pours out upon us, His Church, to lead us into all Truth.
Truth that can sometimes be uncomfortable!
However, I wonder if the thing which upsets him most is not that someone might have 'a personal relationship' but rather that 'a personal relationship' can to easily become 'a personal Jesus' i.e. a Jesus like me or even a Jesus who likes me. If that is true then we need not to oppose the view that Jesus might relate either personally or communally (He does both to some extent) but rather we should oppose the view that Jesus is anyone other than the person revealed to us by scripture, present with us in the breaking of bread, and made known in the power of the Holy Spirit which he pours out upon us, His Church, to lead us into all Truth.
Truth that can sometimes be uncomfortable!
Saturday, August 12, 2006
the ashram
"a response to terrorism
O God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord,
in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life,
whose service is perfect freedom:
Defend us, thy humble servants,
in all assaults of our enemies;
that we, surely trusting in thy defense,
may not fear the power of any adversaries;
through the might of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
-from the Book of Common Prayer
Jesus said to his disciples, 'Why are you still afraid? Do you still have no faith?' - Mark 4:40
there's so much fear in the air. i refuse to live my life this way."
I am grateful to the Ashram for this reminder- It is our duty as people of faith to stand firm in the peace of Jesus Christ. It would do us good to remember at this time that our attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
'Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.'
- Philippians 2:5-11
O God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord,
in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life,
whose service is perfect freedom:
Defend us, thy humble servants,
in all assaults of our enemies;
that we, surely trusting in thy defense,
may not fear the power of any adversaries;
through the might of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
-from the Book of Common Prayer
Jesus said to his disciples, 'Why are you still afraid? Do you still have no faith?' - Mark 4:40
there's so much fear in the air. i refuse to live my life this way."
I am grateful to the Ashram for this reminder- It is our duty as people of faith to stand firm in the peace of Jesus Christ. It would do us good to remember at this time that our attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
'Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.'
- Philippians 2:5-11
Character, Communion and the Identity of Christ
Original Sin
Many people misunderstand the concept of Original Sin they often think of it in terms of visiting the sins of the parents on their children. It is amounted to us being born into a situation of sinfulness where it is almost assumed that we will fall from grace. Sometimes, Original Sin is thought of as sinful actions that God holds against us even before we are born. The court room analogy for our sinfulness plays into the idea that Original Sin is about God holding us to account the first human rebellion.
However, to consider Original Sin in either of these ways is to misunderstand that sin is not primarily about our context or past actions, it is about fundamentally about our characters. We are originally sinful not because we are born into a fallen world or because we have inherited the blame for Adam and Eve’s taste for fruit. We are sinful from conception because we are born with fallen characters or to put it another way we are originally sinful because our characters are not God’s character.
The story of the Garden of Eden, taken either metaphorically or literally, reveals that sin is about the people we are rather than actions we commit. We were and are naturally sinful because we considered the idea that God might not know what is best for us, or put another way that God may be keeping a blessing from us (Genesis 3:5). It was not the action of eating the fruit that somehow made us sinful but the fact that we were led astray so easily.
Justification and the Community of Redemption
If we say that Original Sin primarily concerns our individual characters then how do we understand justification and the significance of the community of redemption? I believe justification makes it possible for all people to be reconciled with one another and with God in the covenant community- the church.
In this context, the Eucharist is a celebration of our unity with one another (koinonia) through Jesus the Messiah. It is a celebration of our reconciliation to one another in the mystical body of Christ and the communion we share with one another through justification. When we come to the table whilst still bearing a grudge against a brother or sister, we devalue the meaning of the Eucharist. In a similar way when our actions cannot be reconciled to the rule of Christ in our lives, we devalue the meaning of the Eucharist.
The practice of excommunication (or the ban) is designed to protect the integrity of the Eucharist. Excommunication is a way for the church to say to an offender ‘you’re actions have put you outside the communion, here is how you can be reconciled.’ If there is no salvation outside the church, then excommunication is not a condemning act but an invitation to repent and rejoin the fellowship.
Our communion matters because it is within our common life that characters our characters are formed and conformed to the likeness of Christ. As Abbot Christopher Jamison writes in Finding Sanctuary, ‘Obedience, silence, and humility are qualities we experience through persevering in community life; that is what a community is for: to foster the experience of these qualities through its very structures.’ Jamison observes that for Benedict, ‘once you are outside community, then these qualities are in danger of evaporating’.
Jesus, the Nazarene, the Jew, the Servant Saviour
In today’s pick and mix society people are often afraid of community, likewise they are afraid of identifying. I’m sure you have heard people contrast ‘spirituality’ with ‘organised religion’, or say things like ‘I am spiritual but not religious’. I want to suggest that the opposite is true everyone is religious but not everyone is spiritual!
People are religious in that everyone is worshipping something fame, money, or sex- no matter what it is everyone has an idol. Perhaps the god upon which the human heart is most commonly set is the self. You may have heard it said ‘He was a self-made man’ or even the old joke ‘I used to be an atheist until I realised I was god.’ You see everyone orders their life around something but that thing is very rarely spiritual at least not in the biblical sense.
In the Bible, being born of the spirit is used to refer to someone whose life is rooted in the Spirit of God. This is a world away from the self-centred devotion of much contemporary spirituality in which the interior world is enthroned as a god. Christian spirituality has to do with the Spirit who leads us into Truth (John 16:13).
During the approach to Christmas, we often exchange cards and sometimes we receive or perhaps we will send a card which says ‘Merry Xmas’. I wonder whether we are sometimes guilty of being people of the X rather than the Christ. I mean sometimes we can be vague about the identity of Christ because recognition of identity makes demands of who we are.
I am reminded of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who stood in solidarity with the Jewish people as they resisted Nazi persecution. It was his insight that the identity of Jesus as a Jew meant that the church could not remain in communion with its Lord whilst being in sympathy with the Nazi oppression of the Jewish people.
It is not simply Jesus’ race, creed, or colour which is pertinent to the way we live our lives. It is our identification of the way of Jesus, the messiah, which is most significant. The Christian spiritual life is not pick and mix spirituality or spirituality of the X it is embodied spirituality. It is embodied in Jesus, the Nazarene, the Jew, the Servant Saviour!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)