Mike's musings

Synchroblog - Human rights (and Christian responsibilities)

Ramblings of a proto-ethicist

As a liberal - and I live in a country where the moniker is not an insult, at least not yet - I am drawn to the discourse of human rights. There is a strong calling to recognising the rights of the inidividual, particularly as against the State, and to a consequentialist ethics which, at root, exists to ensure - or to try to ensure - the best outcome for the most people.

An example: there are rights around whether I should be allowed to exist in a smoke-free environment. I believe that I have a right to health. You argue that you have a right to smoke if you wish. The arbitration tends to be - and has been, in the UK, at least - that the benefits to society as a whole (in terms of healthcare costs for smokers, for instance) outweigh the rights of smokers to injure those around them. This is a good argument, but there are problems with it (not least issues of how you tax smokers, and why you allow tobacco to be sold in the first place). For me as a Christian, however, I am beginning to question how I feel about the consequentialist argument.

The classic alternative to the consequentialist argument ("do the best for the greatest number of people") is the de-ontological argument ("do what is right" - sometimes over-simplified to "the end justifies the means"). This is an argument from the Law. And, for Christians, it is with a capital "L", typically. There are a number of problems with this: not least the suffering of individuals who are often trampled underfoot, and the problems with being certain that you know _what_ is right (and what "the Law" really commands). But one way to balance these issues is to remember that with rights come responsibilities: they are always balanced the one against each other. For some, this can move us into an approach labelled "virtue ethics", but I'm not yet sure that I want to move down this line.

I don't have answers this month (do I ever?), but I think that if we remember that rights _always_ entail responsibilities, we are at least part of the way there.

Synchroblog

Today's post is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "human rights". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Sonja Andrews on Human Wrongs
• Adam Gonnerman on Guantanamo Bay in the eyes of God
• Julie Clawson on Human rights and Christian comfort
• Steve Hayes on Human rights and Christian faith
• Sally Coleman on "If"
• Adam Gonerman on "My Charade is the event of the season"
• Janice Fowler on "Voice Overs Needed" (or "Wake up - Speak Up")
• Mike Bursell on Human rights (and Christian responsibilities)

Labels: ethics, synchroblog

Synchroblog - Christianity and Social Justice

Anyone who wonders whether social justice should be on the agenda has, for me, to read the Gospel according to Luke. The Jesus - the Christ - we see there is intimately concerned with social justice of all types. But it's not that simple. There are some - particularly those labelled in North America as the "Christian Right" who don't have much time for social issues, or environmental issues. This is a generalisation, of course, but there is a movement which takes the view that the Kingdom of God is promised to us, and that it will come whatever we do, so we need to herald that, rather than work for it in terms of what we do. We are - in these terms - the Elect, and we just need to witness to that. This is the sort of theology which comes up with the seriously confused reading of the Bible leading to the "Rapture".

I disagree strongly with this sort of theology. The problem I have is that it's a completely future view of eschatology. Eschatology is sometimes called "the theology of the final things", and traditionally deals with resurrection, judgement, heaven and hell. Another way of looking at it is what is the Kingdom of God? Is it fully realised? That is - is it now, complete, but just restricted to God's chosen few? Are only those who profess the _right_ creed the ones who are enjoying the Kingdom of God here on Earth? I just can't stomach that.

The opposite view is the one that I've outlined. And both of them can lead to a refusal to engage with issues of social justice - and other issues around God's Creation. This seems so wrong to me. Just following Jesus' example means that we have to engage. We have to listen and to love.

I know that I've not really addressed any particular issues, but I think it's important to make the case for Christians having a responsibility to engage.

Synchroblog

Synchroblog Synchroblog Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Christianity and social justice". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Mike Bursell at Mike's Musings
• Phil Wyman at Square No More - Salem: No Place for Hating Witches
• Bryan Riley at at Charis Shalom Steve Hayes writes about Khanya: Christianity and social justice
• Reba Baskett at In Reba's World
• Prof Carlos Z. with Ramblings from a Sociologist
• Cobus van Wyngaard at My Contemplations: David Bosch, Public Theology, Social Justic
• Cindy Harvey at Tracking the Edge
• Alan Knox at The Assembling of the Church
• Matthew Stone at Matt Stone Journeys in Between
• John Smulo at JohnSmulo.com
• Sonja Andrews at Calacirian
• Lainie Petersen at Headspace
• KW Leslie: Shine: not let it shine
• Stephanie Moulton at Faith and the Environment Collide
• Julie Clawson at One Hand Clapping
• Steve Hollinghurst at On Earth as in Heaven
• Sam Norton at Elizaphanian: Tesco is a Big Red Herring

Labels: synchroblog, theology

Synchroblog - Anchorites for the modern world

An anchor - or an anchorite or anchoress - was a type of hermit, but typically one attached to a religious community: of it, but not in it, maybe. It's a little-used term these days, but the life of an anchorite had its attractions, particularly for a woman in the early middle ages, and many of them were highly revered. Two of the best known in the UK, at least, were Julian of Norwich and Christina of Markyate. There was even a manual written for them, known either as the Ancrene Riwle (Rule(s) for Anchorites) or Ancrene Wisse (Knowledge of/for Anchorites), which is a fascinating book, written in English, rather than the usual clerical Latin, as many of those for whom it were written only spoke or read (if they were lucky) the former.

But what of this today? We hear so much about how we don't engage with each other, how our sense of community is gone, how our lives are ruled by time. And these are always viewed as negatives. In many - most - cases they are, of course. But it occurred to me that there are people who are in situations where this is the way that they have to live their lives, or even may wish to live their lives. Are we to condemn them in all cases? I'm on a bit of a counter-cultural tide at the moment - as earlier posts this month may show - and I'm very interested in how we can value the little-valued, particularly when the people doing the devaluing are ourselves. So, what positives can we pull out of these livings, these lives?

Well, there are times when one is in a storm when that storm can itself impart a moment of calm, a little like the "eye of the hurricane". Sometimes, you can just poke your head out of the maelstrom, for a moment, and that eye-blink of tranquility can be all the more, because it is taken in such a way. I find, sometimes, that at the end of a hard day of travelling and meetings, for instance, that saying Evening Prayer means more to me, by a long chalk, than it normally would. And there are times when not engaging with society gives us a chance to see it, and ourselves, from a different perspective. And when being ruled by time may mean giving ourselves up to it, refusing to fight, and allowing ourselves to be carried along in God's hands.

It's not always easy to do these things. It's not always easy to find God in the day-to-day, the humdrum, the flurry, the hardship. But sometimes, just sometimes, S/He will show Godself.

And, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall be changed.

Synchroblog

Synchroblog Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "monasticism". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Phil Wyman at Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Beth at Until Translucent
• Adam Gonnerman at Igneous Quill
• Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
• Jonathan Brink at JonathanBrink.com
• Sally Coleman at Eternal Echoes
• Brian Riley at at Charis Shalom
• Cobus van Wyngaard at My Contemplations
• Mike Bursell at Mike's Musings
• David Fisher at Cosmic Collisions
• Alan Knox at The Assembling of the Church
• Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
• Erin Word at Decompressing Faith
• Sonja Andrews at Calacirian

Labels: synchroblog

Synchrophoto

Consumption

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" with no specific subject, but photos instead of the normal words. If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Phil Wyman at Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Jenelle D'Alessandro at Hello Said Jenelle
• Billy Calderwood at Billy Calderwood
• Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
• Sally Coleman at Eternal Echoes
• Mike Bursell at Mike's Musings
• Julie Clawson at One Hand Clapping
• Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
• Sonja Andrews at Calacirian
• David Fisher at Be the Revolution
• Erin Word at Decompressing Faith
• KW Leslie at The Evening of Kent
• Paul Walker at Out of the Cocoon
• Reba Baskett at In Reba's World

Labels: synchroblog

Redeeming the Season

What did John the Baptist mean by "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance"? (Matthew 3:8). That's what he told his doubters to do, and if we're going to be ready for Christmas, that's what we're supposed to do, according to received church wisdom and tradition. Being ready for Christmas, of course, is being ready to accept the gift of God's Son, here on earth. So, whatever views we have of the season - the commercialism, particularly, that's probably what we should be about. The last couple of Christmas seasons have been different for me: I'm less interested in getting things, acquiring, shopping, consuming. I suspect this is largely to do with having children, one of whom is beginning to get the wonder, and is very aware of what Christmas is actually about. I suspect it's also to do with my journey towards ordination - God, ERMC and my bishop willing - and my spiritual growth. It's not that I'm disgusted by it: just not very interested, and unsure what it's all for. Maybe that's the first step down the road of redemption.

But I'm not sure that I'm producing the right kind of fruit yet. Maybe that'll have to wait a couple more years.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Redeeming the Season". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Marieke's Grace Rain
• John Smulo
• Sally's Journeys
• Brian Heasley - 24/7 Ibiza
• Webb's Stumbling's
• More Than Stone
• Steve Hayes' Notes from the Underground
• Adam Gonnerman's Firey Stone Feather Pen
• Kirk Bartha
• Mike's Musings
• I'm In Over My Head
• Hello Said Jenelle
• Be the Revolution
• Fernando's desk
• Cindy Tracks the Edge
• Calacirian
• Billy Calderwood
• Carl's Personal Bubble
• John Morehead's Musings
• Matt Stone Journeys in Between
• Handmaid Leah
• Tim Abbott
• Josh Rivera

Labels: Christmas, synchroblog

Money and the Church: why the big fuss?

Well, I really set myself up for this one, didn't I? I chose a sparky little title and thought "well, this shouldn't be too difficult to write about, should it?"

So, I started to think about it. What could Jesus have had to say about money? Well, there's the bit about not serving God and Mammon. That's a bit negative. And he mentioned giving unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. That's not too helpful, either. Oh, and giving up all you have to follow him. And there's the very confusing bit about the woman who'd spent all the money on perfume which the disciples thought she'd wasted on him. Or the parable about the woman quietly putting a small amount of money into the collection when the hypocrites made a huge deal about putting in lots. And the whole overturning the stalls of the money-changers in the Temple episode.

Oh dear. Jesus had lots to say about money. And it's, well, not all very positive, is it? My excuse is that I want to look after my family as best as I can. Make sure that they're safe, and happy, and well educated and the rest. And I think that that's quite a good excuse, as they go. I'm intending to be a priest, and not to cost the church much, beyond training. That's good, too, isn't it? So, it should be OK to carry on in a highly paid job whilst other people aren't, as long as I give myself (well, bits of Sundays, and the odd evening a week - not _too_ much, obviously) to God. Well, the church, anyway.

It's actually very difficult, and I struggle with this. These things aren't always easy. There, it's said.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Money and the Church". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• The Check That Controls at Igneous Quill
• Pushing The Camel: Why there might be more rich people in Heaven than in your local Church at Fernando's desk
• Sally Coleman at Eternal Echoes
• Lord, Won't You Buy Me a Mercedes Benz at Hello Said Jenelle
• Zaque at Johnny Beloved
• Walking with the Camels at Calacirian
• Greed and Bitterness: Why Nobody's Got it Right About Money and The Church at Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Kirk Bartha at Theocity
• Money and the Church: A Fulltime Story at The Pursuit
• But I Gave at Church at The Assembling of the Church
• Moving Out of Jesus Neighborhood at Be the Revolution
• Money and the Church: why the big fuss? at Mike's Musings
• Coffee Hour Morality at One Hand Clapping
• Bling Bling in the Holy of Holies at In Reba's World
• Magazinial Outreach at Decompressing Faith
• Money's too tight to mention at Out of the Cocoon
• Bullshit at The Agent B Files
• The Bourgeois Elephant in the Missional/Emergent Living Room at Headspace
• When the Church Gives at Payneful Memories
• Who, or What, Do You Worship at at Charis Shalom
• Greed at Hollow Again

Labels: church, money, synchroblog

Hallowe'en

Hallowe'en (or just "Halloween"). As if we Christians didn't have enough issues to split us into multiple camps as it is: homosexuality, women priests, women bishops, the hymn/song debate, the Filioque issue, robes or no robes, the appropriateness of pebbles in worship... But Hallowe'en is another one, and it's interesting because it seems to create different fracture lines to some of the other issues. Although you can guess where some people are likely to go on it (most conservative Evangelicals would be against celebrating it, for instance, in my experience), others who you might think would have strong views don't. And vice versa.

But it's one of those issues on which people feel that they _ought_ to have strong views, and it's an issue which has been raising its head more in the UK than it did, say, 10 years ago. This is because the retail sector (read "supermarkets", mainly) have realised that there's a big, big buck to be made from selling costumes and food and accoutrements to children and their parents. That and because it's a major cultural event in the US which we've picked up on from their media.

So, why do people think that they ought to have a view on it? Well, for Christians, the view that's been fed by the strongly anti-Hallowe'en brigade is that it's a celebration of darkness and evil which is linked to a pagan past and which is inherently un-Christian. I can kind of see this, although I'd come back with the contention that at least we're remembering a Christian festival here (albeit possibly levered into a pre-Christian consciousness of spirits and animus-worship). All Hallows' Eve is about remembering all those who've died in the faith, and that's a good thing. Looking at the dark side is less so, I agree, and there are dangers there, but for most people - and certainly most kids, and that's where lots of the concern arises, I suspect - the dark side (evil) really isn't what's being celebrated. The best type of "trick or treating" (which most of us in the UK seem to have missed) is about families having fun and bonding with other people in their community in a joint community pursuit - of which, God knows, we have too few.

That's not to say that I'm entirely happy about it, and in particular about the blatant commercialisation of (yet another) Christian festival, but I think that Hallowe'en exists as an education opportunity, rather than as a ranting opportunity, and that's where I'd like to start the debate from a Christian standpoint. I look forward to reading what my fellow synchrobloggers have to say on the subject: I do hope they're not all as woolly liberal as I am...

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Christianity and Paganism". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• The Christians and the Pagans Meet for Samhain at Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Our Own Private Zombie: Death and the Spirit of Fear by Lainie Petersen
• Julie Clawson at One Hand Clapping
• John Morehead at John Morehead's Musings
• Vampire Protection by Sonja Andrews
• What's So Bad About Halloween? at Igneous Quill
• H-A-double-L-O-double-U-double-E-N Erin Word
• Halloween....why all the madness? by Reba Baskett
• Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
• KW Leslie at The Evening of Kent
• Hallmark Halloween by John Smulo
• Mike Bursell at Mike's Musings
• Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
• Removing Christendom from Halloween at On Earth as in Heaven
• Vampires or Leeches: A conversation about making the Day of the Dead meaningful by David Fisher
• Encountering hallow-tide creatively by Sally Coleman
• Kay at Chaotic Spirit
• Apples and Razorblades at Johnny Beloved
• Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
• Fall Festivals and Scary Masks at The Assembling of the Church
• Why Christians don't like Zombies at Hollow Again
• Peering through the negatives of mission Paul Walker
• Sea Raven at Gaia Rising
• Halloween: My experiences by Lew A
• Timothy Victor at Tim Victor's Musings
• Making Space for Halloween by Nic Paton

Labels: synchroblog, theology

Visigoths ahoy!

"What," you may ask, "have Visigoths got to do with Christianity or Paganism?" Those are the topics of this month's synchroblog, and so you'd hope that I'd be writing about something vaguely relevant. And, as it happens, I am. I really don't know much about paganism (Sally's is likely to be a better blog to read on this - see below), certainly in the modern world, but the 21st century is not the first time that paganism has raised its head. I'm certainly not going to try to draw similarities between the beliefs of earlier pagans and modern-day pagans - but I think it's worth remembering that the rise of Christendom in Europe was not without problems in its history, and it wasn't just the Islamic Moorish empire that caused it problems.

In 410AD, the Visigoths sacked the city of Rome. They were a pagan people, and the Rome of the time was Christian, all other religions other than Christianity having been officially banned in 391AD, just 19 years before. It appears that the Visigoths, under Alaric I, showed remarkable clemency towards Christians, their buildings and posessions. There seem to have been a variety of different reasons or the Sack of Rome, and the issue of religion may not have been a major one.

Why is this relevant? Maybe it's not. I just thought that it was worth reminding ourselves that Christianity is not the only belief system with a history in Europe - even if the history of Christianity is more continuous, certainly in the mainstream. And Christianity has dealt with the challenges of paganism before. The way we deal with the challenges of other faiths is, hopefully, significantly more enlightened and more based on dialogue these days. We should try to remember that the Visigoths showed at least some clemency towards Christians, and that it seems to have been based on respect. I think that's an important work to bear in mind.

Respect seems a much better way to deal with challenges than aggression - and I want to be careful about the word "challenges". As a Christian, I believe that the faith I profess provides a unique revelation from God, and that Jesus Christ's life (incarnation), death and resurrection offer human beings a sure route to God. But I'm being led more and more to an understanding that God has given us many different ways to Him/Her. We have to listen and discuss. We can try to convince. But we have to listen. And that's not only to the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), nor only the other major world faith (Hinduism, Buddhism and others) but also to other belief systems and faiths, including paganism.

You may wish to consult the wikipedia entries on Alaric I, Ancient Rome and Visigoths for more information.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Christianity and Paganism". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Matthew Stone at Journeys in Between
• Christianity, Paganism, and Literature at Notes from the Underground
• John Smulo at JohnSmulo.com
• Heathens and Pagans and Witches ... oh my! at Calacirian
• Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
• Erin Word at Decompressing Faith
• Chasing the Wild Goose at Eternal Echoes
• Visigoths Ahoy! at Mike's Musings
• Belief and Being: The difficulty of communicating faith at Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Steve Hollinghurst at On Earth as in Heaven
• Undefined Desire at Igneous Quill
• A Walk on the Wild Side at Out of the Cocoon
• Observations on Magic in Western Religion at My Contemplations
• Tim Abbott at Tim Abbott
• Spirituality and the Zodiac: Stories in the Cosmos at Be the Revolution
• Rejection, Redemption, and Roots at One Hand Clapping

Labels: christianity, synchroblog

Inclusive or exclusive: you mean there's a choice?

those who read my blog frequently probably know my views on both homosexuality and women's ministry. Those who know me will probably be expecting me to blog on those particular issues today, given the title of this synchroblog. Well, it's not to be. It's bigger than that. Matthew 7:1:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV)

Who am I to exclude anyone? Who am I to separate sheep from goats? I'm as much a goat as anyone else, and I don't get to decide.

This doesn't mean that I'm ready to say that all behaviour is acceptable, which is to advocate antinomianism. This doesn't mean that I won't decry particular behaviour by particular people. but I must do that in the knowledge that they have every right to do the same to me, and that I don't get to exclude them. I cannot see into their "utmost hearts and minds", any more than they can mine: thank God.

Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them." (Luke 11:46, NIV)

"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." (Luke 11:52, NIV)

I'm really not one for proof-texting - trying to prove my point by pointing to Bible verses, but I think this is fairly clear. It's not for us to judge: we condemn ourselves when we do.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Christianity: Inclusive or exclusive?". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Steve Hayes is blogging his thoughts "Christianity inclusive or exclusive?"
• It's a family affair comes from Jenelle D'Alessandro
• John Smulo will be adding his thoughts.
• Erin Word share some thoughts on The Politics of love.
• Sam Norton adds his thinking to the synchro team.
• As does Julie Clawson
• David Fisher asks "Why are we exclusive?"
• Mike Bursell muses on Inclusive or exclusive: you mean there's a choice?
• And Sally shares her thoughts here
• Cobus van Wyngaard is contemplating Inclusivity within claims of heresy
• Tim Abbott joins the conversation with Christianity inclusive or exclusive?

• Sonja posts on Pack behaviour.

Labels: homosexuality, synchroblog, women

A SecondLife Utopia

For those who don't know it, SecondLife is a virtual world where you can interact in 3D with other people. Each person has an avatar, which you can dress up, change the looks - even appear as a different animal or fantasy creature. People and organisations can own land, build structures, exhibit art, sell and buy property, furniture and art, vehicles, objects and intellectual property. Universities, companies, charities and churches are provides services (pun intended) worldwide.

But why do people take part in SecondLife? The obvious joke is that you don't need SecondLife if you have a first life. And it's true that many people use SecondLife as a way out of the life that's outside. SecondLife gives people a chance to look how they want, to build what they want, to live in the sort of environment that they want, and to present the personality that they want.

And SecondLife is, almost by definition, a no-place (the Greek root of the word) - you can be whatever you need to be. But I'd argue that this isn't always a bad thing. A chance to explore what you can be - as long as you're honest to yourself and God - may be a good thing. There are some very exciting things going on in a church sense in SecondLife. An example which I'm involved in is the Anglican Church in SecondLife. We're building a community, are planning services, and have an amazing mediaeval cathedral on our own island. We have a leadership team committed not only to liturgy, but also to the pastoral as well.

And the pastoral comes up more than you might expect. For a variety of reasons which I think it would be very interesting to examine, many people seem very open to pastoral or faith-based experiences in SecondLife. Opportunities to talk about faith - with people from a huge range of traditions - come up fairly frequently. It's not always when you expect it, or want it, but when it comes, you need to embrace it.

There are dangers to SecondLife, certainly, but opportunities. There are circumstances in which it could be destructive - and there's gambling and sex and pornography there in ways that are difficult to reconcile with faith - but it can be positive, too. A no-place can be a what-place, a who-place, and a how-place.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Utopia". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
• John Morehead at John Morehead's Musings
• Nudity, Innocence, and Christian Distopia at Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Utopia Today: Living Above Consumerism at Be the Revolution
• Nowhere Will Be Here at Igneous Quill
• A This-Worldly Faith at Elizaphanian
• Bridging the Gap at Calacirian
• The Ostrich and the Utopian Myth at Decompressing Faith
• Being Content in the Present at One Hand Clapping
• Eternity in their Hearts by Tim Abbott
• Relationship - The catch-22 of the Internet Utopia at Jeremiah's Blog
• U-topia or My-topia? at On Earth as in Heaven
• A SecondLife Utopia at Mike's Musings
• Mrs. Brown and the Kingdom of God at Eternal Echoes

Labels: secondlife, synchroblog

Untouchables

I came up with this topic after a sermon last Sunday. One of the points the preacher made about the service on the Friday was that some people had made flippant remarks about it, and I was one of those people. I hope I made it clear to the people to whom I made remarks that I was joking, but I was disparaging about the tradition, and after the sermon, I felt chastened. It got me thinking, though, which I believe was the point.

I think most Christians would agree that Jesus went out of his way to spend time with, preach to and scandalise others about, the marginalised. And some of these would, quite literally, have been "untouchables" at the time: if you did touch one of these people, you were ritually unclean, and had to go through a variety of rituals before you could interact with other people. Examples? Dead bodies (widow of Nain's son, Lazarus, centurion's child), menstruating women (woman with the issue of blood for 7 years), probably the Samarian woman, gentiles (the centurion), and probably tax-collectors and publicans, too. Certainly prostitutes.

Things are different now: we don't have (in Christianity, at least) the idea of "ritual uncleanness", but what about how others in your congregation would feel about you if they found out you were talking to certain people? Drunks? The homeless? Drug abusers? Beggars? Sun readers? Guardian readers? Abusive atheists? Publicans? (Well, my congregation wouldn't mind my talking to landlords, I think.) Jews? Hindus? Fundamental Evangelicals? Anglo-catholics? Roman Catholics? Gays? Fox-hunters? Pornographers? Pagans? Satanists? People from Kettering? (Just checking, Gary, just checking.) Divorcees? Adulterers? Fornicators? Sabbath-breakers? Abortionists? Animal testers? Animal liberationists? Unmarried families? Murderers? Child abusers?

Some of these groups are pretty safe for most - some for few. But I suspect that for most of us, there are groups there that we would be unhappy talking to. That's fine: that's how we work, as part of safe, happy communities. And we have the excuse of our place in society, or our families, or time, or money, or, well, whatever. But look at the list above. Do you think that there would have been _one_single_ group up there to whom Jesus would not have talked? Who Jesus would not have loved? Who Jesus would not have forgiven? No.

I'm not a fan of the "what would Jesus do?" movement, because who are we to make ourselves Christ? But there are times when we realise that Jesus set us an example. And that to be Christ-like (which I believe is what we need to aspire to, though it is, of course, impossible, being as we're all sinners), we have to try to emulate his example.

This will be hard. But that's the paradox about "his yoke is easy, his burthen is light": there's hard work to do.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Untouchables". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Mike Bursell muses about Untouchables
• David Fisher on Touching the Pharisees - My Untouchable People Group
• Michael Bennet writes Nothing more than the crust life
• Jeremiah at Models of church leadership and decision-making as they apply to outreach
• John Smulo talks about Christian Untouchables
• Sally Coleman shares on The Untouchables
• Sam Norton talks about Untouchables
• Steve Hayes on Dalits and Hindutva
• Sonja Andrews visits the subject here
• Fernando A. Gros speaks up on Untouchability And Glocalisation
• Phil Wyman throws out the Loose Lips - A "SinkroBlog"
• Josh Rivera does his stuff with the Untouchables

Labels: sin, synchroblog

Christianity at the Movies

Because I'm a soft, bleeding-heart liberal with no backbone, I'm uncomfortable with blanket condemnations of anything. And films ("movies", for non-British readers) are one of those things that we Christians sometimes leap to condemn very quickly: when it suits us, anyway. It's difficult not to think about condemnation when the papers here in the US are full of the death of Jerry Falwell - a founder member of the so-called Moral Majority over here.

I feel that, like many texts - by which I mean pretty much any type of interpreted object - films are very slippery. They move, and change, and - for some reason I'm not quite sure - they seem to morph into different things more often than books, for instance, do. A film seen twice or three times is a different kind of thing to a book read twice of three times, it seems to me. I tend to react differently to viewings - more than I would to multiple readings - possibly because of the immersive quality of films, and probably also because of the use of music. So, films change their meaning - in as much as anything has meaning, of course - their referents are more difficult to pin down. This means that a film may "mean" one thing to one person, and quite a different thing to another - and that this significations are quite liable - and likely - to change between viewings.

I'm not going to try to suggest that some films - like some books - are not morally compromised: this is a particular danger and power of any medium which is so immersive. Nor is the opposite danger to condemnation not something against which we should guard: March of the Penguins is _not_ an advert for creationism. But we should be careful.

Sorry for a rather random post, but that's just what came to mind.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of Christianity and movies. If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Adam Gonnerman pokes at The Spider's Pardon
• David Fisher thinks that Jesus Loves Sci-Fi
• John Morehead considers Christians and Horror Redux: From Knee-Jerk Revulsion to Critical Engagement
• Marieke Schwartz lights it up with Counter-hegemony: Jesus loves Borat
• Mike Bursell muses about Christianity at the Movies
• Jenelle D'Alessandro tells us Why Bjork Will Never Act Again
• Cobus van Wyngaard contemplates Theology and Film (as art)
• Tim Abbott tells us to Bring your own meaning...?
• Sonja Andrews visits The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:Christ in Spaghetti Westerns
• Steve Hollinghurst takes a stab at The Gospel according to Buffy
• Les Chatwin insists We Don't Need Another Hero
• Lance Cummings says The Wooden Wheel keeps Turning
• John Smulo weaves a tale about Spiderman 3 and the Shadow
• Josh Rivera spells well with Christian Witchcraft
• Phil Wyman throws out the Frisbee: Time to Toss it Back
• Sally Coleman rushes up with Making Connections- films as a part of a mythological tradition
• Steve Hayes ponders The Image of Christianity in Films
• Kim Paffenroth pondersNihilism lite

Labels: films, synchroblog

Persecution and Righteousness

Today's post is a synchroblog (see below) on the topic "Persecution of Righteousness". I chose a somewhat different title on purpose, as there was something about the topic that I wasn't sure about, and which I thought I'd look at. We agreed to synchroblog on persecution after an incident where one of our number was removed from a leadership role in a church, not for something he wrote on a synchroblog, but for the fact that he linked to other members, whose views his church didn't like. This led me to write an entry I called Guilty by assocation. I later discovered that other synchrobloggers have suffered similarly. Given the proximity of this month's synchroblog to Easter, posting on persecution seemed to make sense, and I pushed for the topic to include it.

But when the topic was chosen, it was broader - I wondered about querying this, but it started me thinking, and I'm of the opinion that when I start thinking about things theologically, God generally is prompting me to keep doing so.

So, what worried me about "persecution of righteousness"? Well, I'm clearly _against_ persecution of righteousness, but what about persecution in general? One definition of persecution (Webster, 1913) gives:

1. The act or practice of persecuting; especially, the infliction of loss, pain, or death for adherence to a particular creed or mode of worship.

I'd take it much more broadly than that, and I think that's rather an old definition - more modern definitions would be likely to include issues such as more general beliefs, practices or ways of life (e.g. sexual orientation), or states of being (e.g. physical or mental disability). Now, what's interesting from my point of view, here, is that some of these areas might involve behaviour which is not righteous, and therefore don't exhibit righteousness. Some of them would be up for general debate - homosexual sex, for instance - and I wondered if there is something about the act of persecution which lends righteousness to the persecuted? I think that there's something about the act of persecution which is incompatible with righteousness (in terms of the persecutor), but I don't think, on reflection, that the suggestion holds water. What about paedophiles, for instance? Does their being persecuted make them righteous? No, I don't think so.

But - and here's the rub - I believe that we have a Christian duty (in the strongest sense of the word, in that it's handed to us by Jesus Christ himself) to reach out to the persecuted. Matthew 25:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Christ's mission was not just to the righteous, but to sinners. Our mission should include the same.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of spiritual warfare. If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• David Fisher - Be the Revolution
• Fishing for Trouble - Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Persecution and Righteousness - Mike's Musings
• Restoring Our View of Humanity - Eternal Echoes
• Persecuting the Marginalized - JohnSmulo.com
• The Ends Justify the Means - Calacirian
• Billy Calderwood - Billy Calderwood
• Seeking First Righteousness - Tim Abbott
• Jamie Swann - More Than Stone
• Persecution and Martyrdom - Handmaid Leah
• "Don't squash the counter-revolutionary/the plank in my own eye" - Jeremiah
• The Martyrs of Epinga at Notes from Underground
• Terrorism in Christianity at The Rivera Blog
• Persecution or Poor Elocution? "Hello," said Jenelle

Labels: synchroblog, theology

Supervision

Had a meeting with Keith tonight. We talked about baptism policy and sacred spaces, within the context of the module I'm currently working on. I ended up showing him around some of SecondLife, which was a bit of a revelation to him, I think - not to mention a culture shock. And that was without any interaction with other people - just showing him some of the sites.

We also talked about the great Synchroblog debate (see blogs passim) - he was very supportive, keen to pray for David and all others affected, and strongly in favour of my maintaining an "honesty" policy in my blog. This is very important, as he's a pivotal person in my training for ordination. He's a great guy, and I really appreciate his help and support. If only the dog hadn't tried to eat both of the cats at various points in the proceedings...

Labels: dog, ERMC, synchroblog

Synchroblog: guilty by association

At the end of last year, a few people in the blogosphere, all Christians who'd had opportunity to read each others blogs - or some of them - decided to get together and post, on a theological, religious or spiritual topic once a month, calling ourselves "Synchrobloggers". We change the topic each month, and there's a wide spectrum of different traditions from around the world. We'd like to recruit more, but it's only just started. You can see my last post (with a link to the others also posting) here.

Because the traditions and theological backgrounds are so different, the views expressed are also very broad, and it's fair to say that it's unlikely that any one person will agree with everything that all the others say. For instance, I'm very liberal in my theological outlook, and that's reflected in my views on sexuality. Sally has a lot of time for alternative spiritualities, as well as a strongly feminist slant to her theology, and so on. It's less of a meeting of minds, and more a meeting of intent: that each of us should have the chance to express our views, read the views of others, and then comment and discuss. There have been some occasions when certain people's views have been rejected, and though it's difficult, that's OK, as well. We each walk our own path, following God's guidance as best we can.

However, we heard today that someone had to leave their job(*) - in Christian ministry - because they had linked to the synchroblogs. Not because they had endorsed any particularly unorthodox views. Not because they had refused to condemn any particularly contentious posts. But because they had linked to a collection of blogs, some of which expressed views that some members of their community couldn't stomach.

This saddens me. It reviles me. It angers me. I feel guilty, humble, and proud. All at the same time. I'm not sure I should feel proud, to be honest, but it's there. I need to unpack it.

I believe that we're doing God's work, here. We're struggling with our faith. Battling. Rejoicing. Of course we're getting it wrong. But we're open to questions. We're open. That's the main thing.

* (added 2218 GMT) - just a note: as you'll see from the comments, it wasn't a paid position, which does lessen the shock somewhat, and David is remarkably calm about it. A very Christian reaction.

Labels: synchroblog, theology

Christians: choosing who to love

I'd hoped to spend some time on this, but as readers of entries passim will realise, I'm not at all well (update below), so I'm going to keep it short.

My intention had been to write from two directions:

1. as Christians, we don't get to decide who we should love: we're supposed to love everyone (including ourselves). This includes people of whom we may not approve - and I'm thinking in particular of gay, bisexual or lesbian people. And gay, bisexual or lesbian Christians, too.
2. we should maybe realise that other people don't get to decide who they love, either: and I'm thinking in particular of gay, bisexual or lesbian people. And gay, bisexual or lesbian Christians, too. God made each of us the way we are, and we must remember that Jesus told us to "love your neighbour as yourself", which means that we must realise that people must love the selves that God made them.

I'm not going to be drawn into the "paedophile debate": that's not about love, as it's not reciprocal, and is entirely about abuse. I'm talking about good, honest, human (and, through Christ's incarnation, divine) love.

Sorry to be blunt - I expect comments (though I may delay responding to them all until I'm rather better).

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of spiritual warfare. If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Christian Sexuality as Ritual Worship at Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Christians: choosing who to love at Mike's Musings
• Loving God, Loving others, loving self- responding to the Goddess- a feminist perspective at Eternal Echoes
• Trinity by Mike Crockett
• Prophet's Passion at Adam Gonnerman's Igneous Quill
• A Love Supreme from Fernando's Desk
• What is this thing called love? at Steve's Notes from the Underground
• Love as it should pertain to us missionally? at Webb's Stumbling into the Kingdom
• Divine Eros by Handmaid Leah
• Loving the Other by John Smulo
• The Conjunction Between Sensuality and Spirituality by Matt Stone
• The Blogger Whom Jesus Loved at Jamie's More Than Stone
• Love Them Patriots at Calacirian
• I'm a better lover than I used to be... by Billy Calderwood
• Young people in on love by Tim Abbot
• The Art of Making Love....and Soap at Cindy's Tracking the Edge
• Being Missional: Love Comes Before Power by David Fisher at Be the Revolution

Update

For those of you with an interest, I'm definitely still ill. Got around 2 hours of sleep last night, woke up with a temperature and alternate shakes/sweats. Doc gave me antibiotics and the week off.

Labels: illness, love, sexuality, synchroblog

SynchroBlog

Well, it's been very interesting reading the the other SynchroBloggers' entries on Spiritual Warfare. I feel better educated, though I certainly didn't agree with everything I read, it set me thinking. We're hoping to do a SynchroBlog every month or so, and we've now got a mailing list going. If you're interested in joining in, please get in touch.

Labels: synchroblog

Spiritual Warfare: a liberal looking inwards

I had to look up the term "Spiritual warfare" when the suggestion came up that we should do a synchroblog: you'll find a useful definition on Wikipedia. Well, it was useful for me, at least, to the extent that it told me that it's not a concept that I'm very happy with: certainly not very familiar with.

The aspect of spiritual warfare with which I had some passing knowledge was more in the Orthodox tradition of being aware at all times of the internal battle to live to the glory of Christ revealed to us, and to battle against the impulses to apathy, non-doing and, sometimes, downright evil which are part of our shared humanity. This battle is one that Christ's salvation, and the continuous workings of the Holy Spirit through God's continuous creation. This is the looking inwards that I referred to above, and is an understanding of spiritual warfare with which I'm entirely happy.

Where I struggle is with the demonic side of things: evil spirits who inhabit our world. I'm not a big fan of angelology, and this dark side of seeing the spiritual world is caught up with that. I'm much happier with a view of evil which is seen more as embedded within us - not so much original sin in the traditional sense, but more due to the brokenness of human society: an inevitable consequence of our fallen nature.

I'm very aware that my experience, however, is very limited. I have, thank God, never experienced real evil first hand. I've witnessed evil deeds, and come across at least one person in whom evil must be understood to have been at work. I know that there are things out there that are beyond my understanding. I suspect that this may change over the years that come, and that evil may press harder on those of faith than without, but I've yet to see anything that convinced me that evil spirits were at work in people.

This is partly due to the fact that I've had lots of exposure to issues around mental health. I've seen little in my life which I've not been able to understand or at least relate to in terms of human brokenness and mental illness. Moo has worked in mental health for quite a lot of her mental health, she's read widely in issues surrounding it - and I've mirrored some of that reading - I have friends and family who have suffered - and still suffer - with mental health problems. I worry very much when issues of mental health, which can be addressed - if not "solved" completely - through counselling and various kinds of care - are blamed on evil spirits.

This raises two points. First of all, I'm not a fan of over-medicalising conditions which have a large emotional component, as many mental health conditions do. A holistic view of illness - particularly mental illness - is often vital. This can often include a spiritual element of treatment: and maybe treatment here is too medical a term to be using. What is more, it is important to treat the person, and not just their illness, and in order to do that, it is important to allow the person being treated to understand their illness in a way which makes sense to them, and which is contextualised to their situation.

This leads to a second point: that it may be that the understanding that people have is strongly influenced by their spiritual beliefs. They may, in fact, see their condition - and I'm now carefully avoiding talking solely about mental illness - as mainly revolving around spiritual elements.

And here is an example of where looking at postmodern understandings of experience can be very helpful. A realisation that every point of view has a validity, even though they may not all be equally valid, means that we can understand that imposing our views of reality and experience without any attempt to understand and contextualise the explanations and descriptions of the realities experienced - quite fully and honestly - by other people, can be damaging to them. It also falsifies any pretension to tolerance, understanding and empathy that we make. Generally, this is something that the medical profession is coming to terms with, particularly in mental health. We, too, as religious practitioners, need to be aware that realities are relative. Yes, there is an objective Truth that God has given us, but we cannot fully understand it - we are too broken - and we must be aware of that. As Christians, we believe that the revelation of Christ to us gives us a better view of that Truth - if we listen to it - but we cannot, and must not, pretend that we have all the answers.

I've roamed a bit off my thread, and there's one more point I want to make. This is that sometimes the historical understanding of the practice of spiritual warfare can be used to excuse practices which are un-Christian. Some of the exorcisms that take place in the name of spiritual warfare, for instance, are more about control and abuse of the powerless than can possibly be considered Christian. While we need to contextualise belief - as I mentioned above - love of God, of others and, yes, of ourselves ("love thy neighbour as thyself") must inform at all times our practice, and praxis of faith.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of spiritual warfare. If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Phil Wyman - Pagans, Witches, and Spiritual Warfare
• John Smulo - Portraits of Spiritual Warfare
• Mike Crockett - Sufism: How the Inner Jihad relates to Christian Spiritual Warfare
• Steve Hayes - Thoughts on Spiritual Warfare
• Marieke Schwartz - Grace in War
• Cindy Harvey - Spiritual Warfare. (?)
• Jenelle D'Allesandro - The Militancy of Worship
• Mike Bursell - Spiritual Warfare: a liberal looking inwards
• David Fisher - Spiritual Warfare: Does it have to be loud and wacky?
• Brian Heasley - Something from Ibiza via Ireland
• Webb Kline - Webb Kline
• Sally Coleman - Sally Coleman
• Mike Murrow - Mike Murrow

Labels: evil, mental health, spirituality, synchroblog