Mike's musings

Last sermon

Today I preached my last sermon to my current benefice, in Little Yeldham. Keith, my incumbent, had asked me where I'd like to preach this last sermon before my ordination, and I'd chosen Little Yeldham as I know and like the people, and feel at home there. It was also an opportunity to preach with Keith taking the service, as often I've been taking the services at which I've been preaching. I preached on eschatology, and how we can move from a partly realised eschatology to a realistic, realisable future eschatology throughan undestanding of he perichoretic opportunities of friendship. This sounds complicated, I guess, but it really isn't: it's about understanding that although Christ's life, death and resurrection began to usher in the Kingdom of God, the world we live in is still very broken, and we're a long way from the Kingdom right now. How can we work towards it? By realising that it's not just an individual thing, and that when Christ called his disciples friends, he called us all to a friendship which can hopefully make us more mature, as individuals and a community.

The scary thing? I'm due to be ordained this month.

Labels: preaching, theology

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

What a day!

A day when things took a long time to go well. When I tell you that I was ringing colleagues in Canada at 0400 their time, you might get an idea of how things went. But we got there in the end: all was working by the time I walked out of the door around 1745, and the customer was very happy.

Finished reading Marriage after Modernity by Adrian Thatcher. Very interesting. He makes a case for marriage being special - or different, maybe - because it's child-centred. He's very positive about other models, but suggests that this is the over-riding difference. What I like is that he's ontological about it, rather than teleological: you don't _have_ to have reproduction as the aim of a marriage, but that's more than often what it ends up being about, and it's the relationship type where it's most central. Interesting.

Labels: children, family, theology, work

Sermon

I'm not going to be preaching it until at least the beginning of July, but I'm beginning to worry, already, about my first sermon as a deacon. This is silly, I realise, but that's just running round my head. Do you preach to the lectionary (something I'm not overly given to), or to the season, or to recent events, or speak about myself, or curacy, or the diaconate? I literally have no idea. And it's obviously, obviously too early to think about it.

I'm currently going through the "why isn't everybody else so enthusiastic about the Gospel, then?" phase. This, I'm given understand, is typical of nearly-deaconed ordinands. Expecting to enthuse everybody else is a dangerous fallacy, and I'm glad, at least, that I've seen it. And enthusiasm is good. But needs watching.

Now Moo's not well. Hope she gets better soon. I've done a part dog-poo clearance, and 90% of the ironing (ran out of coat-hangers), and cooked supper. And spent around an hour getting Jo to sleep. But I hate it when Moo's ill. Particularly as it's partly due to overwork.

Labels: diaconate, ordination, sermon, theology

SecondLife

Beginning to try to get some ducks in a row to arrange some theologians to help discuss issues around online religion, SecondLife, etc.. I've now got some good ones to try to track down... If you know of good theologians in this area, please let me know!

Jo not vomiting anymore, but running a temperature, has a rash, emotional, etc.. No sign of anything with Miri, luckily.

Poor Moo's very tired at the moment: she spends every spare hour at a project in Southend-on-Sea, where they're trying to recruit some management. Hopefully when that's done, things should calm down somewhat.

Labels: Moo, secondlife, theology

Walking - almost

Miri's so nearly there. The most she's managed is four little steps towards me, before making it into my arms. She _can_ do it: she just needs to believe.

I read Jo the Passion and Resurrection narratives (simplified) from her little Bible today. She asked "Who's God?" after a chat about Jesus. I explained about Jesus being God, and about God the Father (the Mother aspect was going to be too much!), and, in the interests of good Trinitarian theology, I felt I'd better mention the Holy Spirit. Not sure it helped matters particularly...

I was in London today, meeting a possible customer. Went well - oh, and stopped off at Hatfield Galleria, bought a pair of work shoes and a new shirt. My life's so interesting.

Labels: Jo, miri, theology, walk

We shall be changed

I'm not sure what I'm blogging on today. It's been quite a long day: I'm not quite sure why. Took the dog out for a walk, got soaked and cold, despite wearing moleskins. We signed a major deal today, which is excellent. We're working on another one. I spent some time trying to find some clerical shirts (I don't intend to spend £55.00 per shirt, as one provider was asking). And booked a dentist's appointment. And done lots of reading for a tutorial on eschatology,

But I just keep coming back to the phrase "And we shall changed."

Labels: theology, work

SecondLife - a paper

In November, I had to write an essay on fresh expressions of Church, and chose to do it on the Anglican Cathedral in SecondLife. I got the essay back this weekend, and as it was pretty well received, I've decided to publish the second part - in a somewhat edited format - as a contribution to discussions about SecondLife and online religion.

It is entitled The Anglican Cathedral in SecondLife: is it a successful "fresh expression of Church"?, and I welcome comments.

Labels: secondlife, theology

ERMC day 3 - "And we shall be changed. We _shall_ be changed"

We had one session yesterday on ministry in schools by on of the people on the course, who's an expert in this field, and we had two more today. Managed to stay awake: they were very interesting, and I know that I'm going to be doing at least one in the next month or two, so paying attention was a good plan.

A good service, in the charismatic tradition - the quote (which, in that form, is from Handel's Messiah) was my response to the weekend. Some good songs/choruses (I'm learning not to refer to them as "hymns"), and I was administering one of the chalices today. This was fantastic: it can be good administering the chalice anyway, but it was such a privilege today, when I know those receiving well, and know that they are staff or ordinands like me. It was just very special.

Labels: communion, ERMC, theology

ERMC day 2 - Resurrection and Ascension

A very enjoyable day, with three sessions on Resurrection (Christ's and ours) and Ascension (Christ's). Really got me thinking, and firming up exactly what I believe. Might get round to discussing this at some point, but I ended up being more orthodox than Gary had expected!

Stayed up rather late (0300) discussing many things. Must remember these books for the essay I discussed yesterday:

• Celebrating Christian Marriage by Adrian Thatcher
• The Family in Theological Perspective ed. Stephen Barton
• also found this when searching Amazon: Life Together: Family, Sexuality and Community in the New Testament and Today by Stephen Barton

Labels: ERMC, family, theology

One hour

(backposting) I went down to the bar for a drink before going out with some folks from the meeting tonight, and sat next to a guy who was reading through some record cards. They were clearly short texts from the Bible, and I asked him about them. He works for IBM, but also has a lay ministry working, mainly with homeless people, on helping people beyond just "accepting Christ" and further into trying to the lift the veil that is made up of our past experience and clinging to idols, and moving to a closer experience of God. He attends a Methodist church, but isn't strongly demonminational.

An interesting chat, and one of the things that he sometimes says to people is "imagine that Jesus is sitting in the next room, and you have just one hour to spend with him. What would you do?" He says that many people shy away. I don't think I would, but I became sad thinking about how what I suspect I'd find most difficult: I think Jesus might want to wash my feet, and I'm not sure how well I'd cope.

Labels: Christ, humility, theology

The kite

Not much sleep last night, and a trip to Freeport was a little fraught, but we managed it. I'm pleased, because I bought a bookcase which I really need for all those theology and work books. After lunch, though, Mum, Jo, Miri and I went to Clare Country Park to play with the kite that Jo had been given for her birthday on Thursday.

Got it put together, got it up. Moved to a better place, with more wind: in fact, there was just about the right amount of wind to get it up and staying up, but you needed to run a bit to keep it there when the wind dropped a little, which meant that from time to time, when Jo had it, it dropped to the ground. But we worked round that. Until Jo had it, was running away from me, I called her to run towards me, and she let go of it.

I ran. I really, really ran, and I thought I had it. In the end, it was getting away, and I threw myself after it. But to no avail. The end of the string, with handle, ended up 4 metres up a thorn tree. The kite itself about the same up another thorn tree. I tried to get it, but was needed to comfort Jo, who had completely (and understandably) lost it. And I'm not just talking about the kite.

We offered to try to find a replacement, or go for coffee and cake: she chose the former. Luckily, the local store had a cheap kite (£1.99!), which we bought, but once we got it up, she was worried that we were going to lose that one, too, that she wouldn't hold it herself, and soon refused to let me put it up at all, dissolving in tears. The poor thing's really tired at the moment, and was just beside herself.

So, coffee and cake this time. She demanded some cake, and, having had half a forkful, insisted that she was still full from lunch, so left it to me and Mum. But we had some nice tea to go with it.

As we were leaving the café, we spotted a girl of no more than 8, with her father/grandfather, and ... a kite. We asked, and yes, he'd managed to get it down with a long stick. He offered to give it back, and it was clearly what Jo wanted, so we accepted: and the little girl's lip began to wobble: quite understandably (again). So, I offered her the kite that we'd just bought. And _Jo_ started to lose it. Again, understandably. The bloke was lovely, but was visibly relieved when I told him that we'd bought the second just round the corner...

At this point, we gave up and went home.

Jo's very tired. So are we. I think the whole birthday and build-up have been a bit much for her, and she's really not getting enough sleep at the moment. Not that we are, either. I'm away three nights this week, and hope to get some sleep. Assuming that _I_ make it that far.

Now: anyone know of any good theologians talking about religion in cyberspace/online? Preferably in the UK.

Labels: family, Jo, online, theology

Phistophicles

Some real genius here. "...on why bad things happen to good people" is quite affecting, actually.

Labels: humour, theology

Liberation theology - challenging

I'm not sure whether that title means that I'm challenging Liberation theology, or being challenged by it, but I've been thinking, certainly. I'm really enjoying the ethics module, as I'd expected I would, and am reading ahead. I've just been reading Gorringe, who cites Segundo talking about the bottom line commitment for liberation theology is the option for the poor. I think the thing I'm trying to come to terms with is that although I absolutely accept the enormous inequalities - unchristian inequalities - that riddle our society, and the impact that has on the poorest in society, I'm not sure that I'm ready to take on board what seems to be the central tenet of liberation theology: that our first and foremost task must always be the reconstituting of society in such a way as to alleviate - and remove - economic poverty.

Are there not other unchristian inequalities that must attract our attention? Sometimes, maybe, more than economic poverty? Sometimes, maybe, we look beyond the question of inequalities, and focus more on injustice. I don't think this last point - injustice versus inequality - is particularly at odds with liberation theology. And I'm also very aware that this self-conscious theologising is dangerous in two particular ways:

1. in liberation theology, praxis is king (and there's an intentionally imperialist piece of language), and the primal move should be from sensing of injustice to dealing with it, and then to the theology around it
2. worst of all, I'm doing this from a position of extreme privilige. I'm a young, white, educated, healthy, safe, rich male in a happy nuclear family based around a heterosexual relationship between two waged individuals. It really doesn't get much worse than this: at least I'm not titled...

This is not a new argument, and I'm very aware of how womanist theory addresses the question of whether the aims of first and second generation (American) feminism are really consonant with the issues that are relevant to poor black women.

So, am I interested in issues about gender inequality, inequality around sexuality or sexual practice, spiritual poverty, educational poverty, emotional poverty, psychological poverty and the rest just because I'm in a position to be so? Is my privilege leading me to a leisure of choice which allows me to look beyond the real issues of Third World - or Developing World - poverty? Maybe it is. But am I wrong to look more closely at what's going on at home? Might I not start by looking at homeless people? Surely that would be acceptable to liberation theologians? But what are the reasons for those (multiple) homelessnesses? Surely there is no real poverty in our Welfare State-supported society? Surely those who are homeless, or disenfranchised, or addicts, of in abusive relationships, or complaining about lack of advancement for female or homosexual clergy are not really poor? Surely they have choices?

They may well do. But they should not be called to make those choices. And I think that this is consonant with liberation theology. I pray that those committed liberation theologians will allow that I have a true and real spiritual - and, following that - theological commitment to removing injustice. I hope so.

Labels: feminism, injustice, poverty, theology

Seminar yesterday

I forgot - I had a seminar yesterday. Richard, the staff member, was leading it: on the atonement. We had quite a discussion on the nature of sin. I take the view that sin and evil are pretty much synonymous, and without conscious humanity, there would be no evil. His theodicy is rather different to mine: he sees a broken creation, whereas I see a broken and fallen humanity. Christ dies on the cross, for me, to atone for humanity's sin, but for Richard, he atones not just for moral evil, but for the "evil" he sees in nature: the pain of a dying animal, and the death of an innocent neonate human baby.

I don't see evil in this way. For me, the phrase "the lion will lie down with the lamb" is allegorical, not literal, but if you take a view of creation that it is broken, then the Atonement must, I suppose, include this. My concern with this view is that I believe that God's grace is strongly shown through the natural world, and that any intervention that breaks the rules of that world - of what we call scientific laws - would be a denial, by God, of his grace and love.

Labels: ERMC, sin, theology

3/4 birthday, and the Bible. And fundamentalism

Miri turned 50:50 today: 9 months old. I'm not going into that. Anyway, she's doing very well at the moment, and is in a very social phase at the moment.

I led another "coffee and worship" this morning, and we used the new area in the back of Great Yeldham church. We didn't sit in pews: we sat in a circle. And had coffee and tea while we discussed things. No, really! This is the Church of England. Rural church of England. And 22 people came. TWENTY-TWO! We had to put new chairs out. And there were 2 children I didn't count.

So, we had a greeting, I read Acts 10:34-43, then John 11:25-27. Then we had coffee and tea (and biscuits) and I talked about "What does it mean to believe in the Bible"? I talked about Eusebius saying in the early 4th century that everyone knew that Genesis wasn't a literal description of the creation, but allegorical, and how fundamentalism, in Christianity, is generally a 19th century phenomenon, about translation (how many people read both Hebrew and New Testament Greek - oh, and Jesus spoke in Aramaic, anyway). And lots of related stuff. Only had 10 minutes or so, and then we had some discussion. I moved between the groups.

In the second group, I discovered two people who are, frankly, creationists. They're cool about it, and just feel it's the easiest reading.

I spent quite a lot of my summing up and intercessions in the following worship talking about respecting people with viewpoints different to our own.

Labels: belief, church, faith, miri, theology

SecondLife and the virtual self

(backposting) I went to a lecture in Chelmsford Cathedral today: "The Virtual Self". The lecturer, though providing some decent quotes from Baudrillard and making some comparisons with the images in Plato's cave which I liked a lot, was generally very negative about SecondLife and the rest. I didn't like the fact that he spent a lot of time talking about people with clear issues IRL, and then how much time they spend in-world, or how different their avatars are from their "real" bodies. He talked about idolatry a lot, and addiction.

There were questions at the end, and I was one of those who stepped up. I made three points:

1. that everyone there is very welcome to join us at that Anglican Cathedral in SecondLife, that we hold services and prayers meetings and have pastoral encounters
2. that Baudrillard would say that they growth of the "imagined" other self dates from at least the invention of the printed book, and that every time we make a phonecall or write an email, we're imagining a self, and employing a persona. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and no-one - not even ourselves - can truly know the "real" us, except God. The imagined selves that we present are part of who we are and how we engage with the world as it is now, and although there are dangers, there are opportunities, too.
3. that we have a duty as Christians to step out and engage with people wherever they are, and that not only are there lots of normal people there, but they are very ready to engage in spiritual and theological encounters - more so than is often the case IRL. And they are _young_ people, who the established churches have problems interacting with generally...

I wasn't the only person to stand up and make positive points, but the people there were mainly in their 50s or above, and this was all pretty new to them. And frightening, from the way he talked about it.

I was flabbergasted, by the way, that he felt in a position to talk about, and criticise, MMOs (and social networking sites like Facebook, which he painted with the same brush!), despite never having visited any of them.

Ah, and my first night on my own with the girls (Mel baby-sat until I got home).

Labels: secondlife, theology

More theology

On the way back from Greenstead Green church with Jo and Miri, decided to address the question of Jesus' flying (see Friday's entry). Went into omnipresence (Jesus doesn't really fly, but he's everywhere): could have gone worse. Then addressed Jesus' dying, and coming back. ("Why?" "Because He loves us: Jesus is God, and he loves everyone.") Went back into omnipresence. "He's everywhere, but you can't see Him." Pause. "I can see God: he's over there." (Jo points at a field).

I have some more work to do.

Labels: god, Jo, theology

Theology

(backposting) A conversation between Jo and Moo today:

Jo: Mummy, you know Jesus?

Moo: Um, yes?

Jo: He does a lot of flying around now he's dead, doesn't he?

Moo: Does he?

Jo: Yes, he's always buzzing around everywhere. Like a fly.

Moo: I'd ask your dad about that.

I have some work to do.

Labels: Jo, Moo, theology

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

Trying something new

Today I took two services, one at Little Yeldham, and one at Great Yeldham. I did the same thing both times, something I'd not tried before, and with which I was very pleased. I was a little worried, as it was so new - and something that neither congregation is used to - but it went very well, I think. A few negative comments, but from the quarters I would have expected, so I'm not overly worried about that.

The general plan was the same for both churches:

• I entered in cassock-alb and girdle
• I started with the standard words for Morning Prayer (Common Worship), then moved into ...
• a reading: Luke 17:11-19 (the Samaritan leper who turned back to praise God for his healing)
• I then put down my bible, started to take off my girdle, and said "Right, let's have coffee, then". I'd already got water boiling, so it didn't take long to get everyone sat down with a hot drink.
• I then explained that I wanted people to get into 2s and 3s and to discuss for 5 or so minutes the question "why do I go to church?" - whether that means the building, or services, etc. - followed by "what do I get from going to church?"
• I wandered around the groups, encouraging, taking some notes
• after 7-8 minutes I stood at the front and collected the themes that people had come up with. I spent some time talking about the importance of worship as a reason for going to church (one congregation had come up with this, one not)
• I then handed round a set of Bibles that I'd gathered from home, and asked each mini-group to come up with a passage which they felt reflected one of the themes that had been identified
• I went round the groups with a concordance (which I'd cunningly thought to bring along!), pinning down the readings they'd been thinking of
• we then launched into a fairly standard but slightly cut-down Morning Prayer service, with confession, absolution and creed to start off
• this was followed by the passages that people had identified, read by the people who'd selected them (though I offered to read them if people wanted). After each, I said "This is the Word of the Lord", to which everyone replied "Thanks be to God"
• we had some intercessions (in one church)
• we then had an offertory hymn
• I then wrapped up, asking the congregation to think about the question "What would I like to get from going to church?" and the associated question "What would other people, who don't go to church, like to get from going to church?" I encouraged them to ask (or invite!) friends.
• we finished off with another hymn
• we then had some discussion.

Quite a few people loved it, at least one hated it, but I was very pleased with how it went overall. One comment from both churches was that they'd like to have a little more of a sermon to react to, discuss and think about, and I'll try to do that at some point. Next time, we're combining the two congregations into one service: that'll be the 2nd Sunday of December, if anyone fancies coming.

B*gger

I took Jo swimming today, and she had some problems getting her swimming costume on: "bugger," she said, matter-of-factly. I had to tell her off, and explain that it's a rude word that we don't usee. And, when we got home, I had to tell her mother off, who's been known to use at home, and who I'm had to tell off just this morning...

Looks like we're going to be playing South Africa in the final of the Rugby World Cup next weekend.

Labels: Jo, rugby, service, theology

Humour and theology

At the time of posting, Google searches on the phrases "if God had meant us to laugh" and "if Jesus had meant us to laugh" bring up no hits. I'm not sure whether this should be considered good news or bad. Neither am I sure why I'm wasting my time on such research...

Labels: laughter, theology

Infant Communion

I've never felt even vaguely happy about infant communion. Although I realise that there's an argument to say that it's good to involve children early on, and not to leave them out of a particular part of the service, but I've always taken the view that you shouldn't be taking communion until you're of an age to understand the seriousness and importance of what it's about.

I was reading Jo some stories from the excellent My Very First Bible today. We'd done Jesus in the storm (twice), the hole in the roof (once), and Jo wanted another story, so I read the Passion narrative and then finished with the Resurrection. When we got to the Last Supper, I read along the lines of "Jesus shared bread and wine with his friends, and told them to do the same to remember him."

Jo said, "you have bread and wine, don't you?" I said, "yes." And then she said, "but you don't share it with me, do you? I have a biscuit, don't I?"

She knows that she can't have the bread and the wine, but if she's patient, after a service, she can have a biscuit with the coffee/tea afterwards. I've tried very hard to make it clear that the biscuits aren't an equivalent, or alternative, and I think she gets that. What was heart-breaking was the tone with which she accepted that I don't share the bread and the wine with her. She really understands sharing and how important it is. It's a really difficult thing for a toddler, but she's getting quite good at doing it with Miri and with us: sometimes she'll even offer us her food if she really likes it. And I really believe that she understood the importance of Jesus sharing the bread and the wine with his friends. She made the leap from that to the Eucharist service completely on her own, and I was astonished. And heart-broken.

I have some serious thinking to do about my theology of the Eucharist. "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...": Matthew 21:16.

Labels: communion, Jo, theology

12-10 (and some theology, at last)

There's a classic theological dilemma about whether it's right for Christian nations to pray to God for them to beat their enemies in war (everyone does, of course), but it's hard to see how people _can't_ believe in God when he sends a result like today's by England against Australia in the Rugby World cup. I can see that if you're Australian, you might take a different view.

On a serious note, though, this brings questions about what it's right to pray for. I _didn't_ pray (well, not consciously, at least!) for a win over Australia, though it's bl**dy marvellous, but that's not the point. Even praying for a parking space - which is likely to mean that someone else will be deprived of one - is an issue which has come up recently (after the Church of England published a se of prayers for commuters and travellers). I think this is one of those areas when we have to give up our prayers to God: in two ways. The first of these, of course, is to direct our prayers to God: that's what prayers are about, certainly prayers of intercession. The second is about realising that God knows better how to answer our prayers than we do. Here's the great prayer of St Chrysostom (as used at Mattins and Evensong in the Book of Common Prayer:

Almight God, who hast given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee; and dost promise, that when two or three are gathered together in thy Name thou wilt grant their requests; Fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants, as may be most expedient for them; granting us in this world knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting.

The key phrase here is "as may be most expedient for them". Our knowledge is finite, and time-limited: God's, on the other hand, is limitless and outside time. So, is it OK to pray for things that we know may have a (negative) impact on other people? Here are my off-the-cuff guidelines:

• assuming that the prayer is heartfelt, then yes
• assuming that the prayer is not motivated by malevolence, then yes (e.g. when we actively _don't_ want somebody else, whether that person is a particular person or not, to get that parking space)
• assuming that we're willing to allow God to decide how to answer the prayer
• assuming that we're happy to accept God's decision

These may be difficult things to do, certainly all at once, and we're human, broken and fallible, so we might not managed them, but I hope (and believe) that God will understand and accept prayers offered in the spirit that I've outlined above.

Labels: prayer, rugby, theology

Where's all the theology

I do try to do a little theology once in a while - usually once a week - but it's been more than that, really, and I'm afraid that there's none here today, either. I'm having a little break from thinking theologically, inasmuch as one can...

But I have booked a trip to Canada (Toronto, as usual). And planned another one. As one does.

Labels: theology, travel, work

Polyamory - polygamy and polyandry

A friend showed me this post, and asked me to comment on it. In the end, I had so much to say that I thought it made sense to blog it. Hope people find it interesting.

The post: very difficult, very challenging. I struggle with it, on a number of levels.

Let's start with marriage. I'd like to think that (life-long) marriage is the model that we have been given, and which is the ideal to which we are called. But there are problems from the start:

• not all marriages work, and it's not always anyone's fault.
• even when there is someone at fault, should we force people to stay in a loveless marriage and not divorce?
• and why not remarry, then?
• what about gays, lesbians and transgendered people? I can't see any godly reason why their relationships shouldn't be blessed. And I struggle to see why such a relationship shouldn't be a marriage. We can't use the children argument anymore, surely? I've yet to see a theological argument to convince me that we shouldn't remodel marriage in this way (there are lots of issues to do with ecclesiastical reasons to do with schism), though I'm still not sure where I stand
• so, I'm forced to think hard about what I think a marriage is.

Why not more people in a marriage, then? As the poster points out, there's biblical precedent for a man having more than one wife - and though the other way round (one woman, more than one husband) isn't attested to, one assumes that the patriarchal nature of biblical society would be likely to condone this, given the view of women as owned goods, rather than owners. By Jesus' time, however, it seems that the current model was the accepted one. It's also the case that Christians have accepted polygamous marriage in some societies where they've tried to contextualise their mission activity - in Africa, for instance.

So, it's difficult.

And why one-to-one? Well, apart from the historical reasons about needing a mix of male and female to make babies, I suspect that a major reason that most societies worldwide have settled on two-person relationships is that they work best. Relationships are fluid things, and it's difficult enough with children, but having multiple adults will make for more complicated relationships. And sex complicates things. Sexual jealousy is a fact of life, and although people may, at one particular time, not feel jealousy sexually, I suspect that for many people, that can and often will change over time - sometimes more, sometimes less. And sex, I really believe, is, like all good things about being human, a gift from God. It can be misused, but it can be a hugely rewarding, affirming and joyful experience: one of the great things that you can share with another human being.

I think sex is important in this context because there are many family set-ups where lots of people live in the same space - or set of spaces - and care for each other. But the sexual elements of the family relationships tend to be the cementing aspects between particular members.

I talked about "most societies worldwide" settling on two-person relationships. I think there are some questions we need to ask here. The first is "what about God's revelation through scripture?" Indeed - and I think there are very important things to learn here, but we need to be very aware of the readings of scripture we make here - the book "What the Bible really says about homosexuality" is a good source-book here. So, there certainly is guidance to be gained. But I also believe that God, through the workings of the Holy Spirit, works through societies, whether Christian or not, and through the individuals that comprise them - again, whether Christian or not. But there are dangers here, too - where do we stand on the issue that most societies are (still) strongly patriarchal?

Two biblical points: first, the fact that Jesus' first great work was at a marriage (at Cana, of course) has traditionally (and with very good reason, I believe) been seen as an important sign that marriage is an institution blessed by God.

Second, Jesus (in Luke 20:34ff) says "Those who belong in this age marry and are given to marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage." This is the NRSV translation, and there's an interesting note in the HarperCollins Study version on 20:34: "Marry, i.e., to procreate. This is no longer necessary for those who inherit eternal life in the age to come." First, saying that marry = procreate doesn't seem fair to the Greek. I'm not a Greek scholar, but other uses of the the lemma from which this word comes ("gamein"), though it seems to come from a meaning around procreation ("gamete" in English is cognate, I suspect) seems to mean "marriage" when used by New Testament writers, particularly Paul. I have no idea what Aramaic word Jesus was using! Second (on the note in the study version), Jesus _actually_ talks about "those who are considered worthy", which is different. Of course, _we_ can't decide who's considered worthy. Peake's commentary is interesting here:

"[XX:]35. Lk. corrects Mk's apparent implication that all the sons of this age will attain the resurrection life. It is very unlikely that Kl.'s change to Mk's wording imples a view that men are fitted by celibacy in this life to attain the age to come; marriage is considered in this passage solely from the point of view of legal relationship and the procreation of children. No conclusions can be drawn from it concerning the character of Christian marriage."

I'm not sure that I agree with the last sentence: where else are we supposed to take scriptural guidance, if not from Jesus' words? It's a complicated passage, and I don't think that Peake helps much. (NB - I've checked the Synoptic parallels, and they're very similar: Luke has the most material of the three).

There's a last point which complicates matters for me. In the strict Protestant tradition, the only sacraments are Baptism and Communion, as those are the only ones instituted by Jesus Christ. Indeed, the 25th Article of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer states:

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, begin such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign of ceremony ordained of God.

I take a high view of marriage, however, and for me, my marriage _is_ a sacrament. But I'm not sure I'm ready to force others to this view. But I think we can agree that it's a divinely ordained institution. That can't help but sway my views on how seriously we take marriage and related issues.

Note - I think there is one area where this poster doesn't meet the marriage criteria: she says that at least one of the members isn't ready for commitment. That's a big one for me. Commitment to each other in front of God and a congregation (preferably of those you know, whether that's family or friends) is a sine qua non for me.

I don't think I'm ready to condemn - I'm not a big fan of condemnation anyway - but I certainly have some reservations about what the poster describes, whether it works for her or not.

Labels: marriage, theology

SecondLife

(backposting) We had our first ministry team meeting for the Anglicans in SecondLife group today. A good representation from across the globe, including some good discussions of what we're doing, what we plan to do, and what we're _not_ planning to do. Among the last is a Eucharist. The theological questions around it are quite complex, and we want to probe them, but, for the moment, we think it's safer not to push the boundaries - and neither, I think, do any of us feel happy theologically or pastorally about doing so.

The group was interested to hear that we've made contact with The Ecclesiastical Law Society, and look forward to discussing various issues with them. They seem keen to engage with what's happening online, and in particular with SecondLife, so I'm looking forward to more involvement there.

Labels: secondlife, theology

EasyJet Ministry

(backposting) Got into Helsinki 10 minutes early at 0125 local, and got to my hotel a little fater 0200. My boss was _well_ impressed to discover that I was phoning him around 2 in the morning local time! Stuff to do, and I was in a taxi with nothing else to do, so why not?

Took a while to get to sleep, and up at 0840 for a breakfast with Harri, a colleague. 3 interesting meetings, and then back on a plane, taking off around 1855, arriving at 1955 local: 3 hours in the plane. I slept for about an hour, and then woke up.

Next to me was David (hi, David!), a photographer. I asked him about his book, he told me about it, and then noticed mine (Tim Gorringe's formidable Furthering Humanity: A Theology of Culture). He asked me about it, and I told him that I'm training for ordination as a priest. What followed was a fascinating discussion, which we dubbed "EasyJet Ministry", although we weren't on an EasyJet flight, and EasyJet would probably dislike the term. But it sums it up: I quite often have discussions about ministry, church and theology on these trips. You have an hour or two tops to discuss where you're coming from, and to talk about your beliefs - both of you.

David's "not a churchgoer", but he has a strong belief in a purposeful creator, and he thanks Him/Her/It pretty much every day for the beauty he sees around him and for the life he lives. He's turned off by churches ("I think 'cold, uncomfortable, unwelcoming'"), and his view of priests is as being out of touch and unlike him. We discussed where I'm coming from, and how I feel strongly that part of my ministry (alongside this kind of interaction) is to be doubting, clear, and honest about my faith to people like me. It was interesting to see how little - but how much - someone from outside the church knew about the Church of England. We discussed doctrine (including justification by faith alone, one of my favourite topics!), Hell (not literal, thanks), the authority of scripture, tradition and experience, and a variety of other topics, including architecture and music. I think that he's now more open to the church as a possibility for him, and I hope he'll be reading this blog. If so, David, please comment from your point of view!

David was very excited to hear about what we're doing in SecondLife, and alternative expressions of mission. Maybe he (and others like him) can be prevailed upon to visit the cathedral we've built, and maybe even attend a service.

Anyway - I felt that I'd been honest, and that being so had at least helped David to realise that the church can be at least a bit relevant to him and people like him (and me). I felt affirmed and strengthened in my ministry. Thanks be to God.

And a baby!

D had a baby today: Lotte. I found out via an MMS once I got off the plane. 5lb, healthy. Hallelujah!

Labels: baby, ministry, theology, travel, work

A smiley, chattering monster, Sweden ... and substitutionary atonement

Miri's lots and lots of fun at the moment. She'll spent half and hour or more on my knee or on my tummy, chat, chat, chatting, smiling, looking into my eyes, being lovely, and generally posseting everywhere. It's what being a dad's about, IMHO.

Being a dad is less about having to go to Sweden overnight again next week, unless you count "earning an honest crush" as being part of a dad's role, which you might, I suppose. I'm going to somewhere spelt Linköping, but pronounced "Lingchirping", as close as I can gather. It is ridiculous how foreigners can't even spell their own placenames properly sometimes. I'm not usually prone to luggage-lust (unlike Catherine) but there's a piece of Samsonite luggage which I'm very keen on which I thought I'd have loads of chances to buy before I next went away. Not to be, unluckily.

"But what about substitutionary atonement?" I hear you cry. Well, Keith and I had agreed to meet to have a chat about a piece by Tom Wright in the Church Times a couple of months ago where he rather attacked Jeffry John for being too soft on the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. This is the doctrine that says that Jesus, when he died, took all of our sins on his shoulders, and took the punishment for all of mankind, thereby redeeming us. I've simplified it, and there are different shades to interpretation, but I think that pretty much sums it up. Wright felt that a broadcast by Jeffrey John downplayed significantly the importance of the doctrine, and although I don't have real problems with that view, some of the expressions of the doctrine in Wright's defense went a little too far for me. Keith and I talked over this issue - and atonement in general - in some detail, and strayed into other areas such as spiritual warfare, "Jesus-followers" (a danger, in my view, of the "Exemplar" view of atonement), and the personification of evil. It was great for both of us to do some theology, and also to ground it in our experience, and I'm glad we took the time.

To round things off, my penultimate year report came through from ERMC. This is the very important report which goes to the DDO and the bishop and either recommends that I go through to ordination, or says that I shouldn't. I'm pleased to say that it recommends that I should, and gave what I thought was a very honest view of me, my theology, my spirituality and my personality. It identified some areas that need work, but I knew about those, and was happy to sign it off.

Labels: ERMC, miriam, theology, travel

Theology - penal substitution of atonement

It's a while since I blogged much theology, but things are settling down at home (church with Jo, more breastfeeding today - which went well - a long walk with Jo on my back and with the dog - not on my back, etc.), and I took the time to read an article by Bishop Tom Wright in the "Church Times about the doctrine of penal substitution atonement. There's currently a major argument going on within the evangelical parts of the Church of England around whether penal substitution is the only doctrine of substitution which should be accepted, and how severe a version of the doctrine should be adopted.

In fact, there's been something of a split within the evangelical parts of the CofE. One (Baptist) evangelical, whose book "The Lost Message of Jesus" has many adherents, is Steve Chalke. He rejected one understanding of penal substitionary atonement as "a vengeful father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed." "The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse".

Well, of course it isn't. First of all, let me say that I do find this particular doctrine of atonement useful. It's one of several that I find helpful, in fact, but I feel that it's often oversimplified. For a start, talking about the Father the Son in the way that Chalke is quoted as doing seems to be grossly negligent of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son aren't just a father and a son - they're part of the Trinity: cosubstantial, coeternal. The Father doesn't force the cross on the Son: it's a joint decision by all parts of the Trinity - the Spirit as well.

But Tom Wright's view, which is opposed to Chalke's, is one with which I also can't hold. The problem the Wright seems to have with rejection of the "strong" view of penal subs titution is that it rejects the view of God's wrath. Wright is very much in favour of a theology which highlights God's wrath. This I find very difficult. He writes "...God's wrath is the necessary outworking of his love. If God does not hate slavery, child-abuse and the exploitation of the poor; and if God is not determined to condemn them and rid his world of them, then God's judgement is neither good nor loving." Well, I agree with the second of those sentnences, but really don't need to take on the first. Wrath is usually associated with vengeance, and this I reject. At no point in his article does Wright reference the core gospel ("good news") for me: God is love. S/He can be horrified by, saddened by, angered by, despair at all the things that Wright mentions, but can do so without wreaking vengeance. Wrath - violent, almost uncontrolled anger - is not what I associate with the God I know who is revealed in his Son in the New Testament. A God who allows his Son to take on the burden (the uncontrollably oppressive, the unbearably painful burden) of our sins for the sake of love: that is the God I know.

Labels: CofE, love, theology

11 days, and still pain all the time

I'm not feeling very theological. Other than asking God to relieve Moo's pain - and give it to me, if needs be - and saying evensong, that's about it. Managed to get some work done. It's not just when she's feeding - but the rest of the time, too.

Labels: theology, work

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

Holy Saturday

I'm never quite at ease on this day, each year. There is, for me, an edginess, a not-quite-rightness about the day, however beautiful the weather, however good the company: I cannot settle. This is the time between the death of Jesus and his resurrection, where you can't quite believe that it's going to be all right: the news hasn't quite filtered through, there's a waiting: it's the "stillness between the heaves of storm" in Emily Dickinson's poem which I quoted earlier this week.

The world seems to wait with baited breath around me - it reminds me of a time-lapse film where you've seen the plants grow, and the buds ripen, but you just can't be sure that they will burst open, filling the world with a riot of colour and life. Now is the devil's time, in one theology: this is when he thinks he's won. He may not be stalking the earth, maybe because he's celebrating his victory, secure in the knowledge that Christ has been defeated by death, but there's a certain pause while creation takes a shocked breath and holds it for tomorrow. Will it happen? Will Christ rise?

I was wondering to myself if that means that I feel deserted by God, today. It doesn't. In some ways, I feel closer to Him. God the Father feels, maybe, more human to me today that at any other time, because He's lost a son. God feels the pain of loss and suffering in a way maybe more human than He could ever have expected. That jolt, that stops your heart for a second, when you hear bad news: that's what I imagine God feeling, when He saw and felt and heard Jesus dying. It's a time when I can almost decapitalise God's pronoun, and refer to him, not "Him". I wondered whether to refer to God a female in this post - I often do, and the reality of the human experience of motherhood is desperately important in this context, I think. But when it came down to it, it is the God who is closest to me that I identify with today, and that's a "He", because I, too, am a "he".

And the man who, before, had called him "Abba" - "Father", "Daddy" - now called out to him "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" - "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". God could have reached out and stopped it. He knows that. And He knows that for our sakes, and for Jesus' sake, he must not. And so God loses a son. And we lose the Son.

My heart is set towards tomorrow.

Labels: theology

Good Friday

(backposting) For me, this is the most theologically charged day of the Christian calendar. For reasons not worth enumerating, I knew from early in the day that I wasn't going to get a chance to go to a church service, which was difficult. I managed, however, to find 20 minutes or so to sit down with my laptop and listen to Tallis' "Lamentations of Jeremiah", streamed from home. We need to take the spiritual comfort we can, when we can, and this saw me through.

We had a good day, and the evening's meal ended up with my trying to explain the intricacies of the Anglican hierarchy to the assembled throng -

• Mac: I don't see why we don't just call all priests "vicars"
• Me: For the same reason that we don't call all doctors "GPs"

- and then talking about vocation - mine, and others. It was interesting, and an important part of my ministry, I think: to be open to the questions and probings of those around with little faith or none, but at least showing an interest.

Managed to make the end of a party in SecondLife to mark the opening of a new area for faith groups called Koinonia. Only stayed for a while, but caught up with a few friends, listened to the live music, etc., so at least I made an appearance.

Good Friday - some theology

Looking back on this post, I thought that I ought to spend a little time talking about why Good Friday is so theologically charged for me. There are other candidates, of course: Christmas, when the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us; Easter, when Christ rose again from the dead in glory; Pentecost, when the disciples, remaining behind, unsure and leaderless, were gifted with the Holy Spirit and given a reality to their commission. These are the most obvious, but for me, it has to be Good Friday. Without the death of Christ on the cross, none of the rest of it would make sense, or have any substance. It is the rending of the curtain of the temple, the destruction of the split between heaven and earth, the kenosis, the moment when, in death, Jesus, a man, suffered and became Christ, our God. I should qualify that last statement: I don't mean that Jesus was not God before his death on the cross - that way lies heresy! - but that this moment is where the reality is revealed, the single moment of history on which the rest of the created order turns.

Easter is now possible: Christ, the propitiation for our sins, can rise in glory (but what a tear-obscured rising in the garden!). Christmas suddenly makes sense: there is a reason why God has made an appearance. And Pentecost is where we, God's church, need to take over the witness.

Jerusalem, Jerusalem: convertere ad Dominum Deum tuum.

Jerusalem, Jerusalem: turn to the Lord your God.

Labels: Christ, death, music, party, secondlife, theology

God, evolution (part II)

As Jo eats an orange for breakfast:

Jo: what's that?

Moo: it's a pip. It's a kind of seed.

Jo: why?

Me: it's how you grow things. If you want to grow a new thing, you need seeds.

Jo: why?

Me: you put it in the ground and give it water and keep it warm, and if you're lucky, it will make a new tree, or flower, or vegetable.

Jo: why?

Me: because that's how evolution and God made things

Me (aside to Moo): well, it worked last time

Jo: why?

Moo smirks

Me (struggling): because there's a bit of the divine in each of us, and we're all products of evolution, aren't we?

Jo: Amen.

Moo looks flabbergasted

Mike (looking smug): it's taking...

Labels: god, Jo, Moo, theology

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

Work, work, work

(backposting) Which is good. Pleased that I'm able to.

I was reading the nativity story to Jo today (yes, I know it's Lent). We got to the birth, and she said: "I love baby Jesus." "That's nice," I replied, thinking how well she's got got the point. Then she said, "I _love_ angels." "Hmm, I thought - fair enough - but not _quite_ as theologically positive." It was when we turned the page and she said, "I _LOVE_ camels," that I began to realise that the theological wasn't top of her list.

Labels: Jo, love, theology,