On Earth as in Heaven

i wish it could be Christmas everyday?

2011-12-29T17:48:00.004Z

don't usually post my preaching - but as a sort of Christmas message to any who care to read it thought i would put up my midnight sermon from this year - didn't know then of course i would share the ending with the Queen's Christmas message - I rather like that unlikely link!

the bible text BTW was John's Gospel chapter 1:1-17 -in particular the following - in the beginning was the word ...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us....he was the true light coming into the world...the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not over come it... to all who received him he gave power to become children of God....

The Archbishop of Canterburyon the Chris Evans show has told us not to hold out for the perfect Christmas –and for those who as Christmas eve fades and Christmas day comes close aresitting here saying to themselves ‘I’m not going through all this another year’the quest for the perfect Christmas is indeed probably something we need tobanish. It can so easily be that the pressure to have the perfect Christmasends up as one of the factors that instead ensures everyone is so wound up thatall the seasonal goodwill has dried up long before the turkey is carved.

When celebrating Christmasbecomes a very expensive headache I can understand the people who say they lookforward to Christmas with dread rather than joy. In spite of all that I have toconfess to being one of the people who really likes Christmas, and not justbecause of its significance to me as a Christian. I like the tinsel and lights,and the idea that everyone is having a celebration. I even like the flashingSanta hats and the Christmas pop songs played in all the shops – though I dowish I didn’t have to hear them from sometime in November – there are only somany times you can hear Slade’s merry Christmas before it starts to get alittle annoying.

If most can share in this assome of the magic of Christmas then I think for many there is also a specialmagic in the story that has become the Christian focus of this mid-winterfestival – the story celebrated worldwide, even in places where snow and holyare not part of the equation because for them it is mid-summer.

David Cameron may want todraw on the Christian identity of Britain that was so much part ofthe Dickensian Christmas. That he feels the need to do so tells us how in manyways that Christian identity is far less a feature of most people’s lives. Manypeople however, still want to be part of the celebration of the story of thebirth of Jesus and its magic along with the mince pies and presents.

And the story is magical –the miraculous birth, the angels shepherds and wise men following the star, thenativity scenes from school plays to Christmas cards. And it is also a greatdrama as Tony Jordan the Eastenders script writer will have shown anyone whosaw his nativity series last year of the repeat this year; reminding us that atthe heart of the story was a vulnerable young women who in saying yes to Godput her life at risk, and a man challenged to stand by her when all thepressure was to do otherwise and doubt seemed wiser than faith.

And here as we move behindthe nativity scene and start to think what the story means perhaps the deepestmagic emerges, the story of a God who loves the world and wants to beintimately involved with it. Who comes not to a celebrity in a lavish palacebut to an unknown woman who finds herself homeless. A God prepared to bevulnerable and in our care as part of a plan to restore love and care betweenall people that there may indeed be peace on earth and goodwill to all.

It is that story that at itsbest makes Christmas magical as a time when we do offer good will to others,when people ensure the marginalised and lonely have a Christmas dinner, thehomeless are looked after; when we are generous to others in a way that is outof the ordinary. Indeed at its best the magic of Christmas gives us a glimpseinto another way of living of a world that I think many of us long for – evenin spite of the pressure to create the perfect Christmas.

Another of the ubiquitous popsongs played a little too often is Wizard’s I wish it could be Christmaseveryday – and at this time of year someone guaranteed to be in the news, isAndy Park of Melksham in Wiltshire who is dubbed Mr. Christmas for apparentlycelebrating Christmas everyday since 1993, he has a new video on youtube totell you all about it. Each day he has mince pies for breakfast, unwrapspresents he has wrapped the night before and posts a card to himself throughhis letter box. He then goes to work – he runs his own electrical business –before coming home to a turkey lunch at 3pm and watches a recording of thequeen’s speech.

I don’t know if that was whatWizard meant by wishing it was Christmas everyday but as much as I loveChristmas, the tinsel and turkey are only fun because they happen for a fewdays only – indeed I think we already spend far too long dragging that side ofChristmas out for the sake of the retail business.

But what if the care,generosity and goodwill could be for everyday of the year? What if everyday thepoor the lonely the homeless and the suffering received the care they do atChristmas? What if there was peace and reconciliation all year round? Thetrouble is we all know how difficult that is to sustain, the economic realtiesthat work against it, the darker side of human nature that means that greed andviolence so often drive out goodwill.

If the magic of Christmasopens a window of longing for such a world then the cold realties of lifesooner or later tend to pack away those dreams with the decorations.

God however has not packedaway his Christmas gift. God’s love and care and commitment to all creationhave not faded. In God’s mind it is indeed Christmas everyday. The light shinesin the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it.

Some have suggested that Mr.Christmas Andy Park is not being quite truthful about his daily Christmas, andTony Jordan found when researching his programme that various scholars told himthe familiar details of the Christmas story where also doubtful. But as he researched further and talked topeople of faith he concluded the details mattered far less than central eventsof the story and the impact of what God was doing in those people’s lives. Indeedif the story had been embellished – just as he himself does as a good storyteller – this was to help the point get across. And so he found himself he saysto his surprise like the character of Joseph coming to faith in Mary’s story inspite of all his doubts and with a cynical shepherd looking for a politicalrevolution who instead found himself kissing the feet of a tiny baby inadoration.

People sometimes talk of themagic of Christmas as something for children that we grow out of. But John’sgospel reminds that for all who, in spite of their doubts and difficult lifeexperiences, come to believe in God’s presence among us in that tiny baby; forall such people the miracle of Christmas is that they too are born as childrenof God.

Whatever the exact details ofhis birth, God’s word did come in flesh about 2000 years or so ago in Jesus, andhis influence on those he encountered has had lasting consequences. But that isnot the end of the story. Each Christmas he seeks to be born again in humanform in the lives of all who will open themselves to his presence. The hopesand fears of all the years are met in him tonight not just because of the magicand the meaning of the story back in time. It is God’s life in us that can enableus to be the people who whilst we pack away the decorations to enjoy anotheryear really do live as if it is Christmas everyday. It is that light shining inour hearts that can banish our darkest places and enable us to be people of thelight in the darkest places of our world.

And so, as the carol tellsus, God imparts to human hearts the wonders of his heaven. That earth maybecome like heaven, that the magic of Christmas may not fade but transform usand our world.

This Christmas let it be foreach one of us as that carol continues

O holy child of Bethlehem, descend to uswe pray, cast out our sin and enter in, be born in us today.

the carol referenced is printed in full below - every blessing for Christmas and 2012

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by
Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight

For Christ is born of Mary
And gathered all above
While mortals sleep, the angels keep
Their watch of wondering love
O morning stars together
Proclaim the holy birth
And praises sing to God the King
And Peace to men on earth

How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is given!
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of His heaven.
No ear may hear His coming,
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him still,
The dear Christ enters in.

O holy Child of Bethlehem
Descend to us, we pray
Cast out our sin and enter in
Be born to us today
We hear the Christmas angels
The great glad tidings tell
O come to us, abide with us
Our Lord Emmanuel

Mission, Maori and the Anglican Covenant

2011-12-02T23:18:00.003Z

for those not in the Anglican Communion there is an international debate going on in response at least in part if not predominantly over the tensions created between liberals and traditionalists and majority world and 'western world' countries over issues of same sex relationships. a proposed solution is a covenant that creates more accountability across the communion - or from another angle more control on what have been independent churches.

this can be viewed simply as a tension between traditional and liberal Christians. There is also a very real backdrop of colonial Christianity; it is the old colonial nations that are pursuing more liberal agendas and their former colonies tat are arguing against them on the whole, though there are diffrent voices in both contexts.

the Maori Christians in the church of New Zealand have opposed this covenant by viewing the issue very differently - see http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=120448 they have i think rightly perceived that diversity in the church is not about liberals vs conservatives but the nature of the church's mission. the choice is between a church whose form and practice are dictated from a centre, and it mattes not if that is Canterbury or Lagos or Washington, and one in which each church incarnates the faith within it's own culture.

globalization, the fading of Christendom and the shift towards post-modern culture all put enormous pressure on different cultures and societies. in such a world it is understandable to seek security and a strong global identity. if you are a Christian in central Africa or much of Asia you live alongside a strong Islamic presence and the tensions often tip over into violence. being associated with 'liberal western Christians' can be a trigger that lights the volatile material in such places, this can lead to death and destruction. in our world we no longer live within our own small cultures and communities, we are increasingly global citizens.

yet as many missiologists like Andrew Walls have noted, churches have failed in may areas of the world because they failed to remain at home in the local culture. in a world in which increasing diversity exists alongside globalization we are pulled in two ways - i think history suggest the Maori have seen he issue correctly - the future mission of the church requires it to be more diverse not less in our changing world, we need another way to live together and it will not by tightening the rules at the centre, but by understanding and blessing the many edges that the chuch's mission will be strengthened. it is this principle that lead to the great diversity of early churches across the world that i believe we need to re-capture today

does my society look big in this?

2011-04-07T18:33:00.002Z

rather taken with the idea of these tee-shirts bearing the legend 'does my society look big in this?' http://www.philosophyfootball.com/new_win.html i think good Greenbelt festival wear.

OK i am by inclination a committed Christian Socialist so i am likely to think the Big Society is just another way of expressing the ideology of a small government - which i think may be driving cuts as much as a desire to reduce budget deficits. So you can see the appeal of the tee-shirt - as well is it being great fun. But how should Christians view this idea and does it have any implications for mission?

regardless of whether i am right about the ideology of the Big Society and Christians will take different views, clearly it raises an expectation that groups like churches are possibly being invited to play a more prominent role in community projects, welfare provision, youth work, health care etc. how should we respond to this?

well from my viewpoint there may be some weariness. if the churches do step in to fill roles left vacant by government cuts are we not simply supporting a policy we don't agree with? this is true but can I as a Christian not offer care to people simply on those grounds? my ideology is based on a belief that the whole of society should care not just those who chose too; it is a shared responsibility. but i do want to see care happening. i also would be an advocate of Christians doing so regardless of public policy; it is part of being agents of God's Kingdom in which the poor hear good news, the hungry are fed and the sick healed.

if you do not share my political concerns this may indeed look like a great opportunity for the church to return to a role it played for centuries of being the centre of care and education for the community. i certainly know Christians who thank that way. so perhaps whatever our ideology, Christians may find themselves united in filling those Big Society roles.

however, i don't think that solves the issue. there are i think some underlying pitfalls that may await us. i hear from some a sense that the Big Society agenda may help reverse the marginalization of churches in our public life; returning to them essential roles in the community. this may be partly true, but there are two dangers here. one is that we can even if we don't mean to, appear to be doing our bit for the purpose of gaining status and not because of our care for others. a test of this will be our willingness to be involved in care projects that are not specifically Christian as opposed to those that look as if they are rather like company charity giving; basically an advertising exercise. the other is how this new church involvement can be portrayed by those who view all church involvement in society as dangerous and to be challenged. if the church gets more involved in social projects we can expect more scrutiny from the secularist lobby wanting to catch us out. these two danger clearly fuel each other. a sense that the Big Society projects aid the church's profile is exactly the kind of evidence that will be used against such involvement.

i think for all these reasons, whatever our ideology, we need to offer care to those who need it as best we can. however this has to be based on people's need not on how it makes the church look. for both reasons the best answer may not be lots of high profile church care projects, but Christians joining in with wider based community action. this is likely to best use skill and resources as well as being clearly free of an ulterior motive. it may also be the best way to be salt and light in our society - whatever it's size.

Not Ashamed of what?

2010-12-05T22:53:00.002Z

last week saw the launch by Lord Carey and others of Not Ashamed, a campaign to support the recognition of the Christian heritage of Britain and support Christians who feel they have been discriminated against for their public stance for the Christian faith - you can read more here http://www.notashamed.org.uk/leaflet.php

i think it is important to remember the positive contribution the Christian faith has made to our culture and help people make the connections between that contribution and things they may well take for granted about it that they too value. I want Christians to be comfortable about expressing their faith both in public and private. I believe just as i have found personal encounter with Christ both personally transforming and visionary for the blessing of all creation others will find this true also and want them to discover that. I am confident that God is at work in all creation bringing fullness of life and the new creation as he has spoke of it through the ages. i am not however confident this campaign actually serves those beliefs. why is that?

firstly i am not sure it has rightly understood the world we are in our the nature of the issue. it is easy to quote the 72% in the last census who said they were christian, but this doesn't mean they support this kind of understanding of what being a christian nation is - indeed the survey evidence is strongly that most who say this see it as a positive statement about loving ones neighbour but also see that as affirming the kind of policies Christian agencies and individuals are clashing with. the reality is that whilst for centuries of Christendom if it was never the case that the majority of British adults went to church often the majority of children went to church or later Sunday school and were raised in that faith. this totally collapsed during the twentieth century. this was indeed a time of great social change - but is this collapse due to the challenge to faith that change brought or due to the failure of the church to engage with that change? either way does a political campaign seeking to reverse supposed marginalisation of Christians on thee basis of our past contribution address either issue? it simply treats cultural change as a political debate and ignores whatever the extent is, and i suspect it is high, that the church has failed to engage with it.

secondly whilst there is much to be proud of in this country's Christian heritage there is actually much of which we should be ashamed. i think we need to wake up to the harsh reality that Christendom, the declaration of Christianity as a political as well as a spiritual reality as a basis for state rule as well as culture, has left a legacy which seems to have little to do with Jesus. firstly it enforced faith on its citizens banning the free expression of belief, i then instituted the spreading of faith on other nations by military conquest. it then made opposing the state religion a treasonable offense often punishable by death usually after torture. christian nations fought over faith and persecuted religious minorities. of this we should be ashamed. and i think the root of the problem is that we forget Jesus teaching that his kingdom was not of this world otherwise an army would come to defend him. and so we created christian armies and christian governments. any political campaign about the political rights of Christians based on our nations Christian heritage thus appears to be a desire to return to that which we should be ashamed. if we are to argue for the civil rights of Christians they are going to have to be argued on a different basis.

because i think both these things are true i fear this campaign far from strengthening the position of Christianity in this country actually serves to marginalise it further. firstly it makes Christians look as bad as they are feared to be by the majority of the population - there may be some wave of anti-political correctness that can be ridden but in the end it all looks like Christians defending their own power and privilege and their right to go against the wishes of society with no consequence. secondly it creates an embattled mentality amongst Christians like that amongst some sections of the Muslim population which risks becoming the breeding ground for religious and political extremism.

the Emperor Constantine who adopted Christianity as the faith of his empire was followed by Julian who is labelled by Christian history as 'the apostate'. he attempted to reverse the fortunes of Christianity and return Paganism as the official religion. many of his policies toward this end involved politics and power but his own recognition was that the real issue was the respect the Christians had in society. the reality was as Julian admitted the Pagans of his day simply did not match this and he exhorted them to do so. the christian community that had no power or privilege was at best ignored and at worst persecuted, was slandered and dismissed against all the odds had so excelled in caring for the poor and the sick, helping the outcast, building communities of care in which all were supported and in loving those who persecuted them as Jesus commanded that in the end even the Roman Empire could not resist its witness.

we can indeed by proud of this heritage, we can also point to those shining examples that have carried it forward, we can also be glad that many still speak well of the individual christian they know. but we then have to accept an uncomfortable reality just as this witness brought Christianity into the centre of Roman power so i fear it corrupted it - the persecuted became the persecutors, the philosophy of roman state religion became the churches philosophy and faith became for many not a matter of conviction and lifestyle but of birth and political dictate. in truth the various reforms and reformations whilst they have inspired some to renewed vision and witness have done little to change this. in the end perhaps though their is much to morn the collapse of Christendom is the only way for the church to find again that calling and that witness?

so let us not seek a political campaign that seeks to restore a christian nation that whilst it has enabled good has also robed the faith of its heart and much of which we should be ashamed. let us instead this Advent hear the call of the Baptist to repent and bear the fruit of repentance rather than look back to ancestors to save us and become again the people whose lives so witness to Christ in the face of whatever opposition may or may not arise, to bless those who oppose, that Gods presence becomes irresistible and no political power or privilege is needed to support faith.

Zodiac Christ?

2009-03-05T17:31:00.002Z

Anyone following this site will know that i think we can explore spirituality through the beliefs, practices and experience of all paths and traditions and as Christians find parallels and places we recognise form our own encounters with God through Jesus as the one who opens up the way to God. An area i have often found myself exploring at places like Mind Body Spirit fairs is the way personality types in things like Astrology or Tarot relate to ideas of growing into wholeness as Jesus expressed it, coming to Love God with all our strength, mind, heart and spirit.

The Re:Jesus website is designed to be a place that opens up exploration of Jesus from a range of perspectives, historical, artistic, spiritual etc so that people from any spiritual path or religion or none can enter into that journey. i was recently asked to put my experience of discussing personal development and spirituality with those exploring astrology as a similar path into a monthly blog series looking at the links between Jesus and the personality types associated with star signs. you can have a look ans see what you think by following this link http://www.rejesus.co.uk/site/module/zodiac_christ/

i am not surprised that this has raised questions for some Christians who have posted comments on the site after the march/Pisces edition. i think these questions are worth exploring and so thought I'd add a blog here where the issues can be raised and discussed at what ever length people wish.

i am always aware when i explain my approach to other beliefs, of whatever nature that some christian will view all other belief systems as a deception. For me centuries of Christian tradition and the biblical texts they are based on tell me God is found in many paths and spiritualities. not that they are all the same, they clearly are not, and therefore not everything in every tradition can be right. some post-modern thinkers might disagree with that. for me if there is a God then ultimately that limits truth to that which is consistent with God so not all things can be true. But not only do i think most spiritual paths have genuine insights of God, i am also aware that if even my Christian faith is true in seeing God most fully revealed in Jesus that is very different i saying i have all the answers or fully understand God. i am rather aware of my humanity and the limits it sets to my understanding. i think some of the concerns raised on Re:Jesus are around this issue

however even if you accept my view here i want to raise a question about how we come across and how context may change that. i think this issue is also present in some of the comments on the site. does it change the apparent message when i move from a discussion with people exploring astrology to a post on a christian run website? is this use of Astrological types a form of deception? i am i likely to be read as supporting interpretations of Astrology i may not actually hold to?

no doubt you can think of other questions, so please do raise them!

2009-02-15T15:36:00.000Z

The language of ‘fresh expressions of church’ may be killing our mission

I think we often underestimate the power of language. The words we choose conjure images of what we are describing, and sometimes these can have unintended consequences. I am increasingly seeing this happen when people use the phrase ‘fresh expressions of church’ indeed even more so when people talking of their mission as ‘creating fresh expressions of church’. I remain a great supporter of both the analysis and aims of the Mission-Shaped Church report which has lead to this kind of language. The problem is that the language has taken on a life of its own that means it is often no-longer serving that report’s vision, indeed I think it is often working against it.

The report gave us several valuable insights. It noted that, with the rise of a ‘non-churched’ population Britain, as with much of what was Christendom, was now effectively a foreign mission field. From this it applied cross-cultural mission principles to our situation and suggested that we needed churches that emerged from within the various cultures of Britain as a result of a process of incarnational mission within those cultures. It also noted how much of our society was organised on a network rather than a local basis and that the parish system needed supplementing with network based churches. Finally all this meant that we needed to move away from thinking about growing existing churches to planting new ones. Within this context the language of ‘fresh expressions of church’ is a reminder that the new mission field would require new ways of being church.

The above remains true, but increasingly the effect of the fresh expressions language is leading to something quite different. People seem to have got into their heads that the need is to ‘create a fresh expression of church’ and not that they are called to cross-cultural mission which may in time, and sometimes a long time, lead to a fresh expression of church emerging from that mission. The result of this is that the process set out in Mission-Shaped Church is reversed, people set up what ever kind of fresh expression they think they ought to run and then go looking for people who might want to join it; such churches are not in the least bit ‘mission-shaped’ they are simply a way of consumer niche marketing existing church to provide a wider ranger of choices for church shoppers. The likely result is that those attracted will be existing church members, or those who have left church. What’s more even if over time missionary members of such churches do make contact with the non-churched or groups of people they have not in the past reached how are these new Christians going to be enabled to worship in their own culture when the have already had the culture of the ‘fresh expression’ decided for them in advance by a group of well meaning but culturally different Christians?

The categorizing of fresh expressions as certain types of church may add to the problem. The idea that something should be called a ‘café church’ for instance tends to define the fresh expression according to a worship style. It unfortunately suggests I decide to model my worship on the style of a café, which is quite different to a church that has emerged from mission within café culture in a particular place. The classification of a fresh expression should not reflect a style of worship, rather the type of community or network that has given birth to the appropriately inculturated expression of church. So to talk of a Goth church makes sense if it has emerged from cross-cultural mission within the Goth community, to talk of starting a Goth service, unless it has such a history, is to totally miss the point. In essence ‘fresh expressions’ is properly not about types of church it is a methodology of cross-cultural mission that leads to inculturated forms of church, the fact that the churches which emerge are inculturated is all that matters not how they do worship. I know that the authors of Mission-Shaped Church where very aware of this danger and considered not putting in the examples. In hindsight I suspect the problem was not the examples but the suggestion that they could be classified under different labels. Telling the story of how fresh expressions had emerged makes the point well. Suggesting there are different types of fresh expression labelled according to styles of worship encourages exactly what the report’s authors didn’t want; looking down the list and deciding to start one of the options and thus ignoring the whole thrust of the report.

So my suugestion? Let’s stop starting fresh expressions of church and let’s start doing the real task of cross-cultural mission in the belief that in time fresh expressions will emerge.

Are we 'a Christian country'?

2008-06-14T09:19:00.003Z

I'll let others decide how relevant a question this is in other countries, but I doubt this is just a question here in the UK!

in the UK this question has become part of a big debate about national identity, and various people, including but not exclusively church leaders, are using the phrase 'we are a Christian country' as a background to make various points in this debate. the idea seems to be that because 'we are a Christian country' politicians ought to make certain moral decisions on embryo technology, or what we should or should not see on TV, or, post 9/11 et al the place of Muslims in society. But what does this phrase mean? is it true? has it ever been true? and perhaps most importantly does this claim help or hinder the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven?

if the phrase means a nation of people who are Christians, well how is this defined? if we mean people actively pursuing the Christian faith as essential to their own lives active in the Church community and becoming more 'Christ-like' as they seek to follow Jesus; well this has always only applied to a minority of people in the UK. i leave you to judge how it is in other places, but offer one observation; even in nations in which the majority go to church regularly and nearly all profess Christian faith, how deep that faith goes into the lives of some followers might well be an issue of concern. on this basis we certainly have never been a 'christian country'.

what we have been however is an 'officially Christian country' for centuries, so when people appeal to this identity, what is it they are appealing to? i think it is the 'two pronged approach' of Christendom. This occurs when the political elite declare the country to be 'Christian' and thus tell all its citizens they are now members of the State church. the church then seeks to enable these citizens to practice the faith they are now officially a part of. the definition of a Christian then tends to become 'a member of the Church' and depending on the tradition of the state church this is measured by things like Baptism, often of infants, paying church tax, often in the past at least obligatory, or simply living in a parish and thus being seen as the parishioner of a local church. Such approaches can define a country as Christian, but not at all mean that it is a country of Christian people.

Needless to say this approach is very much that of Europe, and to a lesser extent Europe's one time colonies, though many of them, like the US threw out this model after independence. However even countries without a state church tradition can operate a form of Christendom, and i would suggest the US does for instance. in these countries 'Christian values' are viewed as part of the social fabric, and churchgoing is just as 'expected' as if the state told people to go. in such places there may also be many people who claim Christian adherence, even perhaps go to Church yet seem to posses a faith that is more about good social standing and being a good citizen than anything else.

now there are things in many western societies that have been shaped by it's Christian heritage, whatever form of 'Christendom' we are talking about. these include attitudes to human dignity, law, science etc...though some of these had to fight Church opposition in some quaters to emerge as a legacy of that Christian tradition. and i think part of the 'we are Christian country' appeal is to this legacy, and i think there are good things here to look back on.

But here's the problem. the appeal to being 'a Christian country' is therefore two things, an appeal to a positive legacy of what has happened in the past due to the role Christianity has played in our country; and an appeal to a Christendom identity which has led to that shaping of society in the past, but has never been a personal identity of many of the people in that nation. this is why De Tocqueville suggested, looking at America, that democracy would be the end of Christendom. once people become active in asserting their own views in the political process and increasingly operate as individuals in the social and political sphere they want society to reflect there personal identity. from this perspective being told 'we are a Christian country' looks not like a statement of a shared identity but an imposition on my personal choice and self-identity. Equally the appeal to history Can also be contested and is. for many today the Christian legacy is viewed as violence, oppression, sexism, destruction of the planet and the resistance of social and scientific progress. to many people 'we are a Christian country' sounds like 'can we go back to the middle ages please so the Church can have all it's power back and oppress you some more'.

let's face it, why are some people wanting to continually remind 'we are Christian country'? Because the Church has largely lost its power and influence, for good or ill in nations where it once could both bless or oppress that nations citizens through considerable power and influence.

at this point i know some in the Church will want to say things like 'but in our last national census 72% of people said they were Christian' and 'surveys have shown that most people want our nation to be run on Christian values'. both these things are true, but what do they mean? well ask people in a survey if they support traditional religious morality (this has been done) and they will resoundingly tell you they don't. so how does all this square up? i think the key is this, a certain legacy based on the idea that i should love my neighbour and value fairness and justice is seen as part of a Christian legacy, and this is what people mean by Christian values. people who identify with this are happy to call themselves Christians, though actually this label is being used less and less by successive generations. this is the root of the classic phrase i have often heard when taking funerals. the deceased i was often told, never went to church and wasn't religious, but 'was as good a christian as the next person'. this effectively meant they were a nice person who tried to make a positive contribution to society. what might 'we are a Christian country' mean to such a person. well the answer is it all depends on what is being defended or promoted on this basis. if it agrees with their view the person using the phrase will be defended for 'speaking out for our traditions and national values'. if however the position being supported on the basis that 'we are a Christian country' is not to a person's own liking, and would thus be labelled 'traditional religious morality', then the person using the phrase is attacked for meddling in politics, and likely to be tarred with the image of the Church as historical oppressor. and we are back with De Tocqueville.

the reality is that a modern democratic society can never by identity be a 'Christian country' and the use of this phrase does not promote the Church's influence i think it actually undermines it. it simply serves to remind everyone that the church is a thing of the past, that we used to be a Christian nation and that whilst some bits of that legacy where good we no longer need the Church to tell us that, we the citizens now decide what are 'good Christian values' and what are 'bad traditional religious morality'. anyone caught using the phrase 'we are a Christian country' is at best well meaning but irrelevant and at worst a power mad oppressor who wants to run the country their way and not our way. Christians need to wake up to this and start admitting we are not a Christian country.

But does this mean the Church or Christians have nothing to say to society or ought, as some like to tell them, to stick to people's spiritual lives? absolutely not. I began this post talking of the identity crisis that is the context for such claims. with that goes some sense that there are things in our past we have perhaps lost, like good relationships with our neighbours, streets in which doors can be left unlocked and no-one will rob you, etc. there are also current issues we don;t know how to face, globalisation, food shortages, global warming, increasing social diversity, and more. as a Christian i think there is much from my faith tradition we have to offer by way of vision when facing such questions. Churches have much to offer in their locations as a positive influence.

when we stop trying to claim some privileged position because 'we are a Christian country' and admit we are not we then get freed up to start fulfilling a calling to offer vision in our nation in the only way we can, by inspiring individuals, whether in government or in the local street, by what we say and what we do. if this country or any country has a Christian future it will not be because of any status the church or the religion holds in society, it will be because people encounter the vision of the Kingdom of God and see it transforming the lives of Christians so that people in our society say ' i want to be like them' and 'i want our society to be just like that'. and perhaps here is the sobering truth, the claim to be 'a christian country' is something the church Can hide behind because actually it fears it cannot be valued simply on its own merits. ironically whilst this may be a well placed fear, there is also much going on that if bought out into the light would in fact commend much of what Christians are doing as indeed inspirational.

the new charismatics: revival and evangelism

2008-05-29T23:46:00.004Z

firstly apologies...a long time no post! so if anyone is out there my thought has been in the book I've been writing...and now am editing. the good news is it has got me seriously thinking so hopefully much to follow here too.

this post is sparked by a number of things one is the Florida revival and friends of mine who have been there and posted, positively i want to hear more, and others who have been more questioning. but then i got onto Mike Morell's blog on some other 'new charismatics' check here http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/charismatic-chaos-or-holy-spirited-deconstruction/ not only some interesting material but also a good post exploring how 'emergent types' might respond.

so what about revival and evangelism or for that matter the charismatic and the post-modern/the emerging church?

well i think 'revival' is itself an interesting term. it is geared to 'reviving' something. you revive something that is expiring so you are working on what already exists, not on something new. I think this is telling. revival is 'Christendom mode' it's an outpouring in a Christian place that thus has major effect and indeed when one thinks about it the Church has been invigorated for centuries by various revivals. but when the issue is a post-Christendom, post-Christian culture is a revival what we need? well if it transforms the church into a body that actually becomes a witness in the world and an agent of transformation for the good, yes indeed it is. the trouble is all recent revivals seem to have done nothing like this.

i am pleased when God blesses people, makes them feel special, and especially so if they are healed in body mind or spirit. but what i keep seeing is outpourings of the Spirit that do this but instead of sending people into the world as a blessing to the world keep them returning to increasingly charged church services like junkies looking for the next spirit fix. the reality seems to me that the various revivals have become a christian drug culture, not at all an agent of God's mission to the creation God loves. so when i see people 'toking on the baby Jesus' (if you didn't follow that link now you will ;o) i go, well yes. actually i am beginning to wonder if those guys are about to 'come out' as fakes exposing the charismatic culture...or have i really become too sceptical? well there are plenty of really clever 'Christian fakes' on the net already!

But here's the rub for me. last weekend i was at the big Mind Body Spirit Festival in London as part of Dekhomai http://dekhomai.co.uk/ tens of thousands come looking not for some intellectual religious debate, or religious tradition, what they long for is real encounter, spiritual reality that can be felt. Many have left the Church because it offers none of that reality, it feels to them a dead religion going through the memory of past faith. These people and i think most people in our emerging culture will only find authentic a Charismatic Christianity. This is i think the real challenge, both to the revivalists, most of whom would never enter a Mind Body Spirit fair, and though they have the experience of the Spirit so easily turn into something that endlessly blesses themselves and so starves the world. but also to the 'emergents' who may too easily reject the Charismatic and find themselves in the world totally ill equipped against the burgeoning New Spiritualities that may well simply 'show them up'.

somewhere in there is the faith i strive for, fully Charismatic and fully engaged, rejecting the dualist theology of so many Charismatics for full Christ incarnation, really equipped to be Christ's Body with the world and not hidden from it or against it. and honest too, i think that matters.

Removing Christendom from Halloween

2007-10-24T15:22:00.000Z

Halloween is a controversial subject in many ways, several folks I know and respect in the UK have been campaigning to get alternatives to horror movie imagery available in shops, with some success. others worry about the increasingly global practice of trick or treat. Christians worry about occultism, witchcraft, and obsession with death and the dead. Pagans want to reclaim their festival from the Christians and the shops. So why do i as a Christian want to suggest that Christendom is the major problem here and want to remove it from Halloween?

Firstly note I said Christendom and not Christianity, but the two are of course linked in the churches history. so lets take a brief tour of the history of Halloween, familiar territory but I hope to add a few insights that may lie behind the current controversy on route and show why I want to get Christendom removed from Halloween.

firstly before there was Halloween there was a Pagan festival in northern Europe at least called Samhain (pronounced sow-ain) this was a version of the 'day of the dead' known in many cultures. The dead were remembered, ancestors honoured and the line between death and life was seen as thin at this time. This meant things could cross over, the dead might walk abroad, and other creatures associated with the underworld too. this meant the festival was also about confronting fear and acknowledging the fear of death and the unknown.

when Christianity spread across Europe the missionaries often adopted Pagan custom because they felt it explained the new faith in terms people understood and because it helped cement the new faith in people's lives by getting into the character of previously Pagan festivals. Christmas is another case in point. it is for this reason that the feast of All Hallows, we would now say All Saints, was placed on the 1st of November, following the old Samhain festival crossing from nighttime on the 31st of October to morning of the 1st of November. following Jewish tradition early Christian festivals began on the evening of the previous day, as happens today at the Christmas Eve services. So the festival of All Hallows began at All Hallows Eve, that is Halloween. as such the very name of the festival tells us it is a Christian rather than a Pagan festival, albeit one deliberately adopting a Pagan predecessor. This is significant I would argue as many of the controversies of Halloween today come from its Christendom history.

The churches at All Hallows continued the remembrance of the dead, and added to this a particular remembrance of the lives of the saints, hence the name All Hallows. However a strong element of Christian faith is life beyond death and the theme of resurrection, indeed from the 1st century the idea that in Jesus death the power of evil and death were conquered was a central tenet of faith. So this was celebrated also, altering the character of the Pagan exploration of death at this time. in this sense i think the Christianization of the older festival was a good adaptation of the important themes Samhain explored appropriate for those with a Christian faith.

But Christendom was also a political animal and part of its agenda was to ensure it had no rivals. so Halloween became peopled with devils and ghouls that might get those who misbehaved and witches created as a propaganda tool against the persistence of Pagan faith as an underground religion. i find it interesting to compare the Halloween witches mask with the Nazi depiction of Jews, you will find them rather similar with hooked noses, green skin and warts. and this is the bit so many folks don't get, the wearing of these masks at Halloween is not a celebration of evil or witchcraft, but actually a piece of anti-Pagan propaganda invented by Christians and stemming from medieval Christian celebrations of All Hallows Eve.

today of course as with so many things Christendom has passed and the Halloween legacy handed over to those who have commercialised it, creating the Halloween that churches now complain about rather than celebrate. oddly i think the Passing of Christendom possibly unites rather than divides modern Pagans and Christians in this area. Pagans want to celebrate an important festival they do not want it turned into a commercial bonanza devoid of its true meaning, and i certainly doubt they'd morn the passing of the anti-pagan propaganda imagery of medieval Christendom. Christians too want to celebrate their different but related festival without these things, having ironically forgotten how much of what they now don't like was their invention. so how about a properly informed collaboration between Pagans and Christians to remove Christendom from Halloween? leaving both faiths free to celebrate a festival centred around their beliefs about the important subject of death and the relationship with our dead ancestors?

if we do this i add one thing that should not be banished, a place to also acknowledge our fear of death, the supernatural and evil. banishing the imagery of this from Halloween won't take away the fear, it just relegates it to places where we cannot face it together and handle it constructively, if differently in our two faith traditions. so i make a plea for renewed celebrations not to lose this element at least from both the medieval Halloween and its Pagan forerunner.

these are the links to the Halloween synchroblog, and they are very eclectic and also come from different faith views, so well worth checking out

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

U-Topia or My-Topia (synchroblog)

2007-07-13T00:25:00.000Z

many of us dream of utopias, but what of these dreams? i find the U in utopia something worth reflecting on. we all have our dreams of the perfect world, our utopia. what would your perfect world be? i can certainly offer some thoughts of the world i'd like to live in. but would this be my world, a me world, a my-topia? now i don't see myself as a selfish person, my dreams of utopia when i am honest or perhaps i should say responding to the deep levels of who i am, are not the dreams of personal gratification, though like all people i have those! but are my visions of the best for all really just that, MY dreams? i fear it may be so easy for my vision of our perfect world to be just that. indeed it is so easy for us to asume my-topia is your-topia is u-topia.

so how do we find u-topia, our-topia? i have two thoughts. the first relates to the 'u'. i suspect it begins when I strive not for My- topia but for U-topia, when my goal becomes building a dream world for 'u', when i look to build a world for others, for 'u'. but secondly where is the place i can escape my own weakness, my own self-vision? for me this lies in the vision of God. Jesus didn't come preaching church, or a religious system, or how to worship in a particular style; he came preaching the Kingdom of God, a true utopia. a vision of freedom for captives, sight for blind, good news for poor...this is u-topia, a vision i need beacuase mine will fall so far short. it reminds me i need God's spirit to make this true to inspire me to make my-topia u-topia

see others below

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

The Gospel according to Buffy (synchroblog)

2007-05-16T14:26:00.000Z

This is part of a SynchroBlog on Christianity and film, follow the links below for others taking part, and enter the debate on this and other sites!

the Vampire genre as classically represented by the Dracula character, has within it Christendom assumptions. vampires are undead, without souls and damned by God. they are warded off by Crosses and Holy Water. communion wafers placed in their coffins render them homeless. the average vampire slayer is some sort of a priest. so what happens to vampire slaying in a post-Christendom world?

Enter Buffy the Vampire Slayer, an American teen who only enters churches in the dead of night to fight vampires rising from coffins. She uses crosses and Holy water but these seem no longer to connect to any faith, they have become magic charms. here superhuman strength and kung fu fighting skills, given her by ancient shamanic priests who created the slayers to fight demons and vampires, are far more important than the remnants of Christianity. over seven series she gathers round her other US teens who with her go through high school and enter young adult life. none of these either seems to have a faith, save one who starts the series Jewish and part way through becomes a practicing Wiccan.

at the start of the second series our heroine encounters a group of evangelists working with down an outs in a city centre district. but they are in fact demons in disguise, enslaving and ultimately destroying the people they claim to help. the final series sees the gang battling the 'ultimate evil', whose sidekick is a misogynist priest in black with collar, who brutal murders people. apart from this churches are sometimes settings for weddings or funerals. The Buffyverse is clearly not a place where God, and certainly not the church, is involved in the fight against evil. this instead must fall to Buffy. so how does she defeat the 'ultimate evil', and what are the messages that make up the 'gospel according to Buffy'?

Buffy needs to be seen operating on two levels. at one level the various monsters faced are less important then the background situations. At this level Buffy is about the difficulties of school, friendship, romance, finding ones identity etc etc. this is handled with a mixture of humour and some depth. the key messages are about the importance of friendship, sacrifice for others, the shallowness of popularity, the importance of goals in life, the embracing of those of different cultures and sexualities, and above all the empowerment of women in a man's world and the taking of responsibility for ones own life and facing it's challenges head on.

on another level Buffy and her friends fight demons and vampires and every now and then have to save the world. Evil is overcome week by week through Buffy's powers, Willow the Wiccan's magic and the study of ancient texts followed by resourceful action of those who are part of 'Buffy's gang'. the values seen in the plot lines become the key to these victories too.

But there are other themes too. In the 7th and final series redemption becomes a major theme. a number of key characters manage to accumulate or come with some very dodgy pasts. At the top of the list is Spike the vampire, he has spent a good century plus murdering and draining life. He first appears as a major opponent of Buffy but as the series progress he falls 'in love with her' in inverted commas, vampires have no soul and love is rather challenging for them. Buffy sort of falls for him, but there's a subtext of her own self doubt which becomes sometimes self loathing, coupled with her appalling track record of relationships, and an attraction to those she becomes locked in combat with, that makes this not quite 'healthy'. always likely to end in tears, that include obsession, rage and at one stage attempted rape of Buffy by Spike. at the end of series 6 Spike has gone to see if he can be given back his soul and return to Buffy a changed vampire. then there's the Wiccan Willow, a key member of the gang, but in series 5 suffering magic addiction, the episodes are i think intended to explore drug addiction but i can assure magic addiction is very similar in real life. like any addict she messes up her life and those around her. in series 6 her girlfriend (she has by this stage 'come out' as lesbian, and i think this is handled like many other issues well) is shot and killed, by accident Buffy is the intended victim. Willow enters grief that turns to rage that fuels an apocalyptic magic spree that makes her 'mad, bad and dangerous to know'. she also flays alive the murder of her girlfriend, possibly the most brutal crime committed by anyone in the entire run of series. at the end of series 6 she is destroying the world, literally. then there's Faith, a slayer called on one of the occasions Buffy dies and is later bought back...it becomes an occupational hazard for her... Faith has 'issues' and they mean she finds it hard to trust and work with others. this leads her to abuse her powers, kill humans and ultimately help the evil mayor become a giant demonic serpent (yes this is the regular buffyverse in operation...but i must say i was hooked and loved almost every minute, its ability to not take itself too seriously making up for the plot lines! ). but we haven't finished! then there's Anya, a vengeance demon used to helping wronged women deliver gruesome ends to their male abusers. And finally there's Andrew, part occultist part nerd. it was the leader of his group that killed Willow's girlfriend and gets flayed alive as a result. this character comes back, but it's really the 'ultimate evil' that can be 'ant dead person it wants to be', and persuades Andrew to ritually kill his best friend to open a satanic seal in the school basement. and so as we enter series 7 a motley crew who need to be redeemed are part of the plot.

so redemption in a world in which the church is pretty unlikely to play a part. well for each character it works out, and not 'lightly', indeed often very movingly. so interesting that the theme of can the bad people be redeemed, is so positively handled. so what happens? we'll save Spike till last, because his role becomes so important! but at this point let us say he does indeed go to hell and get his soul back...itself interesting, after 'testing' by a demon he gets his soul, though this gets strangely related to the ghost of Christendom as he tells this to Buffy in a darkened church and then embraces a cross, which burns his vampire flesh, soul or no soul. BTW the experience of getting his soul has driven him half mad. Faith returns and through experiences when her self willed bravado lead to bad ends, learns to trust and work with others. Andrew has lived in a fantasy world in which he turns life into comic strip stories to avoid facing the truth. eventually Buffy forces him to confront his actions and his tears of repentance close the demonic seal he opened. Anya having gone back to her vengeance ways is going to be killed by Buffy, but she gets a another chance, which involves her getting her soul back to in a rather 'interesting' take on penal substitution. OK i have no idea if that is how the producer saw it but hear me out! she has to ask for it again from a demon, who says that he will grant it but he must take a demons life in forfeit, we all assume it will be Anya's but she is willing for the price to be paid believing she will she will have to pay it. But the demon has other ideas, and kills an other demon who has been Anya's friend, so an other's life pays the necessary price! this neatly gets Anya to the end of the series but is not viewed in a 'positive light'. Willow is stopped by a friend's love, in the face of her initially wounding him with her destructive magic, and 'the true source of magic' that is working for good in her. clearly magic is a source of good even if the church isn't.

so to the battle against the ultimate evil, and the part of the redeemed and especially Spike in that. you see at this point there's a problem. Buffy has fought off various evils and potential apocalypses, but this is 'the ultimate evil' working with an army of 'ultimate vampires'. in a universe devoid of ultimate good it seems, and reliant on human endeavour, how can Buffy defeat the ultimate evil? well she'll clearly need some help, so Faith the renegade slayer returns, then there is an army of young women who are potential slayers who come ti join in, then there's a magic scythe forged by ancient pagan priestesses for just such a day. armed so they enter the final battle with one further twist, Willow uses the power of the scythe to enable all women to become powerful slayers, empowering not only the potentials but other women abused and oppressed around the globe. as she performs the spell she glows with white light and, in the words of her new girlfriend, becomes a goddess. but even all this is not enough! enter Spike, soul returned madness subdued and a number of painful past issues faced, wearing some jewel intended for a champion. as the battle commences the jewel 'comes to life' a great shaft of light descends from the ceiling to the Jewel which then starts to scatter the light out destroying the super vampires. ' i can feel it' he declares, 'i can feel my soul, it's really there'. and so after an emotional reconciliation between Spike and Buffy she flees after the others, as Spike stays to die in the destruction of the forces of the ultimate evil. the end.

but what kind of end? it is perhaps not surprising if Churches are simply scary places full of demons, evangelists are demonic forces praying on the vulnerably and priests are misogynist devil worshipers bent on brutality that it is to Pagan priestesses, Wiccan magic, mystic weapons, empowered women and good honest human spirit that we must turn to face the ultimate evil. it is easy to dismiss this is be angry with it, but this is how many see the church and Christianity, and we have bought some of this on ourselves. what kind of church might be a force for good in the Buffyverse where evil must be fought and redemption is so important and sensitively handled? on the other hand if we are to leave the modern world in which the demonic and the 'ultimate evil' are as much a fairytale as the Christan God. if we are to enter a world in which supernatural evil is real, how can we fight it? in the end some strange mystic light needs to come and finish off the job, indeed we need God by the back door. but which God in what form? unless the church can become something other than the caricature of the Buffyverse, then what God will come to fill this place?

follow the links to the other blogs in this series

Steve Hayes ponders The Image of Christianity in Films
Sally Coleman is Making Connections- films as a part of a mythological tradition
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
Dr. Kim Paffenroth investigates Nihilism Lite

a guilty conscience?

2007-03-25T22:04:00.000Z

Firstly sorry for such a long gap - assuming anyone is out there to read this by now ;o)

OK currently writing a book (part of reason for long gap!) a thought that came to me in this I wanted to share here....

The preaching of the gospel in much evangelism centers on forgiveness. It offers a model of salvation geared to God in Jesus paying the penalty we are due because of the things for which we are rightly judged guilty. OK there is a whole debate to be had surrounding that understanding. But at this point I am just reflecting on why in the modernist period it has become the predominant model of salvation, even this is shown by it being the model to reject. I think this has a lot to do with the place of the conscience.

As the medieval world moved into the modern, via the renaissance and then the enlightenment, society moved its centre from and ordered and re-ordained hierarchy to the autonomous individual. Morality in the old order was something ordained from above, taught by the church, socialized by your community and enforced by divinely appointed rulers. In modernity morality became a matter of personal decision, and a humanly appointed state became an enforcer of a legal but not necessarily moral order. Rationality ruled the public sphere but could only pronounce on benefit, and a utilitarian common good. It was up to you to supply from within yourself what was right and good. Hence the rising importance of the individual conscience.

The humanist could affirm the conscience because it sprang from within the person and with an optimistic view of humanity would be a sure guide. The Christian could affirm this by seeing the conscience as a 'divine spark' God convicting us of sin. Sin would thus lead to a guilty conscience. A guilty conscience needed someone to remove the guilt and pronounce pardon, to assure us of forgiveness where we knew judgment was due. This is exactly what the evangelistic preaching of the gospel of penal substitution offered.

But what might have been happening? The problem is that the idea of conversion as an individual decision based on a personal guilty conscience as a true guide is deeply dependent on a modernist view of humanity. this view both views me as an individual and secondly as a positive individual who is, if I can truly connect with myself , an individual whose reason and reaction will indeed be true. What if actually my conscience is false? What if I feel no guilt for that which God might condemn me, or feel guilt for that of which I should feel none? what if taking that into account, and in today's world both those seem to be true, my guilt was not a product of a divinely guided conscience but a product of a lapsed Christendom in which me guilt was induced by past church experience and thus able to be revived by contemporary church preaching?

If this were the real situation of the guilty conscience, then the gospel portrayed as freedom from the penalty we deserved as guilty would only be good news to those raised in Christendom. And such seems to be the case. further to this Bonhoeffer is surely correct to suggest so much preaching is about 'sniffing around in other peoples dustbins hoping to catch them out' indeed the evangelist must induce guilt if not found in order to preach its relief. OK most people do suffer feelings of guilt, but they are both often different from what Christianity suggests we ought to feel guilty about, and increasingly assuaged by the sentiment 'well I’m only human' which in modernity and especially post modernity is a perfectly good justification (I don't think it is as a Christian by the way). further to this, as the power of Christendom guilt wears off, the preaching of a gospel geared to it leads to a rejection of the gospel, either as a crutch for the weak and guilty, that is people worse than me, or as something that is moralizing and guilt inducing when no guilt is due. The gospel becomes either at best good news for the truly bad (i.e. only a few) or bad news full stop.

now none of this as I see it is to suggest, as indeed many do faced with such a gospel, that people do not need saving from what Paul would call 'the power of sin and death'. I believe we do, and need to proclaim such a gospel. My point is that this was given a peculiar modernist form in the concept of the guilty conscience that is now increasingly unhelpful. A gospel based on it is increasingly no 'good news' at all.

However, if this is so, it does not seem that people don’t dream of being 'better'. One of the interesting things to come out of the 'beyond the fringe' research was that peoples personal aspirations, not surprisingly, where for happiness, family, relationships and success. however more surprisingly people on the whole didn’t chose those who had achieved this as those hey admired, rather they chose, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and yes Jesus. Might they secretly wish they could be like that too? Might the gospel that frees us from sin and death be the gospel that says, actually you can be like Jesus? Might preaching what we could become, rather than seeking to make us feel guilty for what we are, be not only 'good news' for today?

Ideology and God part 2

2006-12-04T21:29:00.000Z

I'm a big fan of the current crop of US crime shows, CSI, without a trace, and crminal minds. we get them late in the UK so apologies to US readers, but last week criminal minds (was a feb edition in US i discover!) ended with Mandy Patinkin delivering a great quote from French playwright Eugene Ionesco. "Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together."
this spoke to me very much of what i was grasping at in my earlier post on 'is God and idealist'.

the Ianesco quote has quite a web presence, much of it quote sites but there are some other pearls on them from Ianesco, but also some comment worth checking. I am not surprised others are grabbed by it too!

for me it says this: ideology is that thing people create when they want the answers sown up so they can say who is right and who is wrong, or in or out, or good or bad....ultimatley ideology is the means of exclusion of making a world of division of 'them and us'. but it says more than this, 'dreams and anguish unite us'. now the last part for me makes clear sense, the common struggle of the human expereince draws us togehter, often releases compassion, even for those we thought we despised or feared despised us. but what of those dreams? do our dreams unite us? on a superficial level perhaps not, indeed my dream may be your nightmare...and the state exists to make sure it does not become so, but struggles to acheive this....indeed should it achieve this? but at another level there is something here, when i get beyond the dreams of persoanl indulgence, of my own comfort, and begin to dream fro all, of the world i wish all could share, of my dreams for justice, for peace, for laughter and delight in life for all....are these dreams that really do unite us?

for me this is what the mission of God is about, the ushering in of the kingdom, the dream of jusitice love and life for all creation and not just humanity at creations expense or one person's at the expense of another's. i am reminded from preaching recently about Halloween and the Allhallows season, that Paul reminds us we have no human enemies, and Jesus tells us that our enemies are indeed to be treated as out friends, not the ideology that divdes, but the dream of the kingdom come on earth as in heaven that unites and blesses all and soothes our common anguish.

but does the church live this......do I live this?

Interview/ Hong Kong meeting

2006-10-11T10:22:00.000Z

John Smulo who blogs at 'smulo space' http://johnsmulo.typepad.com/ has just published a two part interview with me. John was someone I met at a recent gathering in Hong Kong, a group of us under the auspices of the Lausanne committee for World Evangelization looking at new spiritualities. A fascinating group of people from Australia, the US, UK and Denmark, but also meeting with those connecting with the Taoist and Buddhist faiths in the east. We have a lot to learn from each other! Check out john's blog, there's some good stuff!

we met at Tao Fong Shan (above) a Christian monastery built on the lines of a Buddhist one, using Feng Shui! Worship in 'the Christ temple' was in Chinese style fused with western tradition. The surroundings themselves asking us the kind of questions we grappled with. Can a Christian use feng shui, or for that matter Tarot. To communicate the Christina message? Is this potentially to compromise ones faith, or at the other end is it a con trick on those who follow such practices? alternatively can we see the spirit of God at work in 'unlikely places'?
personally i think God speaks through many things and Christian have no monopoly on this! for me this doesn't compromise my belief that Jesus Christ has a place in the spiritul search of all people, but i hope it should keep us a bit more humble and open than we sometimes can be. i'll post some more on this but for know what do you think?

Have pastors become shopkeepers?

2006-09-03T18:50:00.000Z

As ever Bob Carlton has found a really interesting piece to put on his blog http://thecorner.typepad.com/bc/2006/08/eugene_peterson.html

the basic idea is that pastors have turned into keepers of a 'shop' called 'church' and behave like marketers and consumer pleasers in order to make their own shop successful. Read the article by Eugene Peterson (of 'the message' fame) and see what you think? My starter is that such could be true of many seeking to make church evangelistic in today's culture, so is this a stark warning or a reactionary misinterpretation?

Is God an idealist?

2006-07-17T23:22:00.000Z

OK kind of sounds a stupid question, of course God is an idealist and Christians should be idealists. I am inclined that way myself too! But recently I keep hearing things that make me ask the question with more seriousness. Firstly someone who had written a book on Israel and its troubled history, for her the idealists were the problem, the people sure they were right and prepared to fight for their truth. I heard and understood, but? More recently a discussion on Nazi Germany, if I remember the quote, but this is pretty close if not bang on, 'the vast majority of people who commited these atrocities were not bad people, they believed what they were doing was good, but they where convinced by ideology and this is what enables good people to do evil things'. This by the way was a commentary on Shakespeare plays, and a profound one. The moral? It was the pragmatists who if you like held the moral heigh ground. The ones who valued community, the brining on of all people over the ideology of a certain group.

as an Anglican priest this has a lot of resonances with the current issues that threaten separation in the world wide Anglican communion. But then the issue cuts in all directions, we aren't just talking about those idealist, we are talking about ours. I am talking about my ideals which I hope are drawn out of God, but may in truth be a part of the idol we all build and call God. Can pragmatism in this sense be a means of a divine discovery, of God beyond our own construction of God?

mm. Perhaps the issue is what ideology? If it is to grow the church, to bring people to Christ, to help this nation to be Christian, perhaps then and in so many other ways, all we do is mold the gospel to our likekness. perahaps God does have an ideaology, but one that wants everyone in, that is not interested in preserving this or that doctirine (look at the way the prophets spoke of isreal's worship or how jesus acted toward it). perhaps 'compromise' may hold the deepest value of all, that which is seeking the kingdom of God above my ideaology, which will bear with others seeking that kingdom, beacause it is a kingdom for all.

there is a mission lesson here i think. the mission of God is about reconcillaiation not exclusion, to many ideologies want to exclude and not to reconcile. OK reconsilalitation at any price? well God gave his life for it, what price will we pay? what price am i prepared to pay?

God is a DJ

2006-06-18T22:22:00.000Z

Thanks to the man who seems to live online and comes up with some real gems, Bob Carlton. follow this link to a couple of awesome little vids... i particualry love the first one, just how difficult is it to solve the worlds problems with some decks? and check out Bob's blog too http://thecorner.typepad.com/bc/2006/06/god_is_a_dj_whi.html

Return to the monastery, or why doctrine is not the issue in mission

2006-06-18T21:42:00.000Z

With the start of 'the convent' we first got to see 'return to the monastery' see http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/monastery/ . It made fascinating viewing as the 5 men returned to the place where they made a 40 day retreat and a surprise hit TV series. These 5 where whittled down from hundreds of people wanting to spend that time in a largely silent monastic order. What can we learn from this?

firstly that contrary to what some will tell the ancient is deeply attractive to many wanting to explore spirituality today. These people wanted something challenging, something to be part of and something with mystery. Even those who came in cynical found they were effected, and some very deeply, read the stories on the BBC site.

secondly though many came with intellectual questions about the Christian faith what they found was experience of the faith which made the questions seem less central. This should not be a surprise. Our 'post-modern' age has shifted continually away form the very modernist approach in which truth is about facts which are demonstrated by reason and proved by scientific experiment, toward truth as 'experience' make sense of what of happening to us and to others. This world tends to make 'facts ' relative, something may be 'true for you but not for me' because the benchmark is my personal experience, not some universally agreed statement of fact.

the church I think is still very often operating in the world of doctrinal fact, thinking it needs to convince people of the truth of Christianity. The monks wisely took another course, the discussed feelings as well as thoughts but above all they invited people to an experience, and experience of God but also one shared with others. How might we make evangelism about an invitation to an experience rather than to a change of opinion?

Da Vinci Code

2006-05-07T23:56:00.000Z

Well for more 'serious' engagement do get my new Grove Book on this (you know you want to ;o) http://www.grovebooks.co.uk/cart.php?target=product&product_id=17096&category_id=265 this BTW is not about arguing the facts but IMHO the more important issue of understanding why this book has been so successful and the issues behind the facts that matter much more, oh it's also about responding to the book without looking like Dan Brown must be right that the church is doing a cover up...Something others are spectacularly failing to do ...Roll up the Roman Catholic Church single handedly doubling film attendance and belief in Brown's thesis by trying to forbid people from seeing it...Ably assisted by a clutch of conservative evangelicals and biblical scholars. But far more fun than my book is this wonderful post by the awesome betty bowers http://www.bettybowers.com/davinci.html the bus theory is clearly right (see may 1st)

how to do evangelism?

2006-05-07T16:39:00.000Z

follow this link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5479410612081345878 to a really useful vidoe guaranteed to help in your evangleism....or more likely to laugh uncontrolably. thanks to Paul Roberts http://alternativeworship.org/paulsblog for this one!

Orthodox or Authentic?

2006-05-01T21:59:00.000Z

not blogged for a while but they may now come like UK buses...the saying is you wait for one for ages then three come at once! We shall see

a number of things have lately made me think a lot about what we consider 'orthodox' and why. A writer on Israel heard on radio talking about how ideology was the big problem, those who held no ideology were open to peace and reconciliation, as opposed to those who did. Perhaps I wondered they held a different ideology, but I got the point. A day or two later someone quoted the adage 'doctrine is what you kill for but faith is what you die for'.
my suspicion is that these sayings speak into a place we all increasingly inhabit. A place where we are called to opt for certainty or challenge and have to discern where is God in all this.
it has been said that Mission is always connected to the 'heretical imperative' not I think meaning some abandonment of all that has been 'Christian' but rather a realization that mission always calls us to the new, not in opposition to the old, but out of it, out of it's trajectory if you like, but forward into the 'heretical' because it has not been orthodox before.
I suspect mission id never in this way 'orthodox' but always 'hereteical' - the two BTW are opposites, orthodox and heterodox.
But can the heterodox be authentic? I suspect it can indeed often is the authentic tradition of Christ and God's mission. Do I mean that simply by being heretical it must be authentic? Not at all. To be 'authentic' it needs to be connected to what has gone before. The point is though that the truly authentic witness follows the Christ pattern in which that which conventional doctrine condemns is in fact the way forward. To embrace the potentially heretical becomes the most authentic way to be Christian when the desire to affirm the orthodox can become the pharisee tradition that Jesus, the Jewish heretic, so often opposed.

what we so often perhaps fail to grasp is that Jesus might well come today in such a way, condemning our orthodoxy as Pharisaic and condemende by the church as a heretic.

the challenge then may be to live authentically, and this is not to make Christ as we would wish but follow him, in all the challenge that involves, as he was and is and will be. and that may not look 'orthodox'

Britain's psychic challenge

2006-02-24T11:32:00.000Z

UK's channel 5 has recently been running a reality psychic game show of this name, whittling 5,000 self professed psychics down to a final three. The finale was last Sunday.

it's been an interesting series. Firstly worth noting that 5,000 Britons want to enter and believe they are psychics is something in itself.

the programmes have had a panel of skeptics who at each turn have often pointed to the weakness of the supposed powers of the contestants. Very often this has related to the vagueness of information offered and the way this may often be almost a fishing technique looking for affirmations that may help the psychic go in a certain direction. All of this would be familiar to those who have observed stage magicians like Derren Brown deliberately fake psychic phenomena. I don't think any of the psychics in the show were deliberately doing this but I suspect it is sometimes learnt behavior not consciously adopted, after all it works!

however sometimes the skeptics are clearly stumped, the eventually winner did this twice when she was able to find a hidden person in a wilderness faster than a professional search team with sniffer dogs, indeed on both occasions simply going straight to where the person was guided apparently by instinct. Even more unnervingly they used her, 'Rosanna Arquette Medium style', to help with an unsolved murder case, she seemed to almost become the victim and then proceeded to walk the police around areas they knew where key to the murder with running commentary of the events. She finished by supply a description of the murderer that we were not allowed to hear (as was true of some other bits of information, so as not to jeopardize the case) but we were told was accurate to one of the original suspects.

similarly we also have just had series exploring alternative/complimentary medicine under scientific conditions by a an initially skeptical doctor who became convinced at least that some do work in scientifically measurable ways.

all this is part of growing trend to treat the supernatural, the alternative and the psychic seriously in the British media, part I think of an increasing openness to it here.

how should Christians respond? Increasingly I think the tide is running out for the sort of mid 20th century liberalism that sort to demythologize faith and dismiss the miraculous as fanciful stories to be reduced to their meaning devoid of any supernatural content. The other tradition has tended to be to dismiss all such things as occult or demonic witchcraft. Yet what seems to be emerging is a middle space in which it looks as if scientific explanation may be given to some such phenomena, in which it might be true to say they cease to be supernatural at all. I think Christians are increasingly going to have to be open minded to such phenomena.

in the end I also want to question the attitude that thinks primarily of protection of the faithful, that seeks always to weed out the wrong the risky and the dangerous. I am not sure God and those who claim to be in God through Christ need defending from the 'supernatural'. Rather I would like to see people who actually seem to believe that God is bigger than this and that perfect love really does drive out fear. All of this is think should not be viewed as a worrying trend but as a wonderful opportunity.

what kind of Christians can take such an opportunity? I suspect it will be those who are equally open to the mystical, the miraculous and the unexplained in their own faith tradition, and not scared to walk alongside those exploring such in any and every tradition. The problem is that none of the current tribes of the church fit this bill. The liberals are open to questions but often closed to the miraculous, the Catholics bearers of the mystical but often not the uncoventional, the evangelicals keen to engage with the faith of others but closed to the mystical and the unexplained within in their own faith, the charismatics seeking to manifest the miraculous but usually demonising it in others. Time perhaps for some new expressions of faith that transcend all our traditions, holding together the insights of all and rejecting the fears of all. And I see this emerging in places,

indeed I suspect that many of the debates that divide Christians today are not really between the different tribes or churchmanships but between those seeking to be faithful in the age in which we are, an age of psychic challenge, and those who are still living in an age that is no more.

Beyond belief?

2006-01-09T23:54:00.000Z

UK channel 4 are just running a programme's series by biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins, with the above tile. His thesis 'is religion the root of all evil? Ok that is I bet the TV take but for Dawkins religion is indeed a major root of evil and we must abandon it for rational science to stop wars killing and blood shed. Trouble is the some of the religious he showed (including a Christian mega church in Colorado springs) seriously backs up his argument.

trouble is I agree with his comments on the religion he showed us...But aware that it is finding the worst case to prove your point. Granted there are some toe curlingly awful Christians and I find myself ashamed of them and then maybe some fingers point my way too?

but I could create a programme in which atheism was the root of all evil, I would look at communists and their repression of religion and intellectual free speech or Dr mengle and awful experiments on humans viewed as mere animals. I might talk of capitalist business and the abuse of humanity in the name of market forces and then look at how religion has spawned care, teaching, indeed the science Dawkins lauds. But this would also be a one sided programme. In truth it s easy to set up straw men and knock them down. It is also easy dismiss those we see doing this and send down the good points with the half cocked shots.

I was left wanting to have Dawkins round to dinner. I bet he'd enjoy good wine and food and we might talk openly (yes I think we really might) I would try to get us to offer our best to each other and talk about that rather than offer our best to their worst. I am reminded of a Dietrich Bonhoeffers comment that so much Christian evangelism was 'sniffing around in other peoples rubbish bins looking to catch them out' and that we needed to meet people with faith at the points they were strong.

another thought. Tributes today in the UK to radical MP Tony Banks who died yesterday. Whatever you think ( and he is a controversial figure!) this quote hit home as wise. An Mp shared how when he was new TB took him on one side and said 'this is something really important to know, your opponents are those in the other parties but your enemies are always in your own party'. As I heard it I knew he could have been talking about religious groups, churches and groups within churches. I then remembered I am supposed to love my enemies. And I was also reminded that Paul wisely told us our struggles were not against people. I guess that even means that appalling pastor of that church in Colorado who lectured Dawkins on human arrogance as he delivered a master class in it himself. I asked myself which person here is undermining the work of Christ? I decided it was not Richard Dawkins, and then realized I was called to love them both.

I want to learn with Bonhoeffer to meet people, both my opponents and my enemies ;o) at the point heir are at their best, and meet them with love. Indeed this is perhaps the true heart if the Gospel

purgatorio: You Might Be Emerging If...

2005-12-02T12:53:00.000Z

http://purgatorio1.blogspot.com/2005/11/you-might-be-emerging-if.html this is rather fun (thanks to Bob Carlton in the US for this) i think a bit US in it's bias...or am i the only guy in the UK who only recognised the U2 Album in the music section? my ambient dance and trance collections clearly make me 90's alt worship and not very emergent at all ;o)

emergent UK Holy Spirit in contemporary culture day

2005-11-17T16:27:00.000Z

it was good to be at this conversation last Saturday in St Albans (see Jason Clarks blog for more info http://www.emergent-uk.org/jasonblog.htm ) firstly to find different people at this to other gatherings in other networks, yet people wrestling with mission and culture and faith in the UK. I was impressed by the genuine breadth of those who came too and the way that differences where shared and aired with no attempt to enforce a party line. I would recommend any future day to people interested in the kind of things I blog about.

I also think the day points to a small but useful part that emergent UK is now playing in it's own right separate from it's US big brother. Something I think will only aid the health of the debate over here. I say this because I also fear that at present UK emergent may not be fully on people's radar and it ought to be. I say this as someone initially suspicious of a US inspired group that might simply have been re-inventing the alternative worship wheel. It turns ought to be something different to that and I am pleased to say more mission focused than some sections of alt worship have been (though I think that is changing too which is good)

Mind Body Spirit

2005-09-26T14:26:00.000Z

one of the things i do in the UK is train churches to run stalls at Mind Body Spirit fairs. i am involed in one this wekeend in manchester, with people from the Sanctus 1 community. this year i'm also doing a talk for the first time as part of thre programme. follow this link to find out about the fair http://www.mindbodyspirit.co.uk/ look up 2nd october to find my talk lisitng.

i find these fairs fascinating places to be and meet a whole variety of people exploring the spiritual. it's a place people don't expect to find a christian presence, the Church often assumed to be 'unspiritual' on the one hand and automatically condemning of contemporary spirituality on the other. we try to enable people to discover rich resources from the christian tradition and open up the possibility that the Christian path has things to offer after all.

we spend much time sharing personal stories and i often have a lot to reflect on afterwards. I keep meeting people who, as i would understand it, are having encounters with the God I discover in Jesus Christ. i think Christians have somtimes got used to an idea that people 'out there' are secular and unspiritual and we bring God to them and have to persuade them of the reality of ther spiritual realm. either that or we assume that anyone who is having spiritual expereinces outside Chrsitianity must be encountering something demoninc. but what if neither assumption is necessarily true? what if God is speaking directly into the lives of people who are not at all interested in Christinaity but are spiritual explorers? how might that change the way we seek to connect with such people?

i think this is one of ther reasons i like speaking of 'a fellow explorer model' of evangelism, those we seek to open up the christian faith to are already often on the journey. similalry i think Christians are increasingly becoming aware of the extent to which we are also still on a journey, that 'becoming a christian' isn't the end of a journey but a key stage on the jounrey. and of course we are increasingly aware of the very different ways faith in Jesus comes alive for people so that for many knowing when they 'became a christisn' is not possible. in this world the evangelist becomes lead explorer ( i gather that Brian Mclaren has used this phrase BTW does anyone have information on that?) searching out the territory and inviting others to journey with them, rather than a salesman offering a product.

refreshing the not so new

2005-09-23T01:11:00.000Z

a post greenbelt post. i've been involed in the alterantive worship scene now for 15 years. helped start two groups and been a participant in a third. i still think there is loads in here, indeed much of what has most inspired me has come from this approach to faith. yet i find myself getting weary sometimes. of finding much of what 'we' do rather lifeless over time. yet at GB this year amd last found really refreshing stuff comming from places abroad where 15 year ago little was going on. my highlight last year was Ikon from Belfast, real grit and engagement. this year may highlight was COTA from Seattle. groups like this have a frshness i find most Uk groups lack these days. this may jst be me! but i feel someting freash is abroad and that is deeply needed.

Change to settings

2005-09-18T17:21:00.000Z

Folks sorry that I have added a word verification setting when you post. Hope it won't be too inconvenient, but I have had a spam attack and really don't want you or me to have to read spam!

Greenbelt

2005-08-25T11:40:00.000Z

Off to Greenbelt Christian arts festival. running a night club including club worship and also helping with two Taize services, we'll be especially remembering Brother Roger at those (see last post). may be see some of you there?

Sad death of Brother Roger

2005-08-25T11:26:00.000Z

Been meaning to write about this ever since I was phoned last Tuesday evening as part of a 'phone chain' to be told the news that Brother Roger had been fatally stabbed during evening prayer at Taize that evening. Hard to know what to say. So here are a few thoughts, more may follow.

that Brother Roger probably would not live much longer was clear to all who have seen his increasing frailty over the past few years, the manner of his death is however a shock, though oddly I wasn't in one sense surprised. There is something about the powerfully holy that seems to attract violent death, think how many of those who have made a big impact as people of faith even in this century and reflect on how many where killed. Brother Roger was a man of vision spiritual depth and with whom the Spirit of God was strong and in this sense exactly the kind of person who might also be killed. I am not really sure what the deep truth of this is. I do suspect it may enlarge brother Roger's ministry in death, and that this as in the other cases I could mention is an outwork of the power of new life the resurrection principle that causes death only to make those in Christ stronger.

as I reflected in my last blog taize was not only a place that drew people together from all churches and in this set a vision, it did much more. 100,000's of young adults from all of the world have had their faith nurtured by visiting there. The impact of that too on the world church is immeasurable. And faith, spirituality, wisdom and scriptural insight exist there in great depth. Further I do not doubt it will continue after Brother Roger's passing. That in a sense being the last great testimony to one of the key religious leaders of our era. A quiet man, who placed prayer at the centre and watched the ripples spread slowly out.

The importance of the Hellenists (feedback from Taize)

2005-08-11T12:26:00.000Z

As ever as well as time to reflect and pray Taize offers deeply insightful bible input. This year we had a series on the mission of God in the Acts of the Apostles. I was particularly struck by the role of the Hellenists from Acts 6 onwards. The Hellenists were non Hebrew Jews who lived in the Greek world. We first become aware of them when they complain that their widows are being left out of the food distribution which has only been going to Hebrew Christians. This however is only a presenting symptom of a wider cultural issue, an issue that will define the direction of the mission of God through the church, the distinction between the Hebrew and Greek worlds. The Hebrew Christians led by the all Hebrew Apostles are in Jerusalem, maintaining Jewish custom and attending Temple worship. Unless this changes the real danger is present that Christianity will remain Jewish sect in Jerusalem and the Gospel will never reach beyond it. It is the Hellenists however who will change this. They see the world beyond Judaism and bring a question to the church 'will the church be for non Jews also?' . The Apostles lay hands on the seven leaders of the Hellenists, ostensibly to wait on tables. In reality they are ordaining the people who will take the Gospel beyond Jerusalem. The two key figures are Stephen and Phillip. Stephen can see that Jewish custom and temple must be left behind, that Jesus has ushered in a new order in line with the vision of the Prophets and makes himself deeply unpopular by repeatedly arguing his case with the Jewish authorities, indeed he enrages them so much they kill him, launching a persecution of the church. This persecution seems to largely miss the Hebrew Apostles who stay in Jerusalem but the Hellenists are scattered out into Samaria, and ultimately to Antioch from where the mission of Paul and Barnabas to the Greek world will be launched. The mission of God required those who were from the outside to come in and question the certainties traditions and worship of the established religious system. The conflict this brought, wisely embraced by the Apostles, was the creative place for God to allow mission to break out into a new world. Those who came with this new vision were persecuted for it, but God turned their persecution into the very means of achieving their vision.

we were encouraged to apply this story today, and I think there is much that springs from that as we look to mission at the end of Christendom. In many ways the Christendom church is like the Hebrew church with its customs and certainties, and of itself only brings to faith those who have been raised in Christendom, it cannot reach out to the world beyond its traditions. We need Hellenists who live within the world outside Christendom to come among us. However, the Hellenists will bring conflict, they will undermine the churches traditions and question its codes and practices, indeed they are likely to be persecuted by traditionalists and yet this oposition will become the place from which the baton of the Gospel is passed from the traditional church to the Hellenists who will eventually become the church as the Christendom church fades away.

in these terms my job could be described as 'professional Hellenist' someone called to look from the perspective of those who have no church background and seek to discern what the gospel means in that world and explore what kind of church will emerge from the seed of the Gospel sown in such soil. Seeing my name is Stephen I hope I won't also be martyred in the process! However when I look at the kind of vitriol piled on people like those associated with Emergent in the US I can't help wondering if again the Hellenists are upsetting the traditionalists.

Of course in Acts the traditionalist Apostles laid hands on the Hellenist leaders and embraced them, even if as the rest of Acts and the Pauline Epistles show they probably didn't really understand the radical change this would lead to in the church with the abandonment of Jewish custom. Will the leaders of today's church be able to embrace the Hellenists even if they are fearful of the consequences? What things are we fighting over in the church of today that will turn out in hindsight to have been about a shift in culture and not at all about the essentials of the faith? Will we be able to have our 'council of Jerusalem' in which we are able to find a way forward between the traditionalists and the Hellenists so that the wisdom of the past can also be carried forward into the future as well as that which is actually part of what God was doing and not for the future can be left behind?

2005-07-30T00:26:00.000Z

Off to Taize
unlikely to post for the next week and a bit as I am helping lead a trip to Taize in France for Manchester Diocese. If you haven't been BTW it is a special place. I find I always get challenged and get stretched. ....All of this includes an unexpected experience with an icon of Mary, as well as some very wise bible teaching from the brothers of the community. Likely to be 5-6,000 there next week! I'll report back if anything is stirred by the spirit.

2005-07-29T11:15:00.000Z

Converse, Conversion, is there a relationship?

Read that a few times and play with its meanings.

Here are a few questions and a few thoughts.

Is relationship evangelism unethical?
Does the word converse have any relationship to conversion?
Is inter faith dialogue evangelistic?

What do you think?

It seems to me that to build a relationship with someone solely to convert them is to not build a relationship with them. However if I build a relationship with someone and it has any meaning and I am part of the mission of God then actually much of what passes between us will be an act of faith sharing that is evangelistic. If this happens between myself and someone of another faith we will be both entering into inter faith dialogue and it will be evangelistic. The key then perhaps is not to ask ‘how can I do ethical evangelism in a multi faith world’ but how do I build genuine relationships’? it is just a few thoughts!

BTW Converse has two meanings, one is 'to engage in conversation' the other is 'to be contrary to'. anyone offer any background to that?

Happy St Mary of Magdelene's day

2005-07-23T07:49:00.000Z

July 22nd is the feast of mary magdelene. a women who has recently got rather a lot of press thanks to Dan Brown and the Da Vinci code. i don't intedn to go into all the stuff looking at the historical case for or against (and it is larlgely against) Dan Brown's use of a theory that first surfaced in a book called Holy Blood Holy Grail (that Mary married jesus had a daughter who was the real 'Holy Grail' and the Merovingian Kings are her and Christ's decendents). look at Wikkipedia on the da Vinci code for some good material and links. but what has this debate got to say about culture and mission?

i know several Christians have written books attacking Brown's thesis. some of these have then suggested that 'the real da vinci code' is the message of jesus. some have done this well, i like the take that we can ALL be sons and daughters of jesus in the christian story not just a particualr liine of Kings in France! the problem however with some of these attempts is that to those who find compelling the conspiracy theroy element of the da VInci code, the church suppressing this truth over centuries, the load protestation of Christians, calls to ban or boycott teh film next year etc, simply confirm that the book must be true and we are indeed supressing the truth agressively. we live in an age when in proclaiming our lessage the old apologetics of exposing the the arguments against Christianity no longer cuts ice. indeed to try and defend Christianity from criticism is often to appear negative and opposed to things. i suspect we need to simply offer the positive in the market place of faith and let others look critical if they wish. i don't necessarily mean stay silent in repsonding to criticism or views we feel to be wrong, but not to feel this is where the key debate happens, to respond with grace, wanting to win a friend and not win an argument. people i think are today looking more at how we debate than what we say, what messages are we sending?

Mary Magdelene and her legacy are an intersting thing to pick up on. i have sympathy with Dan Brown's suggestion that Mary has had bad press, the one who first met the risen Jesus ending up as a fallen women forever doinmg penenance in the desert. indeed the second Vatican council aserted that much medieval speculation about Mary in which she also became the sinful women who annoints jesus feet and the women caught in adultery were mistakes. (so much for the theory of the supression of this by the Catholic Church). i do think it tells us something about the way women have sometimes been stereotyped in sections of the Christian faith though. the two Mary's one 'forever a virgin' the other a fallen women. i suspect the problem with sex and bodies especially female bodies this dualism speaks of is a bad bit of the Greek heritage of Christianity. it is easy sometimes to understand why people think we are anti physical and anti sex and indeed anti women. one of the reasons Paganism is the fastest growing faith in Britian is that it affirms the physical, the sexual and the feminine. our attitudes on these things are not indeed some academic question, they are about our mission.

if the Da Vinci code has a message for us, it is that people today want a faith that holds a view of the female that is equal to the male, and of the physical that sees it as good. we ought to be at the fore fornt here with women as much as men made in God's image, with sex as a gift of God and our bodies as temples of his spirit. this is not to deny that all is not good with how we are and the need for salvation in all it's dimensions, but to say we need to learn afresh the message of God's misison as starting with creation and ending in new creation. perhaps we need to also be as quick to speak of God as a mother hen gathering her offspring as a father welcoming a prodigal son?

2005-07-19T14:59:00.000Z

well at some point a web site is comming on which more stuff can be posted connected to my work. but for now i thought i'd join the bloggsphere! well a discussion was always intended to be part of what i wanted to do online so this will do for a start. watch this space...composing some stuff sorting out links etc so be patient for the first day or two if you happen to find this