Forest Church - an expression whose time has come?

On Saturday I was speaking at the museum in Wells at an event called 'Born in a Pagan Land' Bath and Wells mission open forum born in a Pagan Land the day was looking at the relationship between Paganism and Christianity in the UK with a special focus on Somerset. which of course meant a lot was said about Glastonbury.  another speaker was Liz Williams, a Pagan who runs the shop the Cat and the Cauldron in that town. i was also joined by local missioner Diana Greenfield and Helen Bradley who have just started Avalon Forest Church. I was struck again by how much the Forest Church idea resonates with people. Christians who find God in nature and don't feel at home in conventional churches, those involved in 'New Age' therapies and spiritual practices and those who are Pagans or have Pagan backgrounds find this new - or perhaps re-discovered? - approach to Christianity makes sense and is attractive when otherwise it has less appeal. this won;t be true for everyone of course, but the way new Forest Churches are springing up suggests there are a lot of people for whom this is so.

it is interesting to note that when the Roman's left Britain where in much of Europe the church took over the civic system the Romans left, in Britain there where a lot who returned to the countryside. rural monasteries and sacred sites in nature became central to early Christianity in these Isles. i wonder if there is still something in the British psyche that means the divine is sought in nature? perhaps this is part of the Forest Church growth?

see Mystic Christ/ Forest Church for more

exposing the Church of England plan to recruit Pagans using a Pagan church

OK if you have been reading the press over the last few days you may have come to believe the Church of England has a new policy to recruit Pagans by training pioneer ministers expressly to do this by starting a Pagan church - and that i am one of the key people doing this. Well that's what this article in the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10133906/Church-of-England-creating-pagan-church-to-recruit-members.html certainly implies and it has drawn a lot of comment both from Christians and Pagans.  But there is a big problem with this article - it is highly misleading and there is no such Church of England policy.  I thought it was about time to expose the spin and let the real story come out.

firstly it is not a piece of research based on interviews done by the Telegraph it is actually a rehash of a radio piece done by BBC religion correspondent Robert Piggott for the Today Programme - you can listen to it here for the next 5 days http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x9f4j the piece comes about 1:25 into the recording - it went out just after 7.25 on the 21st June.  The background to this piece was that Robert had seen research by people like Linda Woodhead on the rise of spirituality outside of religion as a counterpoint to declining church numbers.  in particular she had recently written an article for the Church Times suggesting that the Anglican church should concentrate on the 50% of Anglicans who are non-churchgoing believers (this is the link but the full article can only be read by subscribers  http://networkedblogs.com/KGTJa. Robert wanted to explore this and particularly to find if there where ways the Anglican church was connecting with spiritual seekers. I was along with three others interviewed for this radio programme. it went out on the 21st June to link it to the Sumner Solstice celebrations at Stonehenge.

what happens in such interviews is that a several minute interview is used to produce a small piece as part of a larger article, I've done this before and knew what to expect. in the piece there was a comment from the very good Pagan academic Graham Harvey explaining that lots of people went to the solstice as well as Pagans including Christians who weren't tightly defined but more fluid. this was put in the context of growing numbers of spiritual seekers. Then the question of Anglican response was raised and i was introduced. i am an Anglican priest I research this area and work in evangelism so whilst i am not an official Anglican spokesperson on this i am often recommended as an Anglican to speak in this area.

two sentences were used from me firstly building on something that is a Church of England (along with a number of other churches) backed initiative to create fresh expressions of church within the different cultures of Britain recognizing that many people are culturally very distant from the church.  http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/about/whatis This would indeed potentially include people of different religions and spiritualities as well as ethnicities, lifestyles, locations etc. we had talked about how one would do this for spiritual seekers or Pagans and I said that one would look to 'create an expression of christian faith within that culture almost a Pagan church but with Christ very much at the centre'. i was asked whether that would look like a traditional Anglican church - i suggested not, and offered as an example the Forest churches that several groups have set up and how they would meet outdoors, might have a circle or a fire chanting and prayers and things that were very Celtic in style.

other interviews were with Andrea Campanale of CMS who train pioneer ministers, among other things.  these ministers are likely to be helping create fresh expressions of church.  Andrea and I have worked together on a few occasions, we helped run a Christian stall at the London Mind Body Spirit festival in May for instance. the third interview was from a member of an Anglican church who also uses Angel cards but who as far as i can tell has no official church role and isn't part of any programme of church outreach.

so the radio interview showed there where Anglicans seeking to express christian faith in the cultural context of religion and spirituality outside of church and that might include Pagans.  i have no problem with the radio piece - it was well researched and Robert is i am convinced quite genuinely interested in exploring this area. I also think it is very important and have argued for a number of years that the church needs to learn lessons from those expressing spirituality and religion outside of the church - especially those with roots in the New Age Movement or contemporary Paganism. i do not think this amounts to the Church of England having a deliberate policy of creating a Pagan church to recruit Pagans and training pioneer ministers to do it - the Telegraph article makes two and two equal a lot more than five. it takes the facts that pioneer ministers are being trained, some Anglicans think it inportant to engage with non church spirituality and that  one of them talked of creating something that was 'almost a Pagan church with Christ at the centre'. it takes those and assumes this is all part of the same policy of the church. it is all influenced by fresh expressions thinking, but that was not mentioned in the radio piece or the Telegraph article - i guess some may think that fresh expresions might therefore be what the Telegraph was talking about - i simply suggest you look at the site i posted above and you will find very little if anything about Pagans or spiritual seekers.

i have no problem with the radio piece, but James Naughtie's introduction was i think a large part of what lead to the Telegraph story. as part of this, having suggested Pagans might meet to 'drink dew' at the solstice (yes it's that old 'daft Pagans' insult) he then went on to say the Church of England was seeking to recruit Pagans and spiritual seekers and was training pioneer ministers to create different kinds of churches that might appeal to spiritual seekers. OK i guess you have there the phrase 'recruit Pagans' and the elements the Telegraph built there story on. having rehashed the radio piece (and quoting me incorrectly) they also made matters worse with, the frankly patronizing suggestion that 'The new move could see famous druids such as druid leader Arthur Pendragon move to Anglicanism.' i am guessing that Arthur is killing himself laughing - at least i hope that is what he is doing. 

to fill in the picture there was also a piece in the Times, behind the pay wall of course. but at least Ruth Gledhill phoned me and this managed to straighten out some of the story - it still links things into a coherent plan but at least mentions fresh expressions  http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3797917.ece

OK that i hope at least helps explain how the articles happened and why i think they have been misleading.

i have been watching what has been happening on blogs and tweets and facebook as best i can. in one sense i was tempted to let it play out - but i have become concerned about the possible harm and misunderstanding that may come from this. i am concerned that Christians will decide i am selling out the faith or someone who will do anything to recruit church members - i have no problem with Christians disagreeing with me but i'd rather they did so on the basis of what i really think and do. i am more worried about what Pagans may think , and indeed some are thinking, that i and others are creating some deceptive fake church in order to target Pagans and recruit them. i have a number of Pagan friends and i value being part of groups in which Pagans are included. so i was rather disturbed by a story growing up that i was simply deceiving these people in order to recruit them. and for this reason felt i needed to set the record straight.

i think i need to finish very briefly by explaining why i said what i did. my understanding is that in every age and culture authentic Christianity adapts to become at home in that new context. in the west for a century and half it has done this less due to the establishment of the church - something i think was damaging BTW. i think we have been going through major cultural change from the later part of last century and the church has not adapted to this and is therefore declining. at the same time new expressions of spirituality have grown.  at present i think such expressions of spirituality and religion are addressing the lives of many though not all people today far more effectively than the church and as a Christian i think we need to ask why and learn lessons from that. i do not believe that a Christian church could adopt Paganism and remain Christian nor that a Pagan group (or individual) could adopt Christianity and remain Pagan. i do think that Paganism has much to say and offer to the world today and much that Christians can adopt - for instance whilst Christianity isn't polytheistic, the Trinity does include the divine feminine as well as the divine masculine and those, including Pagans, who have criticized an apparently male lone christian deity are right to do so, and we as Christians need to acknowledge that and recover out own tradition of the divine feminine. similarly Pagans have often put Christians to shame when it comes to the environment when St Paul time and again talks of Jesus not saving people from the world but wanting to set the whole of creation free from suffering - we need to recover this ecological vision. i could go on but i hope you get the idea - that is what i meant by saying a Pagan church - on reflection i think i should have said a church in Pagan culture or one that learnt lessons from Paganism. i do think such a church would be far more attractive to many people. do i want people to 'join the church' put like that no - i am not interested in a church recruitment plan that sound slike getting people to join a social club. However, i find the vision Jesus outlined for life, society and the future of creation deeply attractive and my belief as a christian is that God can work to change us into the sort of people who can live that vision out and i want to share that vision with others and i hope they too are attracted to it - that would be what i would mean by evangelism. i also want to live in a society in which all faiths are tolerated and given equal status. i could say more but this has been long enough. i am happy to respond to further questions and comments

Dawkins vs Baroness Warsi - Christian Britain and its Secular detractors

Richard Dawkins has just released details of a survey designed to explore why in the 2001 Census 72% of British people ticked the box marked 'Christian'. There are two posts about this survey on the Dawkins Foundation site  Dawkins survey post no.1  Dawkins survey post no.2 . I have analysed the original survey data and my bulletin on this can be downloaded here response to Dawkins survey .  On the day this came out Baroness Warsi the Muslim conservative cabinet minister was meeting the Pope to call for the protection of Europe's Christian identity in the face of secularist attacks upon it Baroness Warsi article in Telegraph . It seems that the arguments between those who want to 'defend Christian Britain' and those who want religion to play no role in public life are an ongoing media story. This is not to everyone's liking. Giles Fraser, who on national Radio caused great amusement by asking Dawkins if he could name the full title of Darwin's Origin of Species, causing the atheist Darwnian scientist to stumble and exclaim 'oh God' when eh couldn't, has written in praise of the tradition of religious tolerance attacking both positions.Giles Fraser in Guardian . What are the issues and how should Christians respond?

Firstly simply turning this into a battle between the two extremes probably only helps the atheist secular view. Dawkins if often strident and when met with gentle humour and non-dogmatic response he often comes over badly in comparison. This is partly why there was so much delight at his radio stumble; people rather liked him being caught out. Dawkins was right that in fact the stunt did not really act as an equivalent to asking people who said they were Christians to pick the name of the first book of the New Testament from a multi-choice list. But people enjoyed it all the same.  However, one thing that Dawkins Survey carried out by IPSOS/MORI did show is that those who ticked Christian in the census do not on the whole support Christianity as a state religion. At least as a Muslim Baroness Warsi is not a member of the Church of England, but the danger is that defending the role of the church in public life appears to be defending the Church's privileges.

On the surface Dawkins poll is seeking to show that most people who put Christian in the census are not really that at all; which rather ironically leads to an atheist defining what a real Christian is.  The real agenda however, is to argue that Christianity should be a private religion with no place in public life. The idea is that by showing most people who tick Christian in the census are not really so this undermines a role for the church in the state. Anyone who follows survey data on religion will be likely to realize that most people who tick Christian rarely if ever go to church or hold Christian beleifs. however, until this survey there has been no direct comparison of such to the answering of the census question. in one sense the survey makes Dawkins case; the majority of those who ticked Christian where not regularly in church, rarely prayed or read the bible and cited being baptized as a child as the main reason they were Christians. Whist claiming these as Christian may help bishops argue for seats in the Lords i doubt it really helps the church in its day to day life. without a church tax as is the case in many European countries, this is not going to fill the church pews or fund its ministry. More importantly should we as Christians be happy simply to bless this situation and not rather hope that Christian faith play a more significant role in these people's lives?

it seems to me both more honest and also helpful for the church's ministry with those people to admit that there are many who identify with the Christian religion but have little personal faith.  But does that mean conceding the argument or with Fraser opting for a tolerant dismissal of the question? Part of the problem here is our Christendom legacy,  I can understand why Giles Fraser argues that if people want to say they are Christian who are we to say otherwise, but in the end this simply upholds a view of being Christian that saw all born in our country so simply because they were British subjects and most were baptized accordingly. i have no problem with welcoming children into the church by baptism, neither do I feel that parents must pass a faith test first. But i think feeling that this is then 'job done' is a recipe for the kind of nominal Christianity Dawkins seeks to expose.

if i don't in the end agree with Giles Fraser i do think he is right to look for a third way between the defenders of Christian Britain and its secularist attackers. I also think Dawkins survey far from proving is case actually supports this third way. Firstly it shows that at least 18% of the population are seeking to follow the Christian religion and it's teachings, but significantly a further 22% of people identify their desire to be good people with Christian faith and associate this with the Bible as the best guide there is to morality. these people may not defend Church positions in the state, though many do, but they do want to see what they understand as Christian values influencing society. This is not however support for traditional positions on things like homosexuality and abortion, but would see Christian values as important on issues like poverty, business, human rights, support for families and children. If Dawkins wants to play the numbers game and argue that moral positions informed by Christianity have no role in public life because only 40% of the population support them, what then of the views of secular atheists? Survey's suggest they are at most 15% of the population. Dawkins might well respond that they don't have a privileged position because they are secular but simply have to make their case on merit of the argument. Perhaps it would strengthen the Christian case if they did the same? it may be that be surrendering some of the perceived privilege of the church  it might find it gained more authority to speak for what are still the largest grouping in British society, those who see Christianity as the best guide to live by. after all we must remember only 23% of people voted for the current conservative government.

i wish it could be Christmas everyday?

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 Canterbury on 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 are sitting 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 to banish. It can so easily be that the pressure to have the perfect Christmas ends up as one of the factors that instead ensures everyone is so wound up that all the seasonal goodwill has dried up long before the turkey is carved.

When celebrating Christmas becomes a very expensive headache I can understand the people who say they look forward to Christmas with dread rather than joy. In spite of all that I have to confess to being one of the people who really likes Christmas, and not just because 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 flashing Santa hats and the Christmas pop songs played in all the shops – though I do wish I didn’t have to hear them from sometime in November – there are only so many times you can hear Slade’s merry Christmas before it starts to get a little annoying.

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

David Cameron may want to draw on the Christian identity of Britain that was so much part of the Dickensian Christmas. That he feels the need to do so tells us how in many ways that Christian identity is far less a feature of most people’s lives. Many people however, still want to be part of the celebration of the story of the birth 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, the nativity scenes from school plays to Christmas cards. And it is also a great drama as Tony Jordan the Eastenders script writer will have shown anyone who saw his nativity series last year of the repeat this year; reminding us that at the heart of the story was a vulnerable young women who in saying yes to God put her life at risk, and a man challenged to stand by her when all the pressure was to do otherwise and doubt seemed wiser than faith.

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

It is that story that at its best 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, the homeless are looked after; when we are generous to others in a way that is out of the ordinary. Indeed at its best the magic of Christmas gives us a glimpse into another way of living of a world that I think many of us long for – even in spite of the pressure to create the perfect Christmas.

Another of the ubiquitous pop songs played a little too often is Wizard’s I wish it could be Christmas everyday – and at this time of year someone guaranteed to be in the news, is Andy Park of Melksham in Wiltshire who is dubbed Mr. Christmas for apparently celebrating Christmas everyday since 1993, he has a new video on youtube to tell you all about it. Each day he has mince pies for breakfast, unwraps presents he has wrapped the night before and posts a card to himself through his 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 the queen’s speech.

I don’t know if that was what Wizard meant by wishing it was Christmas everyday but as much as I love Christmas, the tinsel and turkey are only fun because they happen for a few days only – indeed I think we already spend far too long dragging that side of Christmas 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 the poor the lonely the homeless and the suffering received the care they do at Christmas? What if there was peace and reconciliation all year round? The trouble is we all know how difficult that is to sustain, the economic realties that work against it, the darker side of human nature that means that greed and violence so often drive out goodwill.

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

God however has not packed away his Christmas gift. God’s love and care and commitment to all creation have not faded. In God’s mind it is indeed Christmas everyday. The light shines in 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, and Tony Jordan found when researching his programme that various scholars told him the familiar details of the Christmas story where also doubtful.  But as he researched further and talked to people of faith he concluded the details mattered far less than central events of the story and the impact of what God was doing in those people’s lives. Indeed if the story had been embellished – just as he himself does as a good story teller – this was to help the point get across. And so he found himself he says to his surprise like the character of Joseph coming to faith in Mary’s story in spite of all his doubts and with a cynical shepherd looking for a political revolution who instead found himself kissing the feet of a tiny baby in adoration.

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

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

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

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

O holy child of Bethlehem, descend to us we 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

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?

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?

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?

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!

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'?

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

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

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)

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)

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?

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?