Unapologetic

This is a book by Francis Spufford, that has received some positive responses, and I have finally got around to reading it.

The book is a superb exploration of what Christianity means, but written in a very down-to-earth way, with language and tone that is very rare to find in theological writing. More importantly, it does not accept any of the traditional responses to the real and difficult problems that any form of religious faith involves. Rather, Spufford argues the problems through himself. He is as quick to dismiss the "accepted" solutions as he is to dismiss the straw men that people like Dawkins and Hitchins raise.

There are a few particular issues that I would like to draw out - maybe not the most significant, but things that struck me.

Firstly, he draws an interesting distinction between Christianity and the other major monotheistic religions. Judaism and Islam are both faiths that are built on a set of rules. In essence, if you follow the rules for that particular faith, you have you best chance to achieve salvation/nirvana/whatever you want to call it. In many ways, this is a real positive, because however difficult the rules are to follow, you have a system and a structure to manage your life around.

What is more, anything outside the rules is not covered by the rules of the faith, and so is up to you. If The Faith wishes to cover this area, they will produce more rules to cover the situation.

And yet, Christianity is different. Of course, it is not always seem to be different, because some people prefer a rule-based religion. But the truth is that Christianity is not about rules, it is about attitude; not behaviour, but thoughts, emotions, lifestyle. It is all-encompassing. In truth, there is no area outside the remit of the faith, there is no part of life that it does not cover. Which is very much harder to deliver, what is more, it is harder to manage, so The System finds it a problem.

It is this aspect that makes me think that I would have been drawn to Christianity even if it had not been culturally appropriate. There is something about the all-encompassing nature that appeals to me, something about the uncontrollable nature of the faith that works for me. There is something that makes sense to me that, if there is a God, and we are made in Gods image, this seems like more of the relationship I would expect. It is far more who we are at our best, and so (for me) reflects a divine/human interaction that takes the most extraordinary aspects of people, and enhances this.

The second aspect is Spuffords redefinition of sin as HPtFtU - the Human Propensity to F*** things Up. Oh yes, the language he uses is far more related to the language that most people use and understand. That is refreshing for a book on spirituality, because he does not use posh and refined language. He talks in normal language, expressive language.

The thing about the HPtFtU is that, as he explains, this is something common to everyone. There is a tendency to identify "sin" as a whole lost of things that are bad. There are also "bigger sins" and "lesser sins" - which tend to reflect social cultural norms. The point of the HPtFtU is that this idea of "acceptable" issues is gone, as is any chance of criticism or condemnation.

Which is crucial. The HPtFtU means that everybody is as guilty, as much a failure. The delight that groups such as Westboro take in condemning others is misplaced, because they are also as bad. They are also reflecting the HPtFtU. The condemned and the condemners are equally bad, equally good, equal, because both reflect this propensity.

Ouch.

The third aspect is Spuffords description of Jesus life, which is refreshing and honest. It sets his time and work in a different light. Is he accurate? Well, no, because we don't know the accurate details, but this is a way of understanding Jesus life. But it is insightful.

What is more, he draws out an important aspect. The thing about the HPtFtU is that everyone is guilty of it. The thing about this story of Jesus is that everyone is also able to be saved. That means everyone. More to the point, this means those people we don't like, we cannot get on with, we condemn.

What this means is that Westboro are right. Woefully limited and restricted, but right - homosexuals are sinners. However they are not sinful because of their sexuality - they are sinful because of their humanity, because they share in the HPtFtU. And the members of Westboro are also subject to the HPtFtU just as much. Equally.

And the story of Jesus is that about the DPtFtU - the Divine Propensity to Fix things Up. This includes everyone, including the people at Westboro. That is the important part of the story, and that is the one that Westboro - and everyone in fact, to an extent - tends to miss out. We like the idea that God will fix us up, but the truth is, he will fix everyone up. 

Double ouch.

The final part of the story for me is that Spufford makes a very good argument for having faith. What he argues is that proof of the reality of God is not possible. If you want proof, look very carefully at what you are asking for, that you know what "proof" means. But faith is really about truth that is best - or only - explicable in terms of story, metaphor.

That doesn't mean it is any less important. It may mean that it is more so.

Holy Machine

I recently finished a book The Holy Machine, by Chris Becket. It is a superb read, but raises some very interesting questions about faith, belief, religion.

In particular, what it showed was something I have argued for a while, that the scientific method has a core set of beliefs underneath it, just like religion. More, it is about the nature of relationship, the way that interaction can be programmed.

The real challenge it makes is to blur - or, in fact, cross - the lines of distinction between humans and machines. Critically, it makes the idea that our responses are "human" and that the responses from a computer are "non-human", and that these are fundamentally different. the truth is that they are not so different, that, in theory at least, a computer could interact in specific situations, provide human-like interactions.

This is not suggesting that the famous Turing test is no longer relevant - it is not suggesting that we can build a computer that could pass this today. In the 1970s there was a system called ELIZA, which was doing this for the very limited interaction of a psychological discussion. Within those parameters, it worked remarkably well.

The real challenge it provides, though, is to the idea of science as something concrete, something purely rational, purely intellectual, without any concept of "faith" or "belief". It isn't, its just that the beliefs are far harder to see, to identify as "belief" rather than "just how things are". It is a little like the Newbigin idea of a pair of glasses that everyone is wearing. The problem is that we all see the world through glasses - through the perspectives that we have learnt and grown up with. It is impossible to see our own glasses, but we can see others' glasses. His experience was that he saw his own glasses when he was in a different culture, a different society, where people had different glasses on. When he returned to the UK, he saw much more clearly that those around him were also wearing glasses - by leaving his culture, he saw the glasses. It is far harder to leave the rational, scientific society, and realise that they too are wearing glasses.

The truth is, they are - we are. the scientific culture is as much a culture, with it's own beliefs and principles, as any other culture. One of the problems today is that our societies have lost a lot of their differentiation - it is becoming hard to identify a particular culture because it has largely been influenced by other - western - cultures.

One of the messages - to me - of The Holy Machine is that a scientific worldview, a scientific set of beliefs and understanding is not enough. Nor is a religious one. Both are needed, and, they are not incompatible. In fact, without both, without the interaction between both, we are diminished, lessened.

But we should not assume that either is everything, or that they are that different. Not in reality. They are not.