In truth, one of the biggest problems since leaving church has been to maintain my belief in God.
The thing is, if I was still in church, I could happily let my belief wane - even to nothing - and continue the activity of church which might spark the flame again, but it might not actually matter, because I would have the outward show of piety to cover me. I say this simply because I know there are many people in churches who have lost all faith, but stay doing the activity in the hope that nobody will notice.
Without the security of the church activity, my faith seems a whole lot more vulnerable. I am not surrounded by people who believe - I am surrounded by ordinary people, most of whom don't believe. It means that letting my belief wane is so much easier, and yet, in a way, it makes the belief I have so much more important. Suddenly my belief is no longer just something that I believe as part of a group of others, something that is part of my social group. It is something I believe despite my social circles. It is something that is distinctive, and something that I have to maintain despite the opposition (sometimes) of others.
The thing is, something I have to constantly fight for like this seems to me so much more precious. The faith I have - faith in the sense of a whole belief structure - is much more precious because it is not a given. It is something learned, grown, developed and matured. Now obviously, some of the edges do get knocked off. The faith I have now is different from the faith I used to have, but now it is something that I believe and that I work to support.
Of course there is always the possibility that I will find that my faith will wither or die. And there is always the possibility that it will flourish in ways that it could never in the confines of a church. It is risky, difficult and involves work, which is something that a faith-risk-averse church hates.
And that is, to me, the crux of the matter. The church likes un-risky faith, safe professions of belief. While I stayed in the church, my professions of faith had to be safe, risk-free. Outside, my faith, my belief, is permanently full of risk. In either case, there is a lot of work to do - to keep an acceptable faith profession, or to actually maintain my faith, my belief in God.
If I am going to work at my faith, I would rather the latter. A risky faith is far better, far more exciting, because it is what I believe. Risky faith does not mean a faith that makes you take risks. A truly risky faith means a faith that risks itself. So few people are willing to take that sort of risk.
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Saturday, 2 May 2015
Sunday, 16 November 2014
Environmental catastrophe here we come.
The latest report from the IPCC makes for very depressing reading. It says nothing especially new, just in more strident tones. We need to change our dependency on fossil fuels, we need to change our attitude to the environment, because we are causing irreparable damage to it.
As its mentioned in the linked report, the cost of inaction is far higher - long term - than the cost of action. The report is clear that we need to start acting now, to possibly prevent long-term severe problems.
And yet, despite the fact that the science overwhelmingly points to climate change being real, and being caused by our activity, there are still those who deny it - climate change deniers. This is not surprising, in that there are always people who reject the findings of science. One can point to the realms of creationists as an example of people who reject the clear findings of science, because they cannot take the trouble to incorporate the science into their faith. Sorry if I seem very dismissive, but for me, science is not in opposition to faith. It provides challenges, and this means that sometimes, our faith has to be reconsidered, understand how scientific revelations fit into our faith - if they cannot, then our faith is meaningless.
Creationists deny the findings of science. It would, of course, be ridiculous to allow people who reject a scientific approach to decide science or teaching policy in government. And it would be ridiculous to have climate change deniers in charge of environmental policy. Just like it would be ridiculous to have someone who claimed that petrol didn't actually burn in charge of transport policy.
And yet we do. We have people who reject the findings of science in charge of policy that should be scientifically based. That does not mean that it should be anti-faith. It means that policy should be based on doing what science says, and doing it in a way that does not dismiss faith (because faith is important too).
For me, my faith informs me that our world, our environment is a precious, wonderful thing, not a resource to be plundered for financial gain. My faith tells me that listening to the results of science in terms of what is physically happening is important. We cannot ignore the facts (which is what they are), any more than we can ignore the beliefs of people.
And yet, it would seem that there are those in power across the world who seek to reject the results of science because it will damage their short-term financial future. While that attitude prevails, we are heading for an environmental catastrophe, not because of science, but because of a misplaced faith. That would be a tragedy. A tragedy not only for the environment, but for faith, which is diminished by this. I would feel the loss of both.
As its mentioned in the linked report, the cost of inaction is far higher - long term - than the cost of action. The report is clear that we need to start acting now, to possibly prevent long-term severe problems.
And yet, despite the fact that the science overwhelmingly points to climate change being real, and being caused by our activity, there are still those who deny it - climate change deniers. This is not surprising, in that there are always people who reject the findings of science. One can point to the realms of creationists as an example of people who reject the clear findings of science, because they cannot take the trouble to incorporate the science into their faith. Sorry if I seem very dismissive, but for me, science is not in opposition to faith. It provides challenges, and this means that sometimes, our faith has to be reconsidered, understand how scientific revelations fit into our faith - if they cannot, then our faith is meaningless.
Creationists deny the findings of science. It would, of course, be ridiculous to allow people who reject a scientific approach to decide science or teaching policy in government. And it would be ridiculous to have climate change deniers in charge of environmental policy. Just like it would be ridiculous to have someone who claimed that petrol didn't actually burn in charge of transport policy.
And yet we do. We have people who reject the findings of science in charge of policy that should be scientifically based. That does not mean that it should be anti-faith. It means that policy should be based on doing what science says, and doing it in a way that does not dismiss faith (because faith is important too).
For me, my faith informs me that our world, our environment is a precious, wonderful thing, not a resource to be plundered for financial gain. My faith tells me that listening to the results of science in terms of what is physically happening is important. We cannot ignore the facts (which is what they are), any more than we can ignore the beliefs of people.
And yet, it would seem that there are those in power across the world who seek to reject the results of science because it will damage their short-term financial future. While that attitude prevails, we are heading for an environmental catastrophe, not because of science, but because of a misplaced faith. That would be a tragedy. A tragedy not only for the environment, but for faith, which is diminished by this. I would feel the loss of both.
Wednesday, 15 October 2014
Emotions Conference review
On October 11th this year, I went to the Emotions conference, hosted by Premier Mind and Spirit. I think there are some important reflections on this that are worth making.
Firstly, I did find that the theological position reflected throughout the day was most definitely not one that suited me. from the worship in the morning (which, of course, meant music and singing) through the format of the day (lectures or talks, not workshops, which would have been very productive), through the positivity about the church and Christian faith that came across - I will mention this again later.
But I can cut through this, and find some positives in the day. Not all of the talks resonated with me, but that is pretty much what I might expect - I have some areas of interest and others that are not for me. Of course, that is why workshops, where I could choose the areas that interest me, would suit me better. But there were some very good, very engaging talks.
One of the best talks for me was Will van der Hart, talking about "perfectionism". It was summed up by the comment that perfectionism is not about excellence, and it is not a positive in any circumstances. In fact, it is about constant dissatisfaction with everything - because nothing is "perfect", and even if we spiritualise it, we are aiming at something impossible. The dissatisfaction at the present is not spiritual, it is psychotic, and it is dangerous, because perfectionists can never be satisfied with the good. Never mind the bad, which covers everyone.
The best part of the day for me was one of the stars of the mental health and faith world, Katherine Welby-Roberts. She talked about the problems she has with her faith and her illness, and how they do not always live in harmony with each other. She always has an honesty and openness about her, not sugar coating the problems, but also being honest about her journey. She remained positive, and it was clear that her illness, while impacting her life all the time, does not mean that she is miserable and gloomy - she is cheerful and smiling, and that shone through more than anything.
There is one more message that I remember, that is significant. It actually relates to my current earworm/favorite song, which is Ripples by Genesis. the message of the song is that you cannot change your past, you just have to live with it, like ripples in the water, you have had your impact, and have to live with it and move on.
Jonathan Clark was talking about worry, and made a similar point, that if we worry about things in the past, we cannot change them, so our worry is pointless. He made more points, but this one stood out for me - he explained how worrying is rarely productive. He also discussed a worry box, where you write anything you want to worry about on a piece of paper and put it in the box. One day a week, you take the pieces of paper out and can then worry about them. What he found was that, most of them, he no longer needed to worry about.
So there was some good material from the day, and it was useful. I did, however, feel that one vital area was missed, which is how to deal with situations where the church, or other Christians, are the ones exacerbating your mental illness. That is, where your faith (or the expression of it) was making your mental health worse. I am aware that there are many churches where those with mental health problems are welcomed and find a helpful community to work out their faith in. However there are also very many people with mental health issues for whom the church (in whatever form) is an abusive and dangerous place. Now, in truth, I would not expect a conference with this particular theological bent to be addressing this matter - the acknowledgement of it seems to be seen as a challenge to their core theology. But as Mind and Spirit is the only organisation I know of looking at faith and mental health together, this means that one of the issues I hear of again and again is swept under the carpet, and ignored.
So that is my sadness and disappointment. What was there was good, but there were gaps, blind spots, and it seems that these are the same blind spots I see so often. So where is the place that these topics - the ones that will disturb people - can be discussed?
Firstly, I did find that the theological position reflected throughout the day was most definitely not one that suited me. from the worship in the morning (which, of course, meant music and singing) through the format of the day (lectures or talks, not workshops, which would have been very productive), through the positivity about the church and Christian faith that came across - I will mention this again later.
But I can cut through this, and find some positives in the day. Not all of the talks resonated with me, but that is pretty much what I might expect - I have some areas of interest and others that are not for me. Of course, that is why workshops, where I could choose the areas that interest me, would suit me better. But there were some very good, very engaging talks.
One of the best talks for me was Will van der Hart, talking about "perfectionism". It was summed up by the comment that perfectionism is not about excellence, and it is not a positive in any circumstances. In fact, it is about constant dissatisfaction with everything - because nothing is "perfect", and even if we spiritualise it, we are aiming at something impossible. The dissatisfaction at the present is not spiritual, it is psychotic, and it is dangerous, because perfectionists can never be satisfied with the good. Never mind the bad, which covers everyone.
The best part of the day for me was one of the stars of the mental health and faith world, Katherine Welby-Roberts. She talked about the problems she has with her faith and her illness, and how they do not always live in harmony with each other. She always has an honesty and openness about her, not sugar coating the problems, but also being honest about her journey. She remained positive, and it was clear that her illness, while impacting her life all the time, does not mean that she is miserable and gloomy - she is cheerful and smiling, and that shone through more than anything.
There is one more message that I remember, that is significant. It actually relates to my current earworm/favorite song, which is Ripples by Genesis. the message of the song is that you cannot change your past, you just have to live with it, like ripples in the water, you have had your impact, and have to live with it and move on.
Jonathan Clark was talking about worry, and made a similar point, that if we worry about things in the past, we cannot change them, so our worry is pointless. He made more points, but this one stood out for me - he explained how worrying is rarely productive. He also discussed a worry box, where you write anything you want to worry about on a piece of paper and put it in the box. One day a week, you take the pieces of paper out and can then worry about them. What he found was that, most of them, he no longer needed to worry about.
So there was some good material from the day, and it was useful. I did, however, feel that one vital area was missed, which is how to deal with situations where the church, or other Christians, are the ones exacerbating your mental illness. That is, where your faith (or the expression of it) was making your mental health worse. I am aware that there are many churches where those with mental health problems are welcomed and find a helpful community to work out their faith in. However there are also very many people with mental health issues for whom the church (in whatever form) is an abusive and dangerous place. Now, in truth, I would not expect a conference with this particular theological bent to be addressing this matter - the acknowledgement of it seems to be seen as a challenge to their core theology. But as Mind and Spirit is the only organisation I know of looking at faith and mental health together, this means that one of the issues I hear of again and again is swept under the carpet, and ignored.
So that is my sadness and disappointment. What was there was good, but there were gaps, blind spots, and it seems that these are the same blind spots I see so often. So where is the place that these topics - the ones that will disturb people - can be discussed?
Friday, 6 June 2014
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.
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.
Friday, 30 May 2014
Why I voted Green
When I first joined the Green party some twenty years ago, it was not something "trendy" to do. In fact, to some, it was a dreadful thing to do - the greens were all new-age hippies, spreading strange ideas and definitively anti-Christian.
Not true, of course. Not entirely true at least. However they were also not really considered a serious political force, just a way or registering a protest.
Things have changed a whole lot since that time.
At the time I joined, the Labour party were in unelectable disarray - this was before the smooth-talking Blair arrived. The Tories - I hate to admit it - had my support for a while, in the early days of Thatcher. To justify this, I do believe that in the early years, she shook up the country in a way that was needed. It was only with some hindsight - and the miners strike farce - that we saw the real beliefs of the party.
The Liberals were also in crisis, challenged by the Social Democrats (before they merged), trying to find a middle way, and not really finding any answers.
Against this environment, as I struggled to find a political position, I came to understand that the traditional left/right wing approach was actually a mistaken approach to political consideration. The problem was that the economic driver is not always the right starting point. The Greens were starting from a different position - that of the earth, the environmental necessity produces a different approach to policy.
A different approach to politics is still at the heart of the Green policy, and that is something I am proud of. In the time since I joined, the development of our policy clarifies the position as being broadly socialist. However, this is not because we are representing the "workers" vs the "owners" which is the core origins of the left/right divide. It is because caring about people - whoever they are - is about a world that we can all live in, a world for people. It is about a system that provides for all, and a system that lives in harmony with the world, becasue the world is part of that system. It is about fairness for all, for all now and in the future. It is about living within our means.
To me, the aims of the Green party find a match with mine as a Christian. They come from different places, different reasons (to an extent), but there is a match of aim, of ideal, of vision for what we should aim at. My faith is about enabling people to be their best, to be engaged with the divine, to be at peace with themselves and the world. The Greens are about the political way of helping that to happen.
Do I think everyone should vote Green? Of course I do! Primarily, because I believe we need a change in the political landscape in this country, from one dominated by one group over another, and instead focusing on a better world for everyone. That is what I want in life, as a Christian, and as a member of the Green Party.
A better world for everyone is a naive idea. But it is a powerful vision, a powerful aim.
Not true, of course. Not entirely true at least. However they were also not really considered a serious political force, just a way or registering a protest.
Things have changed a whole lot since that time.
At the time I joined, the Labour party were in unelectable disarray - this was before the smooth-talking Blair arrived. The Tories - I hate to admit it - had my support for a while, in the early days of Thatcher. To justify this, I do believe that in the early years, she shook up the country in a way that was needed. It was only with some hindsight - and the miners strike farce - that we saw the real beliefs of the party.
The Liberals were also in crisis, challenged by the Social Democrats (before they merged), trying to find a middle way, and not really finding any answers.
Against this environment, as I struggled to find a political position, I came to understand that the traditional left/right wing approach was actually a mistaken approach to political consideration. The problem was that the economic driver is not always the right starting point. The Greens were starting from a different position - that of the earth, the environmental necessity produces a different approach to policy.
A different approach to politics is still at the heart of the Green policy, and that is something I am proud of. In the time since I joined, the development of our policy clarifies the position as being broadly socialist. However, this is not because we are representing the "workers" vs the "owners" which is the core origins of the left/right divide. It is because caring about people - whoever they are - is about a world that we can all live in, a world for people. It is about a system that provides for all, and a system that lives in harmony with the world, becasue the world is part of that system. It is about fairness for all, for all now and in the future. It is about living within our means.
To me, the aims of the Green party find a match with mine as a Christian. They come from different places, different reasons (to an extent), but there is a match of aim, of ideal, of vision for what we should aim at. My faith is about enabling people to be their best, to be engaged with the divine, to be at peace with themselves and the world. The Greens are about the political way of helping that to happen.
Do I think everyone should vote Green? Of course I do! Primarily, because I believe we need a change in the political landscape in this country, from one dominated by one group over another, and instead focusing on a better world for everyone. That is what I want in life, as a Christian, and as a member of the Green Party.
A better world for everyone is a naive idea. But it is a powerful vision, a powerful aim.
Tuesday, 20 May 2014
Why I am not an "Evangelical"
This post is the other side of my post on why I do call myself an evangelical. I am aware that for some people the term is perceived very negatively, so I want to put the balance in here by exploring why I don't necessarily fit into what others would use this term for.
The problem is that in some areas, especially the US, the term "evangelical" is a synonym for "fundamentalist", and that terms itself is becoming more and more extreme. So for some, to call myself an evangelical is to be associated with the more extreme aspects of Christianity, something that I reject repeatedly. I know that anyone who reads what I write will realise where I actually stand, but many do not get past the label.
Because of that, there are times when I do not use the label.
However, I am not prepared to leave the term to those who would abuse it. As I have explained here, I still consider myself, theologically, to be evangelical, and for those who come from this background, from a position where the centrality of the bible is critical, I want to identify a form of evangelicalism that does not reflect these more extreme positions.
I will not give up on the term, on calling myself an evangelical, because for some people, it still means something. It still represents the core beliefs that some people hold. I will not let go, because I will not let others define what they should believe. I am not saying that I have it all right, but I believe a Bible-centred, people-focused, open and tolerant Christian faith is as valid today as ever.
And the reason I am so passionate about this is that for many who identify as evangelical, but struggle with the direction and the identification that is associated with the term, they see two options:
1) To accept that other are right, and that this less tolerant approach is the only valid one.
2) Reject Christianity entirely.
I want to make it clear that there is another direction - to remain as an evangelical Christian, but reject the direction that too much of it is taken. That is a valid route, to remain a Christian, to retain the beliefs that you have, and yet find a new direction to take.
And those who seek to say what I should believe can take a hike.
The problem is that in some areas, especially the US, the term "evangelical" is a synonym for "fundamentalist", and that terms itself is becoming more and more extreme. So for some, to call myself an evangelical is to be associated with the more extreme aspects of Christianity, something that I reject repeatedly. I know that anyone who reads what I write will realise where I actually stand, but many do not get past the label.
Because of that, there are times when I do not use the label.
However, I am not prepared to leave the term to those who would abuse it. As I have explained here, I still consider myself, theologically, to be evangelical, and for those who come from this background, from a position where the centrality of the bible is critical, I want to identify a form of evangelicalism that does not reflect these more extreme positions.
I will not give up on the term, on calling myself an evangelical, because for some people, it still means something. It still represents the core beliefs that some people hold. I will not let go, because I will not let others define what they should believe. I am not saying that I have it all right, but I believe a Bible-centred, people-focused, open and tolerant Christian faith is as valid today as ever.
And the reason I am so passionate about this is that for many who identify as evangelical, but struggle with the direction and the identification that is associated with the term, they see two options:
1) To accept that other are right, and that this less tolerant approach is the only valid one.
2) Reject Christianity entirely.
I want to make it clear that there is another direction - to remain as an evangelical Christian, but reject the direction that too much of it is taken. That is a valid route, to remain a Christian, to retain the beliefs that you have, and yet find a new direction to take.
And those who seek to say what I should believe can take a hike.
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
David Camerons new-found faith
David Cameron has been, of late, making some interesting comments trying to align himself with Christianity, expressing his support of Christianity. While I am sure that some people will jump on this as a clear sign of a) Their prayers working and/or b) their personal politics being now acceptable as a Christian, I am rather more cynical.
I should point out that I would be as cynical were it any other party leader or senior politician, and would apply the same critical judgement against them. I should also make it clear that any criticism is of Cameron as the PM, not him as an individual. At the end of the day, I do not know Mr Cameron, and cannot say anything about his personal devotion or beliefs. All I can comment on is his public statements and his public profile.
For many years, politicians have been critical of bishops and other clergy who stray into the political arena, arguing that they should stay out of politics. The usual rebuff to this is that a proper understanding of Jesus teaching means that it has to be political - you cannot follow Jesus teaching without being political.
There is something in his latest declarations that seems like him returning the favour - a politician getting involved in religion, and defining the playing field.
That does worry me.
There is something in his statements of "I believe in Christianity, and I believe that this faith tells me that my policies are right". He aligns himself with Christianity, and then redefines what this means to support his beliefs and statements. He is arguing that yes, faith means involvement in politics, but it is his sort of politics that is appropriate.
The other - related - problem I see with this is that what he says about his faith doesn't actually seem to be reflected in his actions. I am quite prepared to accept that his faith may be genuine - as I have said, I don't know. He does seem to be attending church, and doing at least some of the things that might indicate an awakening of faith in him. But his words do not demonstrate that.
The truth is, I have been in churches for many years, and I know that there are lots of people in churches who can say the right things, do the right things, be, to all outward appearances, a good committed church person. But Christian faith is not about church attendance, it is not about the things we say.
It is about what we do.
What I see in the actions of this government, led by David Cameron, is not the demonstration of the Christian faith. Of course what Christian faith in action looks like is a hotly debated question, but there are some significant aspects that echo throughout the bible: caring for the poor, the unfortunate, the disabled, the needy; not treating the wealthy and powerful with deference; honesty and fairness in dealings.
These are not things I see in this government. Whether it is Cameron or someone else, words do not make a Christian. I try to judge people by their actions, by what they do, not what they say. Whether they claim commitment to a particular faith or not, what people do tells me what is real about them.
So come on Cameron, lets see something. Or give up the political wooing of the religious right.
I should point out that I would be as cynical were it any other party leader or senior politician, and would apply the same critical judgement against them. I should also make it clear that any criticism is of Cameron as the PM, not him as an individual. At the end of the day, I do not know Mr Cameron, and cannot say anything about his personal devotion or beliefs. All I can comment on is his public statements and his public profile.
For many years, politicians have been critical of bishops and other clergy who stray into the political arena, arguing that they should stay out of politics. The usual rebuff to this is that a proper understanding of Jesus teaching means that it has to be political - you cannot follow Jesus teaching without being political.
There is something in his latest declarations that seems like him returning the favour - a politician getting involved in religion, and defining the playing field.
That does worry me.
There is something in his statements of "I believe in Christianity, and I believe that this faith tells me that my policies are right". He aligns himself with Christianity, and then redefines what this means to support his beliefs and statements. He is arguing that yes, faith means involvement in politics, but it is his sort of politics that is appropriate.
The other - related - problem I see with this is that what he says about his faith doesn't actually seem to be reflected in his actions. I am quite prepared to accept that his faith may be genuine - as I have said, I don't know. He does seem to be attending church, and doing at least some of the things that might indicate an awakening of faith in him. But his words do not demonstrate that.
The truth is, I have been in churches for many years, and I know that there are lots of people in churches who can say the right things, do the right things, be, to all outward appearances, a good committed church person. But Christian faith is not about church attendance, it is not about the things we say.
It is about what we do.
What I see in the actions of this government, led by David Cameron, is not the demonstration of the Christian faith. Of course what Christian faith in action looks like is a hotly debated question, but there are some significant aspects that echo throughout the bible: caring for the poor, the unfortunate, the disabled, the needy; not treating the wealthy and powerful with deference; honesty and fairness in dealings.
These are not things I see in this government. Whether it is Cameron or someone else, words do not make a Christian. I try to judge people by their actions, by what they do, not what they say. Whether they claim commitment to a particular faith or not, what people do tells me what is real about them.
So come on Cameron, lets see something. Or give up the political wooing of the religious right.
Saturday, 4 January 2014
Why I am still an evangelical
Ever since I have called myself a Christian, I have identified as an evangelical. However, this does not mean that I have not changed or modified my views over time - I have, quite significantly. The question is, how can I continue to identify as an evangelical, despite these changes?
The thing is, I take a number of labels, that others might not consider particularly compatible: Christian, Evangelical, Green, Anarchist, feminist. There are those who might object to me using these labels, mainly because they don't completely define me - none of them are complete, even all together , they are not a complete definition of me. Each provides insights into the others, where they differ, that is the point of growth and development.
So how do I still justify calling myself by the same label? The best definition I have found of Evangelicalism defines it by the four principles of Conversionism, Activism, Biblicism and Crucicentricity. I want to explore each of these, what they mean (I am aware that these are terms that need some explanation).
1. Conversionism. This means a belief in a conversion process, something that I still stand by. However, I am not and more so insistent that everyone must have a datable conversion experience. Actually, I probably never was, because for some people, the conversion process is a long and slow development. However I still think that for some people, this is sudden. And all people need to have a conversion - need to change from an old way of thinking to a new one. In most cases, this needs to be multiple times in their lives.
2. Activism. This is a belief that one part of Christianity is about doing something practical. It is not just about a spiritual way of life, but about putting this into action. This has changed in nature, but not in principle - I have always tried to be involved in activities or organisations outside the narrow definition of the church, and I am currently a member of the Green party, which is one part of my activism.
3. Biblicism. This is defined as "a strict following of the teachings of the bible". Now there is a loaded concept if ever I heard one: I still follow the teachings of the bible strictly, as I understand them. However, my understanding of what this means, of how the bible should be interpreted, of how the writings are properly understood, has changed significantly. It does not mean literalism - taking the words of a translated bible as the clear and defined words of God. Understanding and interpreting the meaning is a far more complex process, something that I have enjoyed exploring over the last 30 years. And through all of that, I still believe in doing my best to follow the teachings of the bible, as best I can.
4.Crucicentricity. This means that he cross - that is, the atoning act of Jesus on the cross - is at the centre of the our faith. Once again, the meaning of this act, the understanding of it, has changed and developed over time. I would at one time have accepted PSA as the only or core understanding of atonement.
PSA - Penal Substitutionary Atonement - is one theology of atonement. It has its points, and it has its problems. There are half a dozen other ways of understanding it, each of which has its own problems and positives, and some of them are contradictory. I do not believe that there is one simple answer or interpretation - all of them have some truth, none of them have all the truth.
So, I still hold to the core principles of evangelicalism. In fact, I would argue that these are even more important to me now than they were. But everything that I believe within these has changed - that is growth and development. the more I learn to understand the bible, the more I realise how big, diverse, complex and all-embracing is the Christian faith. If faith isn't growing, then it is probably dead.
The thing is, I take a number of labels, that others might not consider particularly compatible: Christian, Evangelical, Green, Anarchist, feminist. There are those who might object to me using these labels, mainly because they don't completely define me - none of them are complete, even all together , they are not a complete definition of me. Each provides insights into the others, where they differ, that is the point of growth and development.
So how do I still justify calling myself by the same label? The best definition I have found of Evangelicalism defines it by the four principles of Conversionism, Activism, Biblicism and Crucicentricity. I want to explore each of these, what they mean (I am aware that these are terms that need some explanation).
1. Conversionism. This means a belief in a conversion process, something that I still stand by. However, I am not and more so insistent that everyone must have a datable conversion experience. Actually, I probably never was, because for some people, the conversion process is a long and slow development. However I still think that for some people, this is sudden. And all people need to have a conversion - need to change from an old way of thinking to a new one. In most cases, this needs to be multiple times in their lives.
2. Activism. This is a belief that one part of Christianity is about doing something practical. It is not just about a spiritual way of life, but about putting this into action. This has changed in nature, but not in principle - I have always tried to be involved in activities or organisations outside the narrow definition of the church, and I am currently a member of the Green party, which is one part of my activism.
3. Biblicism. This is defined as "a strict following of the teachings of the bible". Now there is a loaded concept if ever I heard one: I still follow the teachings of the bible strictly, as I understand them. However, my understanding of what this means, of how the bible should be interpreted, of how the writings are properly understood, has changed significantly. It does not mean literalism - taking the words of a translated bible as the clear and defined words of God. Understanding and interpreting the meaning is a far more complex process, something that I have enjoyed exploring over the last 30 years. And through all of that, I still believe in doing my best to follow the teachings of the bible, as best I can.
4.Crucicentricity. This means that he cross - that is, the atoning act of Jesus on the cross - is at the centre of the our faith. Once again, the meaning of this act, the understanding of it, has changed and developed over time. I would at one time have accepted PSA as the only or core understanding of atonement.
PSA - Penal Substitutionary Atonement - is one theology of atonement. It has its points, and it has its problems. There are half a dozen other ways of understanding it, each of which has its own problems and positives, and some of them are contradictory. I do not believe that there is one simple answer or interpretation - all of them have some truth, none of them have all the truth.
So, I still hold to the core principles of evangelicalism. In fact, I would argue that these are even more important to me now than they were. But everything that I believe within these has changed - that is growth and development. the more I learn to understand the bible, the more I realise how big, diverse, complex and all-embracing is the Christian faith. If faith isn't growing, then it is probably dead.
Sunday, 1 December 2013
God Collar
I have recently been reading God Collar by Marcus Brigstocke. He is exploring his atheism, and why he cannot believe. The odd thing is that I agree with almost everything he says, but I just come to a different conclusion.
I thought it might be interesting to look at his arguments, and see where we might differ, and where we might agree. I realise that reducing 20 pages of carefully though out argument to a half sentence is unfair, and a few sentences of response is also not completely fair. But it might give you an insight into his discussions - and encourage you to buy the book to read more!
1. The church is crap. I tend to agree with this, and I think that, if Christianity is as shown by the church, it is crap. I think that Christianity is more than what is shown by the church.
2. Christians are crap. Yes, a whole lot of Christians are arrogant, stupid, idiots. A whole lot of the ones that are in the public eye are there because they are idiots. Yes, I know a lot of Christians who are not idiots, but they tend to be just getting on with their lives and not making a fuss. But a lot of those Marcus names are idiots.
3. Where are you looking for God? Some people say "praise God" for some success - however small - and "That is a result of sin/nature/the devil" when things - however big - go wrong. So God saves one person from a natural disaster, and praising God for them is appropriate, without asking why he inflicted the disaster in the first place. Looking for God in small goodnesses, and ignoring him in the big badnesses is wrong and deceitful. If God is in charge, he is in charge of the bad and the good - if he is not responsible for the bad stuff, he is not responsible for anything.
So what is my take on this? Well, natural disasters happen, and they cause pain and suffering. Occasionally, some people are saved from them - often by good fortune, and the work of talented and dedicated rescue workers. Where is God? Well I think he has a different sort of involvement, to inspire and drive people, to encourage them to do good things, to work in rescue services and, in some cases, to deal with the many deaths that they are involved with. It gives a sense of perspective to people which enables them to do good work. Looking for a "god of the gaps" - whatever the nature of the gaps - is always asking for trouble.
4. The God Delusion. This book is not a good read. It distorts the scientific method, it is actually a bad advert for atheism. It is a good advert for the truth that extremism is not limited to traditional faith groups.
5. Sexism in faith. The thing is, most of the great religious books are products of their time, and so reflecting the fundamental misogyny of those times. It is dangerous to judge them by the standards of today, as such - I will look at this more below.
The real problem is that so many people today reflect this misogyny in faith groups - like the church. The problem is that the sexism in the church today is not fundamentally misogynist, it is theological too - based on theologies of people who were sexist at the least, and misogynist at the worst. What I mean by this is that, for example, someone opposing women bishops may not themselves be women hating, but they are accepting of a theology that is. Because the church system is, at root, very controlling, they cannot revisit their theological position without a whole lot of their world being turned upside down.
6. Rules. Are the biblical rules still relevant? Should the scriptures have a sell-by date on them? The Bible is a strange book in may ways. However, what it is not is a full set of instructions and examples on how to live your life. To take a random character and say "this is a person you should be like", or "this is a person you should not be like" is mistaken. The stories are there to be read as a whole set of people trying to find and understand God. Every one of them got it wrong at least some of the time. Some of them got it right occasionally. The point is to read them all, and understand that these people are trying to experience God.
So Joshua believed that Gods way involved killing off the people around him, in multiple acts of genocide. I believe he was sincere, and he was impacted by the culture around him - lets be clear, killing off a whole groups of people was not unknown - but he was wrong, and he failed to do it. However, in his attempts to seek God, I suspect he found God, just a little. And not in the genocide.
Are the rules still relevant? Yes, if you understand the context in which they were given. The detailed rules in the early books were, partly reflecting the situation of the people they were given too. We need the whole lot because we need to understand the context in order to understand what is appropriate today.
7. What was Jesus all about? The picture that Marcus points of the Jesus he reads about is much closer to the Jesus I read about than the versions I often head about. Jesus was a radical, a socialist, a disturber of the peace. And Jesus would have totally been into Radiohead. He didn't come to bring "Such a pretty house, and such a pretty garden".
8. A God shaped hole? Marcus does admit to having something of a hole in him - the famous "God-shaped hole". I do wonder if the hole is really the part of us that wants to ask questions, to explore to find out more. It is the part of us that should never be satisfied with simplistic answers, but always wants to question more, to find more. To acknowledge and accept the existence of a deity is one way of giving that yearning a new place to go, a new set of questions to explore. Filling it with a god who just stifles questions is tragic.
9. Children and the questions they ask. Children ask such fantastic questions. So often, in terms of faith, we shut them down because we don't know the answers, and that can be a disturbing place to be. We also trivialise the Christian stories into naive kids stories. Oh look, Noah and the ark - lets play a game where we pretend to be the animals. Or lest play a game where we play the hundreds and thousands of people who were drowned. Of course, these were bad people, so that's OK.
The truth is that some of the Bible is not intended to be historical. I am not wanting to fall into the trap Marcus identifies as saying "oh, that's just a metaphor" - it isn't, but some of Genesis is more kin to poetry than history. And the biblical writers did not write to the same level of historical accuracy as we would expect today. that is not to say that they lied, just that their methods and techniques were different. As in the sciences, techniques develop with time - there will come a point where our approaches will be considered primitive. We cannot use modern day assumptions about what was being written - it is far more appropriate to the biblical material to understand and interpret it for what it is, than to expect it to be like a scientific textbook.
10 Death. The great mystery. Actually, the core problem that Marcus sees with this is the promise of things beyond death taking a focus away from life. Faith as a comfort to the dying and the bereaved is, I believe, a good and valid use of it. Faith as a justification for suicide attacks is wrong and mistaken.
I do not believe that we are given any real indicators as to what lies in wait for us after we die. The Bible at least is primarily focused on doing the right things in this life, and in trusting God for everything else. It is not about working for heaven - it is about working for now, and accepting that there is a whole lot of stuff that we cannot understand never mind control.
I doubt whether I have covered everything that he has written about. As I said, I have tried to summarise his arguments into single sentences. While I agree with a lot of what he says, I come from a different starting point. I believe there is something more than science can encompass, something of a spiritual nature that is greater than us. I doubt whether I have it all right, but I keep an open mind, and I keep asking questions. I, like Marcus I think, am still seeking truth.
That is real faith.
I thought it might be interesting to look at his arguments, and see where we might differ, and where we might agree. I realise that reducing 20 pages of carefully though out argument to a half sentence is unfair, and a few sentences of response is also not completely fair. But it might give you an insight into his discussions - and encourage you to buy the book to read more!
1. The church is crap. I tend to agree with this, and I think that, if Christianity is as shown by the church, it is crap. I think that Christianity is more than what is shown by the church.
2. Christians are crap. Yes, a whole lot of Christians are arrogant, stupid, idiots. A whole lot of the ones that are in the public eye are there because they are idiots. Yes, I know a lot of Christians who are not idiots, but they tend to be just getting on with their lives and not making a fuss. But a lot of those Marcus names are idiots.
3. Where are you looking for God? Some people say "praise God" for some success - however small - and "That is a result of sin/nature/the devil" when things - however big - go wrong. So God saves one person from a natural disaster, and praising God for them is appropriate, without asking why he inflicted the disaster in the first place. Looking for God in small goodnesses, and ignoring him in the big badnesses is wrong and deceitful. If God is in charge, he is in charge of the bad and the good - if he is not responsible for the bad stuff, he is not responsible for anything.
So what is my take on this? Well, natural disasters happen, and they cause pain and suffering. Occasionally, some people are saved from them - often by good fortune, and the work of talented and dedicated rescue workers. Where is God? Well I think he has a different sort of involvement, to inspire and drive people, to encourage them to do good things, to work in rescue services and, in some cases, to deal with the many deaths that they are involved with. It gives a sense of perspective to people which enables them to do good work. Looking for a "god of the gaps" - whatever the nature of the gaps - is always asking for trouble.
4. The God Delusion. This book is not a good read. It distorts the scientific method, it is actually a bad advert for atheism. It is a good advert for the truth that extremism is not limited to traditional faith groups.
5. Sexism in faith. The thing is, most of the great religious books are products of their time, and so reflecting the fundamental misogyny of those times. It is dangerous to judge them by the standards of today, as such - I will look at this more below.
The real problem is that so many people today reflect this misogyny in faith groups - like the church. The problem is that the sexism in the church today is not fundamentally misogynist, it is theological too - based on theologies of people who were sexist at the least, and misogynist at the worst. What I mean by this is that, for example, someone opposing women bishops may not themselves be women hating, but they are accepting of a theology that is. Because the church system is, at root, very controlling, they cannot revisit their theological position without a whole lot of their world being turned upside down.
6. Rules. Are the biblical rules still relevant? Should the scriptures have a sell-by date on them? The Bible is a strange book in may ways. However, what it is not is a full set of instructions and examples on how to live your life. To take a random character and say "this is a person you should be like", or "this is a person you should not be like" is mistaken. The stories are there to be read as a whole set of people trying to find and understand God. Every one of them got it wrong at least some of the time. Some of them got it right occasionally. The point is to read them all, and understand that these people are trying to experience God.
So Joshua believed that Gods way involved killing off the people around him, in multiple acts of genocide. I believe he was sincere, and he was impacted by the culture around him - lets be clear, killing off a whole groups of people was not unknown - but he was wrong, and he failed to do it. However, in his attempts to seek God, I suspect he found God, just a little. And not in the genocide.
Are the rules still relevant? Yes, if you understand the context in which they were given. The detailed rules in the early books were, partly reflecting the situation of the people they were given too. We need the whole lot because we need to understand the context in order to understand what is appropriate today.
7. What was Jesus all about? The picture that Marcus points of the Jesus he reads about is much closer to the Jesus I read about than the versions I often head about. Jesus was a radical, a socialist, a disturber of the peace. And Jesus would have totally been into Radiohead. He didn't come to bring "Such a pretty house, and such a pretty garden".
8. A God shaped hole? Marcus does admit to having something of a hole in him - the famous "God-shaped hole". I do wonder if the hole is really the part of us that wants to ask questions, to explore to find out more. It is the part of us that should never be satisfied with simplistic answers, but always wants to question more, to find more. To acknowledge and accept the existence of a deity is one way of giving that yearning a new place to go, a new set of questions to explore. Filling it with a god who just stifles questions is tragic.
9. Children and the questions they ask. Children ask such fantastic questions. So often, in terms of faith, we shut them down because we don't know the answers, and that can be a disturbing place to be. We also trivialise the Christian stories into naive kids stories. Oh look, Noah and the ark - lets play a game where we pretend to be the animals. Or lest play a game where we play the hundreds and thousands of people who were drowned. Of course, these were bad people, so that's OK.
The truth is that some of the Bible is not intended to be historical. I am not wanting to fall into the trap Marcus identifies as saying "oh, that's just a metaphor" - it isn't, but some of Genesis is more kin to poetry than history. And the biblical writers did not write to the same level of historical accuracy as we would expect today. that is not to say that they lied, just that their methods and techniques were different. As in the sciences, techniques develop with time - there will come a point where our approaches will be considered primitive. We cannot use modern day assumptions about what was being written - it is far more appropriate to the biblical material to understand and interpret it for what it is, than to expect it to be like a scientific textbook.
10 Death. The great mystery. Actually, the core problem that Marcus sees with this is the promise of things beyond death taking a focus away from life. Faith as a comfort to the dying and the bereaved is, I believe, a good and valid use of it. Faith as a justification for suicide attacks is wrong and mistaken.
I do not believe that we are given any real indicators as to what lies in wait for us after we die. The Bible at least is primarily focused on doing the right things in this life, and in trusting God for everything else. It is not about working for heaven - it is about working for now, and accepting that there is a whole lot of stuff that we cannot understand never mind control.
I doubt whether I have covered everything that he has written about. As I said, I have tried to summarise his arguments into single sentences. While I agree with a lot of what he says, I come from a different starting point. I believe there is something more than science can encompass, something of a spiritual nature that is greater than us. I doubt whether I have it all right, but I keep an open mind, and I keep asking questions. I, like Marcus I think, am still seeking truth.
That is real faith.
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Sara Ege
This story is disturbing, and shocking, of a mother who, it would appear, beat her own son to death for failing to learn his Koran reading properly. There are a number of disturbing aspects that should alert us all.
Firstly, if you believe that your scriptures are important, then it does make a lot of sense to learn them, and learn them by heart. In the church, I think it is fair to say that we tend to neglect this idea, because our Sunday schools are much less focused on rote learning. This story points to one of the reasons for this.
Secondly, it is very easy to assume that this is an issue purely for "religious people", but in truth, it isn't. The same concepts apply whatever your core belief texts are. Belief is not limited to religion, which is why there are lessons for people who would not claim a particular religious affiliation.
What really hit me is that this mother was so insistent on her son learning the Koran by heart, while - it would appear - not actually knowing the contents herself. Killing your own children is not in keeping with the teaching of the Koran. This is the core problem with this sort of learning, that it is easy to learn the words without learning the meaning. This is the reason that it is not so popular these days in teaching, because learning like this is not necessarily any use in applying the learning. If the "learning" is the core essence of what drives your life, it is critical to understand it and be able to apply it, not just know the words.
Of course, even without this rote learning, it is easy to know the tenets of your faith, without really having the understanding to apply it. That is a challenge to everyone - do you know your ideas, or do you know how to apply them? In fact, being able to recite your personal creed is less important than being able to discuss, explore, work it out in situations, understand what the implications of it are, and be prepared to have it challenged and then renewed. And yes, this is challenging and difficult.
The other real issue is that a mother would be driven to beat her own son to death, of course. This is particularly shocking because it was not neglect, not sexual, none of the normal indicators for abuse (although he was, apparently, often bruised and had clearly been beaten previously). It is also not an "accidental" over-reaction - a parent losing it and doing something they would instantly regret later whatever the results. This was a systematic beating, followed by burning of the body to hide the evidence of the abuse.
This mother is clearly in need of help. She failed in her core maternal role to protect her children. Her religion is unrelated to this, but it didn't stay her hand, it didn't change her to being a better person. In that, her religion failed. I don't mean Islam, I mean her interpretation of faith.
Firstly, if you believe that your scriptures are important, then it does make a lot of sense to learn them, and learn them by heart. In the church, I think it is fair to say that we tend to neglect this idea, because our Sunday schools are much less focused on rote learning. This story points to one of the reasons for this.
Secondly, it is very easy to assume that this is an issue purely for "religious people", but in truth, it isn't. The same concepts apply whatever your core belief texts are. Belief is not limited to religion, which is why there are lessons for people who would not claim a particular religious affiliation.
What really hit me is that this mother was so insistent on her son learning the Koran by heart, while - it would appear - not actually knowing the contents herself. Killing your own children is not in keeping with the teaching of the Koran. This is the core problem with this sort of learning, that it is easy to learn the words without learning the meaning. This is the reason that it is not so popular these days in teaching, because learning like this is not necessarily any use in applying the learning. If the "learning" is the core essence of what drives your life, it is critical to understand it and be able to apply it, not just know the words.
Of course, even without this rote learning, it is easy to know the tenets of your faith, without really having the understanding to apply it. That is a challenge to everyone - do you know your ideas, or do you know how to apply them? In fact, being able to recite your personal creed is less important than being able to discuss, explore, work it out in situations, understand what the implications of it are, and be prepared to have it challenged and then renewed. And yes, this is challenging and difficult.
The other real issue is that a mother would be driven to beat her own son to death, of course. This is particularly shocking because it was not neglect, not sexual, none of the normal indicators for abuse (although he was, apparently, often bruised and had clearly been beaten previously). It is also not an "accidental" over-reaction - a parent losing it and doing something they would instantly regret later whatever the results. This was a systematic beating, followed by burning of the body to hide the evidence of the abuse.
This mother is clearly in need of help. She failed in her core maternal role to protect her children. Her religion is unrelated to this, but it didn't stay her hand, it didn't change her to being a better person. In that, her religion failed. I don't mean Islam, I mean her interpretation of faith.
Thursday, 20 December 2012
There but for the grace of God go I
This phrase is generally attributed to John Bradford, from the 1500s, and the contorted nature of the phrase makes it hard to understand and appreciate this concept. But once I grasped it, I realised that it was at the heart of my faith.
It does need unpacking. The real meaning is that I can put myself in the same position as another unfortunate, and am only not there because of "the grace of God". That can mean quite a literal sense, that God has kept me from that situation, but it can also mean that there is nothing that I have done, or that I could do, to separate myself from them.
The point is that this means I am no different from them. The fact that they have suffered or encountered some misfortune is nothing to do with them, the reality is that it could have been you in that situation, but wasn't. That is not because you are any better than they are, it is good fortune, or Gods grace that meant that you avoided it.
So criticising or condemning them is criticising or condemning yourself.
When someone goes mad with a gun in a school, and we ask "surely, someone who does that must be evil/insane/divine judgement" maybe we should just say that we have no idea why it happened, but accept that it could be me, if something just triggered wrongly. That is not to condone the actions, just to accept that the people who do this are not, at heart, different to us.
When someone is convicted of pedophilia, it is easy to say "they must be twisted, broken, evil, demonic" or whatever. If we rather say that it could be us, if we had not restrained ourselves, or we had been abused as a child, or whatever. There is nothing that makes these people "different" from us. That should give us a chill, and a new perspective on them,
When we see someone who is homeless, we can easily suggest that they have almost certainly used drink or drugs. That may be true. It is very likely that they have mental health issues, because a large proportion of them do. Drink or drugs may be a part of their problem, but they are rarely the whole story. But that could be me. It has been said that we are only 3 paychecks from poverty so we are not that far apart.
When we see people we do not easily relate to, people we are liable to reject, we need to consider this perspective, we need to say "there, but for the grace of God, go I". Not that they are right - it doesn't mean that. It means that they are just like us. It means that we could be just like them.
If God hates them, then God hates us. If we hate them, then we hate ourselves. If we accept them, acknowledge them, seek to help them, then we can accept and understand ourselves better.
It does need unpacking. The real meaning is that I can put myself in the same position as another unfortunate, and am only not there because of "the grace of God". That can mean quite a literal sense, that God has kept me from that situation, but it can also mean that there is nothing that I have done, or that I could do, to separate myself from them.
The point is that this means I am no different from them. The fact that they have suffered or encountered some misfortune is nothing to do with them, the reality is that it could have been you in that situation, but wasn't. That is not because you are any better than they are, it is good fortune, or Gods grace that meant that you avoided it.
So criticising or condemning them is criticising or condemning yourself.
When someone goes mad with a gun in a school, and we ask "surely, someone who does that must be evil/insane/divine judgement" maybe we should just say that we have no idea why it happened, but accept that it could be me, if something just triggered wrongly. That is not to condone the actions, just to accept that the people who do this are not, at heart, different to us.
When someone is convicted of pedophilia, it is easy to say "they must be twisted, broken, evil, demonic" or whatever. If we rather say that it could be us, if we had not restrained ourselves, or we had been abused as a child, or whatever. There is nothing that makes these people "different" from us. That should give us a chill, and a new perspective on them,
When we see someone who is homeless, we can easily suggest that they have almost certainly used drink or drugs. That may be true. It is very likely that they have mental health issues, because a large proportion of them do. Drink or drugs may be a part of their problem, but they are rarely the whole story. But that could be me. It has been said that we are only 3 paychecks from poverty so we are not that far apart.
When we see people we do not easily relate to, people we are liable to reject, we need to consider this perspective, we need to say "there, but for the grace of God, go I". Not that they are right - it doesn't mean that. It means that they are just like us. It means that we could be just like them.
If God hates them, then God hates us. If we hate them, then we hate ourselves. If we accept them, acknowledge them, seek to help them, then we can accept and understand ourselves better.
Thursday, 20 September 2012
Faith and writing
At Greenbelt, I went to hear the wonderful Deborah Fielding, who, among other things, had the best jumper on site. But she was also excellent on the subject of writing too.
It inspired me, and I am currently writing a set of very short stories, which I will get published eventually - watch this space for more details. I would like to make it free, but it will be dirt cheap, honest!
If Jesus was around today, I suspect he would be writing short stories.
The reason is that short stories - especially - make a point and leave a lot of the surrounding history and future to the imagination. Jesus Parables were short stories, although they had a different structure and purpose than most short stories, they share something in common - memorability, and a point to make people think.
Stories are of critical importance to any culture. However much people wish to assume that they are "too advanced" or "scientific" to bother with "folk tales", we all know stories from our childhood, from our culture, and they impact the way we do things, and what we believe. At core, stories tell us what to believe, and belief impact action.
Take, for example, the currently popular philosophical writer Ayn Rand. She wrote stories, like Atlas Shrugged, which contained and expounded her philosophy.Even the hardened, capitalist right who follow the (frankly ridiculous) principles she expounds, learnt them from stories. In fact, anyone who wants to expound a popularist philosophy needs to do it in stories - and Christianity in included.
The think is, Christianity is based on myths. Now don't misunderstand me, because I hold myths in very high regard. Myths, like fairy tales, are not "untruths", rather they are truths, conveyed through stories, intended to tell a reality and truth that is difficult to explore any other way. Myths and stories help us to link to a truth that is beyond our empirical grasp, help us link to truths that we can only express in stories.
If we lose our stories, we lose our truths and reality. Stories are important, because stories make us think, an stories encompass our thoughts. My faith, my belief, my truth is built on stories. I am not ashamed of that, because the same applies to everyone. I am just prepared to admit it. Are you? What stories is your truth based on?
It inspired me, and I am currently writing a set of very short stories, which I will get published eventually - watch this space for more details. I would like to make it free, but it will be dirt cheap, honest!
If Jesus was around today, I suspect he would be writing short stories.
The reason is that short stories - especially - make a point and leave a lot of the surrounding history and future to the imagination. Jesus Parables were short stories, although they had a different structure and purpose than most short stories, they share something in common - memorability, and a point to make people think.
Stories are of critical importance to any culture. However much people wish to assume that they are "too advanced" or "scientific" to bother with "folk tales", we all know stories from our childhood, from our culture, and they impact the way we do things, and what we believe. At core, stories tell us what to believe, and belief impact action.
Take, for example, the currently popular philosophical writer Ayn Rand. She wrote stories, like Atlas Shrugged, which contained and expounded her philosophy.Even the hardened, capitalist right who follow the (frankly ridiculous) principles she expounds, learnt them from stories. In fact, anyone who wants to expound a popularist philosophy needs to do it in stories - and Christianity in included.
The think is, Christianity is based on myths. Now don't misunderstand me, because I hold myths in very high regard. Myths, like fairy tales, are not "untruths", rather they are truths, conveyed through stories, intended to tell a reality and truth that is difficult to explore any other way. Myths and stories help us to link to a truth that is beyond our empirical grasp, help us link to truths that we can only express in stories.
If we lose our stories, we lose our truths and reality. Stories are important, because stories make us think, an stories encompass our thoughts. My faith, my belief, my truth is built on stories. I am not ashamed of that, because the same applies to everyone. I am just prepared to admit it. Are you? What stories is your truth based on?
Saturday, 8 September 2012
Faith and social media
I went to head Vicky Beeching at Greenbelt, who was very good, and there are some interesting issues that came from her talk.
She was talking about social media, and the importance of it. I was reading this week an interesting book, including the claim that people will take any sort of technology and use it for being social with. The core reason is that we are social beings - yes even the most antisocial geeks. SMS texts were originally included because they could be, and no-one thought anyone would use them.Today, there are billions of messages sent every day. People took a piece of technology, and used it to be social.
Some of the biggest and most heavily used web sites today are social networks - twitter and facebook in particular. Emails - ignoring the spam - are very heavily used, although the precise number that are "social", rather than strictly business is hard to identify. The internet - which is the most significant technological development of our age - is substantially used for socialisation.
Some people argue that all of this technology is depersonalising communication. I don't agree, although I understand the concern. The problem is not the technology, it is the people, who depersonalise the recipient of their comments. We should remember that, whatever, there is a real person on the other end of the message, and consider their feelings. I still struggle to understand the mentality of people whose only communication with particular people who they choose to follow on twitter is to be rude or offensive to them. If you don't like what they say, don't follow, and so don't listen. Seriously, your views are not that important.
My experience is that electronic communication can be very personal. It is possible to make friends - real friends, who care and pray and do what they can to help - within ever meeting them, but purely through social media. What is more, I think more and more people - especially, but not exclusively, younger people - will define their social interactions substantially though electronic means. Whether this is swapping mobile numbers, or finding each other on facebook, this form of interaction is often the first and most important way of cementing the start of a relationship.
That is why it irritates me when clergy and other church leaders shun the use of social media. Or, even worse, seek to control the use of it. The truth is, as I see it, that the church of the future will be a virtual church, where the core communication, interaction and organisation will be done through these networks. This is not to say that people will not meet up, but that this will be organised online, and it will be just a part of an ongoing interaction.
And interaction does not just mean setting up a twitter account to tell people what is going on. It mean engaging and listening at least as much as taking. Engaging, not controlling. That, I suspect, will be too much of a shock for some leaders.
She was talking about social media, and the importance of it. I was reading this week an interesting book, including the claim that people will take any sort of technology and use it for being social with. The core reason is that we are social beings - yes even the most antisocial geeks. SMS texts were originally included because they could be, and no-one thought anyone would use them.Today, there are billions of messages sent every day. People took a piece of technology, and used it to be social.
Some of the biggest and most heavily used web sites today are social networks - twitter and facebook in particular. Emails - ignoring the spam - are very heavily used, although the precise number that are "social", rather than strictly business is hard to identify. The internet - which is the most significant technological development of our age - is substantially used for socialisation.
Some people argue that all of this technology is depersonalising communication. I don't agree, although I understand the concern. The problem is not the technology, it is the people, who depersonalise the recipient of their comments. We should remember that, whatever, there is a real person on the other end of the message, and consider their feelings. I still struggle to understand the mentality of people whose only communication with particular people who they choose to follow on twitter is to be rude or offensive to them. If you don't like what they say, don't follow, and so don't listen. Seriously, your views are not that important.
My experience is that electronic communication can be very personal. It is possible to make friends - real friends, who care and pray and do what they can to help - within ever meeting them, but purely through social media. What is more, I think more and more people - especially, but not exclusively, younger people - will define their social interactions substantially though electronic means. Whether this is swapping mobile numbers, or finding each other on facebook, this form of interaction is often the first and most important way of cementing the start of a relationship.
That is why it irritates me when clergy and other church leaders shun the use of social media. Or, even worse, seek to control the use of it. The truth is, as I see it, that the church of the future will be a virtual church, where the core communication, interaction and organisation will be done through these networks. This is not to say that people will not meet up, but that this will be organised online, and it will be just a part of an ongoing interaction.
And interaction does not just mean setting up a twitter account to tell people what is going on. It mean engaging and listening at least as much as taking. Engaging, not controlling. That, I suspect, will be too much of a shock for some leaders.
Saturday, 1 September 2012
Faith and music
This years Greenbelt had, for me, a strong emphasis on music. I heard 10 or so acts on two stages, and missed catching at least one other. All of the music I heard was excellent, and being right at the front for most of it, I could seriously engage with the performances.
I have realised - again - that I am definately a front-row person. I love being right up there, seeing what is going on, close to the performance. And the volume you get there I love, although I realise that others do not enjoy having their ears blasted like that. But when the bass notes make your clothes vibrate, there is a real sense of being part of the performance.
If I have a criticism, it would be that the musical style was rather "folky", and I would have liked to see the big stage used for rock, at least some of the time. But Seth Lakeman, The Proclaimers, Bellowhead were all quite capable of filling the stage - I have no problems with who we had, just would have liked more or others too. There is a danger that we present Christianity as a folk-liking faith, and miss the fact that the musical range of Christians is as wide as anyone else. It was a great sight to see a metal band on the Canopy stage, and see the reaction of so many people to hearing this - but it is part of the music scene, and some people enjoy this.
However, one performer made an interesting comment, which I thought was right on the mark. Speech Debelle is a rapper, so we had some hip-hop on the main stage. She said that when she was asked, she wasn't sure whether she should come, because she wasn't a Christian. However, she said, the message of some of her songs was relevant - "Live for the Message" for example. I think she had a point, and I am glad she was there.
I have thought for many years that the most challenging and insightful music and lyrics come from artists who do not claim to be Christians. The huge majority of contemporary and worship Christian music seems to be a rehashing of the same ideas, words, emotions. It makes me wonder why we bother producing more and more of it - seriously, why do we have a Christin Music industry, when no-one seems to produce anything different. It is not that I don't appreciate music - I love it, and I play it - but I like to be made to think, not just told how lovely God is.
I have found inspiration from dance music (I still like trance, and there are some great messages in this music often), rock music, rap - pretty much anything I have listened to has somewhere given a new and fresh message. If you want social commentary, spiritual challenge, uplifting or revitalising, I think there is some form of contemporary - and not explicitly Christian - music that does that. And most of it is better than a lot of "Christian" music.
I have realised - again - that I am definately a front-row person. I love being right up there, seeing what is going on, close to the performance. And the volume you get there I love, although I realise that others do not enjoy having their ears blasted like that. But when the bass notes make your clothes vibrate, there is a real sense of being part of the performance.
If I have a criticism, it would be that the musical style was rather "folky", and I would have liked to see the big stage used for rock, at least some of the time. But Seth Lakeman, The Proclaimers, Bellowhead were all quite capable of filling the stage - I have no problems with who we had, just would have liked more or others too. There is a danger that we present Christianity as a folk-liking faith, and miss the fact that the musical range of Christians is as wide as anyone else. It was a great sight to see a metal band on the Canopy stage, and see the reaction of so many people to hearing this - but it is part of the music scene, and some people enjoy this.
However, one performer made an interesting comment, which I thought was right on the mark. Speech Debelle is a rapper, so we had some hip-hop on the main stage. She said that when she was asked, she wasn't sure whether she should come, because she wasn't a Christian. However, she said, the message of some of her songs was relevant - "Live for the Message" for example. I think she had a point, and I am glad she was there.
I have thought for many years that the most challenging and insightful music and lyrics come from artists who do not claim to be Christians. The huge majority of contemporary and worship Christian music seems to be a rehashing of the same ideas, words, emotions. It makes me wonder why we bother producing more and more of it - seriously, why do we have a Christin Music industry, when no-one seems to produce anything different. It is not that I don't appreciate music - I love it, and I play it - but I like to be made to think, not just told how lovely God is.
I have found inspiration from dance music (I still like trance, and there are some great messages in this music often), rock music, rap - pretty much anything I have listened to has somewhere given a new and fresh message. If you want social commentary, spiritual challenge, uplifting or revitalising, I think there is some form of contemporary - and not explicitly Christian - music that does that. And most of it is better than a lot of "Christian" music.
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Greenbelt 2012
But it was an excellent time, a fabulous line up and the weather didn't real spoil anything. I will be putting a couple of posts from things I have learnt from the weekend. Other than, just how muddy it can get.
I heard Bruce Cockburn, The Proclaimers, Seth Lakeman, Bellowhead, Speech Debele. That is pretty exceptional, not to mention other acts that I saw around them. I heard Prof John Polkinghorne, Vikky Beeching, Deborah Fielding and Shane Clairbourne, among others. There was not a bad music act, or talk. Some I disagreed with, but that is a positive. I have returned invigorated.
Watch here for more....
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Have I lost my faith?
It was 6 months ago that I left my church. It seems like an
interesting time to reflect on what has happened in that time, and also on what
happened then – the question of the title.
Firstly, I should point out that I have been occasionally
attending another church on Sundays. I turn up when I feel like it, join in,
and do not get committed. That is the point, sort of – I do not wish to spend
my time and effort on a church structure.
So have I lost my faith? It depends on what you mean. Have I
lost my Christian faith – no, quite definitely not. If anything it is stronger
now, as I can spend time exploring, and thinking through questions and doubts
that I have. Also, the www.boredwithchurch.info
site has driven me into looking into a particular area of faith to explore, and
I am finding this very challenging and exciting.
So have I lost my faith? If you mean in the church, then the
answer is yes. It has been tenuous for a long time, but I finally came to the
position that I had to admit my faith in the church as a structure and
organisation had gone. I should clarify what I mean by this – I don’t mean that
the Body of Christ, the assortment of Christian believers is no longer important.
Quite the opposite, and this is my understanding of the church as describes in
the Bible. What I mean is that the structures and organisations that make up
“the church” to most people are no longer appropriate and relevant to a
Christian faith.
In the months after leaving, one thing I noticed what that
my evenings were free. Without the endless meetings or preparation to support
the church structure, I had free time, which I could spend writing this blog,
reading, engaging (or, most often, blobbing out). It struck me that an awful
lot of the effort of church members is spent on supporting the structure, and
very little of that is really about growing as a Christian. That is one of my
biggest problems with the church structure at the moment – that the time and
effort involved in supporting the structure can seriously take away from time
to support the personal growth of people involved. It convinces me that for
many people, if they are to grow as a Christian, the last thing they need is
the church.
The other thing I find interesting is that, in the last 6
months, the only people to contact me have been the members of my house group.
I am grateful for their contact, but I am shocked – genuinely – that none of
the other people in the church that I would have considered friends have been
in touch. No-one, it would seem, is concerned over my well-being, my spiritual
situation, my more detailed reasons. My feeling is that, now I am no longer
contributing to the church structure and processes, it seems that I am of no
interest to anyone.
To me, that is the saddest reflection on the church of all.
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Christianity and Tai Chi
I have been doing Tai Chi for a couple of years. I started because it was a means of exercise and personal balance that I needed, and I have enjoyed it. I have even used an exercise in a sermon, because it expressed the concept so well. It was about keeping your feet rooted in the earth and your head stretched up to heaven.
Of course, some people have a real problem with this. It is not "Christianity" so therefore it is "wrong". Just recently we have been doing the more "spiritual" or "mystical" side of it, which has made me thing again about whether it is compatible with my faith. I should point out that the way of speaking is not easy to align - there is a lot of talk about "chi" energy; about the way it flows through the body; about how some of the positions can help this energy to move and heal. All fairly typically based in Oriental philosophy.
And yet, when I get down to it, I do it as a form of relaxation, and gentle exercise to loosen the body a bit. The Chi energy is a way of interpreting and understanding how this exercise works that I don't entirely accept. But I understand it as a way of explaining what we do, and it is as sensible and right as some of the explanations within Christianity for things that go on - I don't accept all of them either. I have a strong pragmatic streak, because if it works, I will try to understand why, but accept that it works whatever, and try to adjust my understanding to take this into account. Until I find something that is fundamentally at odds with other parts of my belief, I am prepared to accept things that I cannot understand or explain.
However, there is another issue I have here, that I touched on in a previous post - that Christianity has a strong anti-palagianist sense. That is, for those who are not up on Christian heresies, a rejection of the importance of the physical. We tend to evade the questions of supporting and caring for the body, because the physical is less important than the spiritual. When there is a physical problem, the response is usually to pray for it, not to look at what we can do to help it. We do not look at health, exercise, relaxation, we focus on the spiritual aspects, which is not always where the problems are.
Tai Chi does not necessarily have an answer for why the exercises work, but biology probably does. Christianity does not necessarily have all of the right answers to everything, but that does not mean it is wrong. I am a great believer in drawing from wherever, assessing and analysing, throwing some things out, tentatively accepting some things, and enthusiatically accepting others. Surely that is an honest approach to spiritual development? Surely that is what being an honest seeker after truth means?
Of course, some people have a real problem with this. It is not "Christianity" so therefore it is "wrong". Just recently we have been doing the more "spiritual" or "mystical" side of it, which has made me thing again about whether it is compatible with my faith. I should point out that the way of speaking is not easy to align - there is a lot of talk about "chi" energy; about the way it flows through the body; about how some of the positions can help this energy to move and heal. All fairly typically based in Oriental philosophy.
And yet, when I get down to it, I do it as a form of relaxation, and gentle exercise to loosen the body a bit. The Chi energy is a way of interpreting and understanding how this exercise works that I don't entirely accept. But I understand it as a way of explaining what we do, and it is as sensible and right as some of the explanations within Christianity for things that go on - I don't accept all of them either. I have a strong pragmatic streak, because if it works, I will try to understand why, but accept that it works whatever, and try to adjust my understanding to take this into account. Until I find something that is fundamentally at odds with other parts of my belief, I am prepared to accept things that I cannot understand or explain.
However, there is another issue I have here, that I touched on in a previous post - that Christianity has a strong anti-palagianist sense. That is, for those who are not up on Christian heresies, a rejection of the importance of the physical. We tend to evade the questions of supporting and caring for the body, because the physical is less important than the spiritual. When there is a physical problem, the response is usually to pray for it, not to look at what we can do to help it. We do not look at health, exercise, relaxation, we focus on the spiritual aspects, which is not always where the problems are.
Tai Chi does not necessarily have an answer for why the exercises work, but biology probably does. Christianity does not necessarily have all of the right answers to everything, but that does not mean it is wrong. I am a great believer in drawing from wherever, assessing and analysing, throwing some things out, tentatively accepting some things, and enthusiatically accepting others. Surely that is an honest approach to spiritual development? Surely that is what being an honest seeker after truth means?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)