What do you do when you've had the busiest, most frenetic 5 weeks at work, culminating in a 2 day event which you've been responsible for, with an overnight stay; when you've been up half the previous night with a migraine and when you are just knackered?
Well - you come home, you walk through your empty house and go out to your back garden, you sit yourself down on your door step, look out over your garden, hear the silence, turn your face to feel the warmth from the last heat of the early evening sun, and feel a sense of peace as you contemplate life while joined on the step by the undemanding companionship of next door's cat; you scarf down 2 bags of weightwatchers cheesy puffs (only 70 calories a bag) and you become aware that God's grace comes to you in all sorts of ways, some of which seem small and seemingly insignificant.
That's been a whole year of blogging and it's a funny old thing. I guess I started because it seemed like an idea - spurred on by my maladjusted friend. An online journal that people can follow, or read from time to time, or stumble across as the case may be. I hadn't been on my blog for a couple of days and when I looked there had been hits from a couple of places in the States, quite a few places across the UK, Paris, Germany and Turkey all in the space of 48 hours. Some people come from my friend's blog, others follow some obscure search to do with Doris Day, or flying monkeys, or Foucault. You get to share big ideas and small blessings and it's a lot of fun.
Whichever way you came to it - thanks for reading!
Saturday, 19 September 2009
Monday, 14 September 2009
Summer Reading #s 3 & 4
This is taking me ages so I thought I'd do the last 2 books together. They are both from the same series anyway, edited by James K A Smith called "The Church and Postmodern Culture".
Who's Afraid of Postmodernism - Taking Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault to Church - James KA Smith
What Would Jesus Deconstruct - The Good news of Postmodernism for the Church.
Those of you who know me well, know I've been looking at this stuff for years but having been listening to and doing a bit more reading about emergent - Derrida is featuring large and I wanted to get to grips with this continental philosophy stuff in a bit more depth. Also who could resist a book with the title "What Would Jesus Deconstruct"? - (WWJD) - (yip that's the kind of thing which really appeals to me)
Jamie Smith looks at these 3 philosophers and deconstructs their "slogans" in a way which opens up their arguments really helpfully showing the applicability and benefit to the church. He also argues that to be relevant the church needs to look back at her traditions and reclaim them for the 21st century.
The "slogans" are
"There is nothing outside the text" Jacques Derrida
"Postmodernity is incredulity toward meta-narratives" Jean-Francois Lyotard
"Power is knowledge" - Michel Foucault
His agenda is clear - he wishes to shift from modern Christianity "where the base 'ingredient' is the individual"; Christianity as a system of truth or ideas; an intellectualised, commodified private faith affair between the individual and God where the role of the church is to provide a place of fellowship with other individuals who have a private relationship with God; the church then is simply a collection of individuals. Instead he argues for a living community embodying its head; genuine community; resisting talking about Christians as individuals; the notion of the "holy catholic church"undoes modern individualism; there is no Christianity apart from the body of Christ which is the church. The church does not exist for me; the church is the site where God renews and transforms us.
If you think that's quite radical then wait till you hear this bit - "What I a sinner need is not so much answers, as reformation of my will and heart...practices of friendship and being called to get along with those one doesn't like..the church for instance is a place to learn patience by practice"!!! (help!)
"Nothing is more countercultural than a community serving the Suffering Servant in a world devoted to consumption and violence."
It's actually quite hard to summarise this book because the arguments taken out of context can be misconstrued - which is ironic given, as Derrida says - "Everything is interpretation - i.e. there's nothing outside the text!". Let me give it a bash very briefly.
If everything is interpretation then we are free to interpret the world differently, the church becomes more prophetic while retaining its humility; it becomes countercultural and prophetic by its deeds; stops being apologetic in both senses and puts its interpretation openly into the marketplace. That's Derrida's bit.
Lyotard helps us to realise that "scientific knowledge, which considered itself to be a triumph over narrative knowledge, covertly grounds itself in a narrative; they are the false appeals to the universal, rational, scientific criteria - as though they were divorced from any particular myth or narrative. For the postmodernist every scientist is a believer...the postmodern critique demands not that modern thought relinquish its faith, but that it own up to it... the notion of reducing Christian faith to 4 spiritual laws signals a deep capitulation to scientific knowledge whereas postmodernism signals the recovery of narrative knowledge and should entail a more robust, unapologetic proclamation of the story of God in Christ."
Foucault talks about what counts as knowledge being constituted within networks of power - social, political and economic. "He sees through the neat and tidy claims to objective truth, seeing them as only masks of power. Many people are defined by the primary goal of consumption, they stake their identity on their material possessions...their ultimate goal is to be faithful consumers...we need to recognise the antithesis between the dominant culture's understanding of the human calling and the biblical understanding of our ultimate vocation...this must be cultivated by practices of sanctification."
OK - this is a huge post but I'm determined to finish - then in my next post I'll deal with the question on every one's lips - So What?
WWJDeconstruct - here's some quotes and you can make your own mind up
"I am still looking for the text that supports the idea that "Christians" means people who should be free to accumulate as much wealth for themselves as they possibly can under the law, while letting the needs of the poor be met painlessly by "charity"- by people of means who will voluntarily give of their overflow - so that they do not have to share any more of their wealth than is unavoidable"
"A politics of the kingdom would be marked by madness of forgiveness, generosity, mercy and hospitality. The dangerous memory of the crucified body of Jesus poses a threat to a world organised around the disastrous concept of power, something that is reflected today in the widespread critique of the concept of "sovereignty" - of the sovereignty of autonomous subjects and the sovereignty of nations powerful enough to get away with acting unilaterally and in their own self interests. The crucified body of Jesus proposes not that we keep theology out of politics but that we think theology otherwise, by way of another paradigm, another theology, requiring us to think of God otherwise, as a power of powerlessness, as opposed to the theology of omnipotence that underlies sovereignty. The call that issues from the crucified body of Jesus solicits our response, for it is we who have mountains to move by our faith and we who have enemies to move by our love. It is we who have to make the weakness of God stronger than the power of the world."
Both books are great - I'd probably recommend Jamie Smith's book as being more accessible but both challenged and broadened my understanding of God and made me reflect again on what it means to be a Christian.
Who's Afraid of Postmodernism - Taking Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault to Church - James KA Smith
What Would Jesus Deconstruct - The Good news of Postmodernism for the Church.
Those of you who know me well, know I've been looking at this stuff for years but having been listening to and doing a bit more reading about emergent - Derrida is featuring large and I wanted to get to grips with this continental philosophy stuff in a bit more depth. Also who could resist a book with the title "What Would Jesus Deconstruct"? - (WWJD) - (yip that's the kind of thing which really appeals to me)
Jamie Smith looks at these 3 philosophers and deconstructs their "slogans" in a way which opens up their arguments really helpfully showing the applicability and benefit to the church. He also argues that to be relevant the church needs to look back at her traditions and reclaim them for the 21st century.
The "slogans" are
"There is nothing outside the text" Jacques Derrida
"Postmodernity is incredulity toward meta-narratives" Jean-Francois Lyotard
"Power is knowledge" - Michel Foucault
His agenda is clear - he wishes to shift from modern Christianity "where the base 'ingredient' is the individual"; Christianity as a system of truth or ideas; an intellectualised, commodified private faith affair between the individual and God where the role of the church is to provide a place of fellowship with other individuals who have a private relationship with God; the church then is simply a collection of individuals. Instead he argues for a living community embodying its head; genuine community; resisting talking about Christians as individuals; the notion of the "holy catholic church"undoes modern individualism; there is no Christianity apart from the body of Christ which is the church. The church does not exist for me; the church is the site where God renews and transforms us.
If you think that's quite radical then wait till you hear this bit - "What I a sinner need is not so much answers, as reformation of my will and heart...practices of friendship and being called to get along with those one doesn't like..the church for instance is a place to learn patience by practice"!!! (help!)
"Nothing is more countercultural than a community serving the Suffering Servant in a world devoted to consumption and violence."
It's actually quite hard to summarise this book because the arguments taken out of context can be misconstrued - which is ironic given, as Derrida says - "Everything is interpretation - i.e. there's nothing outside the text!". Let me give it a bash very briefly.
If everything is interpretation then we are free to interpret the world differently, the church becomes more prophetic while retaining its humility; it becomes countercultural and prophetic by its deeds; stops being apologetic in both senses and puts its interpretation openly into the marketplace. That's Derrida's bit.
Lyotard helps us to realise that "scientific knowledge, which considered itself to be a triumph over narrative knowledge, covertly grounds itself in a narrative; they are the false appeals to the universal, rational, scientific criteria - as though they were divorced from any particular myth or narrative. For the postmodernist every scientist is a believer...the postmodern critique demands not that modern thought relinquish its faith, but that it own up to it... the notion of reducing Christian faith to 4 spiritual laws signals a deep capitulation to scientific knowledge whereas postmodernism signals the recovery of narrative knowledge and should entail a more robust, unapologetic proclamation of the story of God in Christ."
Foucault talks about what counts as knowledge being constituted within networks of power - social, political and economic. "He sees through the neat and tidy claims to objective truth, seeing them as only masks of power. Many people are defined by the primary goal of consumption, they stake their identity on their material possessions...their ultimate goal is to be faithful consumers...we need to recognise the antithesis between the dominant culture's understanding of the human calling and the biblical understanding of our ultimate vocation...this must be cultivated by practices of sanctification."
OK - this is a huge post but I'm determined to finish - then in my next post I'll deal with the question on every one's lips - So What?
WWJDeconstruct - here's some quotes and you can make your own mind up
"I am still looking for the text that supports the idea that "Christians" means people who should be free to accumulate as much wealth for themselves as they possibly can under the law, while letting the needs of the poor be met painlessly by "charity"- by people of means who will voluntarily give of their overflow - so that they do not have to share any more of their wealth than is unavoidable"
"A politics of the kingdom would be marked by madness of forgiveness, generosity, mercy and hospitality. The dangerous memory of the crucified body of Jesus poses a threat to a world organised around the disastrous concept of power, something that is reflected today in the widespread critique of the concept of "sovereignty" - of the sovereignty of autonomous subjects and the sovereignty of nations powerful enough to get away with acting unilaterally and in their own self interests. The crucified body of Jesus proposes not that we keep theology out of politics but that we think theology otherwise, by way of another paradigm, another theology, requiring us to think of God otherwise, as a power of powerlessness, as opposed to the theology of omnipotence that underlies sovereignty. The call that issues from the crucified body of Jesus solicits our response, for it is we who have mountains to move by our faith and we who have enemies to move by our love. It is we who have to make the weakness of God stronger than the power of the world."
Both books are great - I'd probably recommend Jamie Smith's book as being more accessible but both challenged and broadened my understanding of God and made me reflect again on what it means to be a Christian.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Summer Reading #2
"Jesus Wants to Save Christians - A Manifesto for the Church in Exile" - Rob Bell
I really like Rob Bell's books - I think he's a great communicator, he's honest, he's challenging and he's scholarly. If you haven't read anything by him before I would definitely recommend him. I've read "Velvet Elvis - Repainting the Christian Faith" and am currently reading "Drops Like Stars: A Few Thoughts on Creativity and Suffering".
In this book he focuses on "empire", charting the whole history of Israel in relation to both the empires they came up against and the empire they became; and how this corrupted what God had originally intended through the covenant; the consequences and the legacy of that; and the current application of "empire" as it relates to the church. His approach is scholarly - his books usually bring a great deal of the historical and cultural background into play giving a much clearer understanding of context and place, and I always get some insight which I never noticed before. All good. His books however are very very accessible - not a daunting read at all. I found it all really interesting but this book also packs a punch and the chapter entitled "Swollen-Bellied Black Babies" really challenges and brings the whole issue to a head. I'm going to quote from it, although I'm a bit afraid that it might diminish the impact of what he says - because he builds his picture and constructs his challenge in a really great way then socks it to you;
I really like Rob Bell's books - I think he's a great communicator, he's honest, he's challenging and he's scholarly. If you haven't read anything by him before I would definitely recommend him. I've read "Velvet Elvis - Repainting the Christian Faith" and am currently reading "Drops Like Stars: A Few Thoughts on Creativity and Suffering".
In this book he focuses on "empire", charting the whole history of Israel in relation to both the empires they came up against and the empire they became; and how this corrupted what God had originally intended through the covenant; the consequences and the legacy of that; and the current application of "empire" as it relates to the church. His approach is scholarly - his books usually bring a great deal of the historical and cultural background into play giving a much clearer understanding of context and place, and I always get some insight which I never noticed before. All good. His books however are very very accessible - not a daunting read at all. I found it all really interesting but this book also packs a punch and the chapter entitled "Swollen-Bellied Black Babies" really challenges and brings the whole issue to a head. I'm going to quote from it, although I'm a bit afraid that it might diminish the impact of what he says - because he builds his picture and constructs his challenge in a really great way then socks it to you;
"Imagine the average youth group in the average church on the average Sunday. Imagine visiting this youth group and having the pastor say to you "I just can't get my kids interested in Jesus. Do you have any suggestions?"
How do you respond?
To begin with the church has a youth group. This is a brand new idea in church history. A luxury. All the babies and older folks and the men and the women and widows and students aren't in the one room, but they've gone to separate rooms?
And there are resources for this? People and organisational structures and a budget? Let's imagine that in this case, this pastor, this youth pastor, is paid a salary for his or her work. A church with enough resources to pay someone to oversee the students. Once again, this is brand new, almost unheard of in most of the rest of the churches in the world, and in church history, a brand new invention.
This salary can be paid and this building can be built because people in the congregation have surplus. They have fed themselves and their children and bought clothes and houses, and now, after these expenses, there is still money available. And this money is given in an act of generosity to the church, which disperses it to various places, among them the bank account of the pastor.
In many, if not most of the churches in the world, immediate needs simply don't allow for such luxuries - too many people are hungry, too many don't have a roof, too many are sick - and so any surplus is spent immediately on the basic needs staring them in the face, people dying here, right now, today.
But this particular church is blessed, and we should be clear about this - it is blessing, it is good. It is fortunate that this particular church doesn't have those issues. This church has enough resources to hire a pastor who had the resources to get training to gather these students in the student room to teach them about the way of Jesus. Many Christians around the world would simply stand in awe of that kind of blessing.
And the students in this church, these are good kids. They are from families who just want to see their kids become good Christians.
Imagine just how much is available to them. They have more at their fingertips than any generation in the history of the world - more information, more entertainment, more ideas, more ways to kill time, more options.
Many of them own more than one pair of shoes.
There are even some among them who have eaten at least one meal every day of their lives.
So we are talking about a minuscule minority of kids in the world
At the exit off the highway near their church is a Best Buy and a Chilli's and a Circuit City and a McDonald's and a Wal-Mart and Bed, Bath and Beyond much like the other towns in their state and in their country. The music they listen to is distributed by one of 5 major corporations, which also own the movie studios that create the movies they watch, which are also connected to the corporations that create the food they eat and the commercials they watch, which also have significant ties to the clothes they wear and the cell phones they own and the ring tones on their cell phones.....
So each week they gather to hear a talk from the pastor.
The pastor tells them about the Jesus revolution.
About Jesus resisting the system.
About the blood of the cross.
About many Christians getting arrested.
About Jesus having dinner with prostitutes and tax collectors.
About people sharing their possessions.
About Jesus telling a man to sell everything.
About the uniqueness of their story in the larger story of redemption.
How do children of the empire understand the Saviour who was killed by an empire?
How does a 12 year old who has never had hunger pangs that lasted more than an hour understand a story about a 12 year old providing fish and bread for thousands of chronically hungry people?
How do kids who are surrounded by more abundance than in any other generation in the history of humanity take seriously a Messiah who said "I have been anointed to preach good news to the poor?"
How do they fathom that half the world is too poor to feed it's kids when their church just spent 2 years raising money to build an addition to their building?
They gather, they sing, they hear a talk from the pastor, and then they get back in the car with their parents and they go home; the garage door opens up, the car goes in, and the garage door goes down.
This is the revolution?
This is what Jesus had in mind?
And so the youth pastor turns to you and says, again, " I just can't get my students engaged with Jesus. Do you have any suggestions?"
What do you say?
How do you respond?
Your only hope, of course, would be to remind him or her that there is blood on the doorposts of the universe"
He goes onto talk about the Passover and the Eucharist
"What if Jesus ...was talking about our actually enacting what the ritual is all about over and over, again and again, year after year? What if the "do this" he primarily meant wasn't the ritual he was leading his disciples through at that moment. What if the "do this" was his whole way of life?...the "do this"part is our lives. Opening ourselves up to the mystery of resurrection, open for the liberation of others, allowing our bodies to be broken and our blood poured out, discovering our Eucharist. Listening. And going.
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Addendum...
Was really trying to get my blog entry finished and on my blog last night and forgot to add another quote from Rollins that I particularly like;
"Instead of offering a scientific explanation that would convince, or publicizing the miracles so as to compel his listeners, Jesus engaged in a poetic discourse that spoke to the heart of those who would listen. In a world where people believe they are not hungry, we must not offer food but rather an aroma that helps them desire the food we cannot provide. We are people born from a response to hints of the divine. Not only this but we must embrace the idea that we are called to be hints of the divine...God is not revealed via our words but rather via the life of the transformed individual."
"Instead of offering a scientific explanation that would convince, or publicizing the miracles so as to compel his listeners, Jesus engaged in a poetic discourse that spoke to the heart of those who would listen. In a world where people believe they are not hungry, we must not offer food but rather an aroma that helps them desire the food we cannot provide. We are people born from a response to hints of the divine. Not only this but we must embrace the idea that we are called to be hints of the divine...God is not revealed via our words but rather via the life of the transformed individual."
Saturday, 22 August 2009
Summer Reading #1
I think what I’ll do is just talk about each of the books and then do a final blog to sum up and look at the big “So What?” question.
First up - "How (Not) to Speak of God" Peter Rollins.
Peter Rollins is a lecturer in philosophy and founder of “Ikon”, a community of spiritual practice in Belfast. The book reflects both of these aspects and is in 2 parts – the first a more philosophical discussion about God and the second outlines 10 Ikon services. Ikon are working to create a space for people to explore issues of faith and encounter God and they employ "Christian narrative" working from the principle that "only God can give God". They seek to deconstruct ideas of God in an effort to "rediscover the place of mystery in faith". They also deal with subjects such as uncertainly, absence and transcendence. The services outlined are interesting. What is also interesting is that all the books I read have an element of dealing with the big philosophical issues of God, but seeking to relate this to actual practice - "what does/would it look like"
The first half of the book deals with how we think and speak about God -
First up - "How (Not) to Speak of God" Peter Rollins.
Peter Rollins is a lecturer in philosophy and founder of “Ikon”, a community of spiritual practice in Belfast. The book reflects both of these aspects and is in 2 parts – the first a more philosophical discussion about God and the second outlines 10 Ikon services. Ikon are working to create a space for people to explore issues of faith and encounter God and they employ "Christian narrative" working from the principle that "only God can give God". They seek to deconstruct ideas of God in an effort to "rediscover the place of mystery in faith". They also deal with subjects such as uncertainly, absence and transcendence. The services outlined are interesting. What is also interesting is that all the books I read have an element of dealing with the big philosophical issues of God, but seeking to relate this to actual practice - "what does/would it look like"
The first half of the book deals with how we think and speak about God -
“That which we cannot speak of is the one thing about whom and to whom we must never stop speaking".
Rollins looks at this issue that "God" is unspeakable, that we try to "colonize" the name God with concepts. The tension we deal with is between faith and theology;
Rollins looks at this issue that "God" is unspeakable, that we try to "colonize" the name God with concepts. The tension we deal with is between faith and theology;
"Our fragile faith is fanned into life in the wake of what we believe to have been the incoming of a life-giving encounter in which we feel connected with, and transformed by, the source of everything that is...such faith cannot be reduced to the mere affirmation of religious dogma, a regular visit to some religious institution or the reciting of mechanical prayers. For Christians testify to being caught up in and engulfed by that which utterly transcends them".
"Theology...is that which attempts to come to grips with this life-giving experience...here the source of our desire is rendered into an (intellectual) object that we can reflect upon"
Rollins talks about looking to the Christian Mystics as part of the solution to this dilemma;
"Instead of viewing the unspeakable as that which brings all language to a halt, they realized that the unspeakable was precisely the place where the most inspiring language began".
The book is challenging and thought provoking, using parables and stories to illustrate points. It's the kind of book that I can get very excited about because the book begins to create space for me to engage with what I believe about God but in a way that is not dogmatic. I think part of this journey I'm on is to deconstruct myself as a Christian. I want to be a different kind of Christian, I don't want to be inauthentic. I think some of the attraction of the books I read over the summer is that they give me permission to feel more comfortable in my own skin - it's OK to ask questions and maybe view some things differently from the mainstream. Not the kind of Christian that is completely certain, but someone who can live with uncertainty and ambiguity. Again this is not an intellectual exercise because what I found fascinating is that I had this exact conversation with Matt on the streets one Saturday night along the lines that Rollins outlines
"The argument is made that naming God is never really naming God but only naming our understanding of God"
That's pretty much what Matt said and actually, I agreed with him, how can the finite mind grasp the infinite? All of our talk of God can only be mediated through our limited intellect; we do reduce God to a set of propositions. That’s the way our minds work – we categorise things. which makes it very difficult for us to see things with fresh eyes, but Rollins (like Rahner - I know I keep going on about him!) helps us to do just that. He illustrates it with the rabbit duck illusion - you can either see a rabbit or a duck but we can't just see the lines devoid of the rabbit or duck.
"Theology...is that which attempts to come to grips with this life-giving experience...here the source of our desire is rendered into an (intellectual) object that we can reflect upon"
Rollins talks about looking to the Christian Mystics as part of the solution to this dilemma;
"Instead of viewing the unspeakable as that which brings all language to a halt, they realized that the unspeakable was precisely the place where the most inspiring language began".
The book is challenging and thought provoking, using parables and stories to illustrate points. It's the kind of book that I can get very excited about because the book begins to create space for me to engage with what I believe about God but in a way that is not dogmatic. I think part of this journey I'm on is to deconstruct myself as a Christian. I want to be a different kind of Christian, I don't want to be inauthentic. I think some of the attraction of the books I read over the summer is that they give me permission to feel more comfortable in my own skin - it's OK to ask questions and maybe view some things differently from the mainstream. Not the kind of Christian that is completely certain, but someone who can live with uncertainty and ambiguity. Again this is not an intellectual exercise because what I found fascinating is that I had this exact conversation with Matt on the streets one Saturday night along the lines that Rollins outlines
"The argument is made that naming God is never really naming God but only naming our understanding of God"
That's pretty much what Matt said and actually, I agreed with him, how can the finite mind grasp the infinite? All of our talk of God can only be mediated through our limited intellect; we do reduce God to a set of propositions. That’s the way our minds work – we categorise things. which makes it very difficult for us to see things with fresh eyes, but Rollins (like Rahner - I know I keep going on about him!) helps us to do just that. He illustrates it with the rabbit duck illusion - you can either see a rabbit or a duck but we can't just see the lines devoid of the rabbit or duck.
One of the things I'm not comfortable with as a Christian is doctrinaire approach to evangelism - I liked the following quote;
"The dialogue replaces the standard monologue of those who would wish to either clone the other, making them into a reflection of themselves, or exclude the other, making them into a scapegoat who embodies all our fears and insecurities. ...The alternative is not relativistic acceptance of every position but rather a dialogue in which we treat everyone we meet as an individual who we can learn from and perhaps teach..
(We) can engage in a genuine dialogue in which we are prepared to rethink in relation to what the other says (instead of inauthentic dialogue in which one pretends to be open to the insights of another, but in reality one is not prepared to place one's own thinking into question). Rather than being a sign of weakness, this powerless approach is a sign of strength, for one is committed to the idea that if we genuinely seek truth from above, we will not be given a lie, for God will not give scorpions to the one who seeks bread."
A last thought from Rollins
"How many of us have learnt too late that our initial idea, that by serving the world we will help bring God to others, has eclipsed the wisdom that in serving the world we find God there."
That's something I am coming to understand more and more.
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Fundamentals (not to be confused in any way shape or form with fundamentalism) and Summer Reading
Just to recap - cos it's good to reflect and restate what you're about sometimes - I talk a lot about this journey I'm on (all-be-it with a few detours along the route to discuss cats, moonwalks, Twilight, David Tennant and other less obviously related issues - although to my mind it's all part of the whole and it's not a linear journey anyway) after all this blog is about being Christian in the culture and time in which I find myself and it's about asking myself the question about what therefore "church" means in this context. It's about trying to work out how being a person of faith intersects with people around me who are not people of faith...
So why does it matter? Because I do believe that there is a God who loves and communicates with us all and that people are not necessarily thinking about God or asking the big questions of life and meaning; that there is a call to live differently to eschew consumerism, superficiality, celebrity obsession and to live justly and righteously; that how we live does have an impact on the world for good or evil; that the Kingdom of God is a reality that we need to live; that the Kingdom was and is and is to come; that God's invitation rather than narrowing our lives and making us petty and unthinking (we just accept everything 'by faith' right - which means we've never had an intellectual thought in our heads - we're actually just people who are still living in the dark ages before the enlightenment and science set us free from all this superstitious mumbo jumbo - OK maybe I'm taking Ian Bell, Ian McWhirter and Alan Taylor in the Herald too seriously - maybe I'm just being defensive) God's love and self communication invites all of us to something better, individuals, communities, nations, all of creation. God's love is transformative and that puts a responsibility on the Christian to live like it's true. Christianity was always a challenge to empire and power, it was always prophetic in the biggest sense, counter cultural and counter intuitive - (see the Sermon on the Mount if you need that confirmed).
The point of this blog is to challenge me, to make me accountable; it's thinking out loud and sharing the journey in case anyone happens across it and is maybe is in the same place, struggling with the same issues. It's not an intellectual journey (cos it's too easy to dismiss it as that) more a thinking journey but with some very clear issues of practice which for me are highlighted by conversations with people like Aaron and Matt and Stephen on the streets.
I'm going to have a look over the next few blogs at my summer reading so I'm getting the stuff about intellectualism out of the way first because it might look like that at first glance.
Here are the books - I'll be back.....
So why does it matter? Because I do believe that there is a God who loves and communicates with us all and that people are not necessarily thinking about God or asking the big questions of life and meaning; that there is a call to live differently to eschew consumerism, superficiality, celebrity obsession and to live justly and righteously; that how we live does have an impact on the world for good or evil; that the Kingdom of God is a reality that we need to live; that the Kingdom was and is and is to come; that God's invitation rather than narrowing our lives and making us petty and unthinking (we just accept everything 'by faith' right - which means we've never had an intellectual thought in our heads - we're actually just people who are still living in the dark ages before the enlightenment and science set us free from all this superstitious mumbo jumbo - OK maybe I'm taking Ian Bell, Ian McWhirter and Alan Taylor in the Herald too seriously - maybe I'm just being defensive) God's love and self communication invites all of us to something better, individuals, communities, nations, all of creation. God's love is transformative and that puts a responsibility on the Christian to live like it's true. Christianity was always a challenge to empire and power, it was always prophetic in the biggest sense, counter cultural and counter intuitive - (see the Sermon on the Mount if you need that confirmed).
The point of this blog is to challenge me, to make me accountable; it's thinking out loud and sharing the journey in case anyone happens across it and is maybe is in the same place, struggling with the same issues. It's not an intellectual journey (cos it's too easy to dismiss it as that) more a thinking journey but with some very clear issues of practice which for me are highlighted by conversations with people like Aaron and Matt and Stephen on the streets.
I'm going to have a look over the next few blogs at my summer reading so I'm getting the stuff about intellectualism out of the way first because it might look like that at first glance.
Here are the books - I'll be back.....
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Christian Ethics
So I have found myself pondering some deep spiritual questions while I've been on holiday and I guess the one which is exercising me most at the moment is - "what is the moral and ethical stance one needs to take as a Christian, when one is in receipt of (what my husband terms) "a free cat"". That is to say, a cat which has adopted you, which hangs out with you all day and evening, a cat which has miaowed conversations with you where you swear you can actually tell what it is saying, which you really like having around but - and this is where the "free" bit comes in - you don't have to feed or pay vets bills for and who actually belongs to someone else.
Cat - cos that is what we call him, not actually knowing his real name, is now a permanent fixture. He's there first thing when you wake up and come down stairs, he likes to sit on the couch beside you and snooze when you're reading, he follows you around, he sits on your lap when you watch telly. Even when he goes outside it's usually to sit on your window sill watching you or on the chairs in your back garden.
The slightly difficult times are when Cat is sitting on your lap or snuggled up next to you and the neighbours, who actually own Cat, walk passed your window. We don't know these neighbours at all - and maybe that's the thing which should be exercising me as a Christian - but what do you do - go to their door and explain that their cat is now hanging out in your house from first thing till - and this is particularly difficult - you pick him up from the couch and put his little furry self out of your back door at 10.30 p.m. into the dark and cold (well it is August in Scotland) in the hope that he'll head home. We still have the back door open a lot because it is still quite muggy so it's difficult to stop Cat coming in. And what if - this is the worst thing - the neighbours object to him coming in our house and ask us to stop - because it's too late now - we are all really attached to him.
Ah well - as always, suggestions and comments welcomed!
Cat - cos that is what we call him, not actually knowing his real name, is now a permanent fixture. He's there first thing when you wake up and come down stairs, he likes to sit on the couch beside you and snooze when you're reading, he follows you around, he sits on your lap when you watch telly. Even when he goes outside it's usually to sit on your window sill watching you or on the chairs in your back garden.
The slightly difficult times are when Cat is sitting on your lap or snuggled up next to you and the neighbours, who actually own Cat, walk passed your window. We don't know these neighbours at all - and maybe that's the thing which should be exercising me as a Christian - but what do you do - go to their door and explain that their cat is now hanging out in your house from first thing till - and this is particularly difficult - you pick him up from the couch and put his little furry self out of your back door at 10.30 p.m. into the dark and cold (well it is August in Scotland) in the hope that he'll head home. We still have the back door open a lot because it is still quite muggy so it's difficult to stop Cat coming in. And what if - this is the worst thing - the neighbours object to him coming in our house and ask us to stop - because it's too late now - we are all really attached to him.
Ah well - as always, suggestions and comments welcomed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)