Biblioblogs, SBL, internet Evangelism, E-church, St Pixels

Made it back into the top 50 biblioblogs after a serious absence. Biblioblogs are varied and informative. I am developing a course on Women's encounters with Jesus through the gospel of John, amongst other things and discovered an entire bibioblog dedicated to 'The Pericope Adulterae' the other day, which will come in useful in helping me to keep the course up-to-date with the latest thinking on this pericope as time goes by.

There is this concern that some of have about how to keep up our academic studies once we are embroiled in parish life. Biblioblogs had been on my horizons for a long time.  I am glad to be able to keep up to date with some of the latest thinking in Biblical studies. On my latest horizons has been SBL. Their journal has some good offerings and I think I feel 'at one' with their theological take on things. I realise that with serious bibioblogging and SBL, you need to develop a speciality and I am wondering what shape this might take in the future.

There is a real challenge involved in keeping up to date with all of this stuff. But it's a good challenge.

It will not go away so I guess it's here to stay.

Made a contact over the CREC Peterborough thing with Stephen Goddard, and looking at his website and all the stuff he's involved in is energising, it all proves that internet evangelism is here to stay.

Then there are those long conversations you can have over the net about faith and life. I spoke for over an hour tonight with a certain well-known Unitarian blogger, who whilst his artistic impressions of my countenance leave a lot to be desired, proves to be an interesting theological debating partner. I should probably take up a hobby and go out and play squash or something, but there you go...maybe one day.

BBC piccies Clergy fashion

It took me a while to work out why people kept referencing Star Trek. Think I might need to rethink..."Beam me up Stotty!" (h/t Graham Richards)

Go here to see other piccies from the BBC.

Don't worry about giving me your opinion!

Did Jesus need to be tortured to death?

I work on answering this question over the next ten days. This means every moment in which I do not have to be doing other things, I will be studying atonement theology. We have to imagine we are answering this question posed in the forum of a cafe church. We are to engage with the post-modern angst which generates such a question as this one. Quite frankly, I can understand why it arises. I have to give an answer in seven minutes, explaining what happened at the cross, perhaps unpacking the cultural conditions that give rise to the question in the first place, probably discussing to some extent what 'torture' is and why it is that Christians do not think that Jesus was tortured in the sense of being a passive victim, covering perhaps also that if this thinking is there, how do we articulate who the perpetrator might be.

I am very much at the beginning of this exercise, excuse me if my initial thoughts are already full of flaws. I wrote a kind of defence of Penal Substitutionary atonement a few years ago as an academic exercise, wanting to get inside the thinking of those who were stimulating my interest in biblical studies: the John Pipers, Don Carsons and conservative evangelicals of this world. It was very rooted in the 'plain reading' of the biblical picture. I have since begun to appreciate that 'plain readings' are anything but plain and reading are conditioned by the presuppositions of the enquirers, the questions which they arrive with and find answers for conditioning the answers that arise, and that interpretations are culturally conditioned. In some ways I am left worse off because gone are the easy days of my evangelical first naivety, for want of a better way of putting it, when I simply said - 'the Bible tells me so.' I have come of age, so to speak, in perhaps a way that makes life a little more complicated now.

At eleven years of age, I first understood what Jesus had gone through for me (oops - that's an overly individualised sentiment according to Garry Williams, (I was eleven!) and I must admit finding it incredibly shocking. I also felt a bit over-protected by a family who had spared me the in depth discussions about the pain Jesus must have gone through. It is not strange that I should revisit all of this. I have come to understand that the same mysteries that grab us somewhere deep continue to resurface.

I feel slightly overwhelmed by the task ahead but also strangely drawn to it. This horror about what happened at the cross is bound to come up in Parish life over and over again and when I re-enter that world outside theological college in that new role, I will possibly, more likely probably, be expected to formulate some kind of an answer.

It might even seem shocking to some of you that this is something to be debated, surely future vicars have this one nailed, pardon the pun, do they not? Well, it just goes to show you how much a product we are these days of the interpretative fixations, hypothesisings and ponderings that are a sign of our postmodernism, more surprising still, is perhaps the idea that curiosity about what happened at the cross is not actually a product of the 'now-culture' at all but has provoked debate for the last two millennia.

Wish me luck - not that we believe in that pagan idea, of course!

Anglia Regional News | Anglia Tonight - ITV Local

Anglia Regional News | Anglia Tonight - ITV Local

On TV to promote new clergy attire from Cross Designs with my mate Anna

Around the blogosphere

Marriage

This makes for good reading.

To follow through on responses to the Harvard journal contribution to the debate see here

Peter Ould continues to apply his thinking here

Preparation for debates/presentations at St John's College

Hooray for my sending Church!!

See here Ship of Fools site

St Nicholas, Allestree, Derby

Mystery Worshipper:The Revelator. The church:St Nicholas, Allestree, Derby, England.Denomination:Church of England,Diocese of Derby. The building:A 1950s red brick church exterior and an airy white interior. Inside is quite square, with white walls and rafters. Directly as you go in there are the pews, then an area at the front of the church separated off by rails with the communion table at the centre. This was dressed in a nice cream 1970s-style altar cloth. There were no candles on the table, just a flower arrangement. At the back of the church in the centre there was a medium sized hall/creche area. Toward the left there was a font, notice boards (up to date) and an area with the toilets.The church:The church runs an Alpha course, several children's groups for various ages, and has several mid-week groups for members to participate in.The neighbourhood:Derby is a city in the East Midlands, in the middle of England. The church is centrally located, in walking distance from the main campus of the University of Derby and Derby Cathedral. Nearby Derby Museum contains a masterpiece by Joseph Wright, the famous 18th-century Derby landscape artist, as well as a genuine Egyptian mummy.The cast:The service was led by the vicar, the Revd William Bates, assisted by the associate priest, the Revd Jill Needle. Her husband, Jon Needle, led a worship group of five musicians. Christmas Day, 25 December 2010, 10.00am. What was the name of the service? Christmas All-Age Service. How full was the building? There were approximately 80 people, which made the church full but not bursting. Did anyone welcome you personally? Yes, a lady gave me a hymn sheet and showed me to a gap in the seating. Was your pew comfortable? Must have been as I didn't really notice it. How would you describe the pre-service atmosphere? Nice and lively. There were a lot of families there energising the place. What were the exact opening words of the service? "Merry Christmas!" What books did the congregation use during the service? A pre-printed booklet. What musical instruments were played? Three acoustic guitars, an electric bass, and a violin. Did anything distract you? The low contrast on the video screen required an effort of concentration. Was the worship stiff-upper-lip, happy clappy, or what? Very much on the happy-clappy end of things. No procession, ministers in shirts and suits. The service was a family worship, so a bit of a hymn sandwich. It was Christmas, so it may have been slightly different from normal, but there was a pass-the-parcel exercise, which involved peeling off layers to reveal a Bible reading, and a film clip of the kings from the East, and genuine clapping during the songs. All the congregation (including the children) appeared pleased to be there and sang with enthusiasm. Exactly how long was the sermon? 20 minutes. On a scale of 1-10, how good was the preacher? 7 – The sermon was more a kind of minimalist question and answer session involving the congregation, especially the children, and the vicar walked around the church doing this. Props such as presents were used frequently. In a nutshell, what was the sermon about? What were the gifts that Jesus gave to the world? Love, life, joy and hope. Which part of the service was like being in heaven? The music and singing, the bright airy interior and the general friendliness and enthusiasm of everyone. Proper coffee and chocolates. And which part was like being in... er... the other place? The video screen, as noted above. And during the pass the parcel section, the parcel was being thrown around with some vigour and inadvertently hit a lady in the face. She had to flee to the back of the church, although she did rejoin later! What happened when you hung around after the service looking lost? I was led to the tables where coffee and special chocolates were waiting for us! How would you describe the after-service coffee? Very nice, and caffeinated, which was good. Being Christmas, it was served with lots of extra biscuits and the above-mentioned chocolates. How would you feel about making this church your regular (where 10 = ecstatic, 0 = terminal)? 8 – If I lived nearer it would be a contender. Did the service make you feel glad to be a Christian? Yes. What one thing will you remember about all this in seven days' time? The friendly enthusiasm.  CONGRATULATIONS!!

Perhaps all this thinking about marriage begins from the wrong starting point

Sarah Coakley is Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. When she was the Mallinckrodt Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School, "Ecclesiastical Sex Scandals: The Lack of a Contemporary Theology of Desire," was presented as the Reynolds Lecture at Princeton University on April 28, 2005.

Sarah Coakley considers Gregory of Nyssa's 'de virginitate' and how 'Gregory presents to us in this unique text ...a vision of desire, and its right ordering in relation to God...the choice is about what the final telos of one's desire is.'

She cuts across the 'disjunctive theological opinions (conservative vs. liberal)... "Conservatives" here, of course, tend to have recourse either to biblical injunctions that they take to be unambiguous, or to magisterial authority... "Liberals," in contrast, tend to suggest, overbearingly, that they know better, in the light of modern psychological theory, than anything that Bible or tradition or authority could disclose to them.

She has us consider our obsession with discussing homosexuality to the detriment of attention to increasing divorce rates and the increasing numbers of singe-parent families:

'homoeroticism has become sufficiently open to discussion to be dissected publicly, and emotively, in the news media (and then either condoned or condemned); yet it is insufficiently integrated into a general discussion of "desire" to make comparisons with heterosexual patterns of behavior a worthy topic of sustained theological reflection.'

What Coakley does is cause us to consider less, as Goddard would put it, that sexual expression is for mutual comfort too, and not always pocreative: 'a good tied by God to his good gift of marriage' (Goddard, Homosexuality and The Church of England, p. 10) but that moreover, desire finds its fullest satisfaction in God or as Coakley puts it 'rightly ordered desire. In other words—and this is surely a point of great spiritual significance for today—right-channeled Eros ... is impossible without deep prayer ...'

She suggests that is how we might assess both heterosexual and homosexual desire: 'by the... exacting standards of progressive non-attachment and ascetical transformation. Then, I submit, homoerotic desire could potentially be released from its cultural, and biblical, associations with libertarianism, promiscuity, and disorder.'

She believes it is challenging to do this kind of 'rethinking...in an age of instantly commodified desire and massive infidelity...'

She suggests this is 'another mode of discussion that could cut creatively across the established ecclesial battle lines...'

...so another take on the whole shaboodle to explore.

I am being encouraged to read Tobias Haller, 'Reasonable and Holy'.There are a series of essays on his website 
01. Where the Division Lies
02. Pro-Creation
03. True Union (1)
04. True Union (2)
05. True Union (3)
06. Clash of Symbols
07. Remedial Reading
08. Scripture (1)
09. Scripture (2)

There is also perhaps a challenge in this for someone with more time than I currently have. According to the recommendee 'not a single person has succeeded to demolish a single one of his [Haller's] arguments...'

Goes together like a horse and carriage

I continue to think about marriage. I discussed the idea with my mum today and I continue to talk to friends and colleagues and keep scouring the blogs. One blogger points our attention to a very helpful article published by The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

My academic work is embroiled in biblical Law at the moment as I write an essay on the development of biblical Law across Exodus and Deuteronomy and compare it to contemporaneous Ancient Near Eastern legal treaties. For blogging, I am hoping to gen up a bit on legal definitions of marriage, particularly considering that they might be changing in the not too distant future.

I am beginning to understand that biblical law adapted itself to the new contexts people found themselves in and I am wondering whether our definitions of marriage will adapt.

So the secular Harvard Journal can speak into this religious question about what constitutes marriage.


... there is no general right to marry the person you love,  if  this  means  a  right  to  have  any  type  of  relationship  that  you  desire recognized as marriage. There is only a presumptive right not to be prevented from forming a real marriage wherever one is  possible.  And,  again,  the  state  cannot  choose  or  change  the  essence of real marriage; so in radically reinventing legal marriage, the state would obscure a moral reality. 



As  many  people  acknowledge,  marriage  involves:  first,  a comprehensive  union  of  spouses;  second,  a  special  link  to  children;  and  third,  norms  of  permanence,  monogamy,  and exclusivity. All  three  elements  point  to  the  conjugal  understanding of marriage. 

...Suppose that Michael and Michelle build their relationship not on sexual exclusivity, but on tennis exclusivity.  They  pledge  to  play  tennis  with  each  other,  and only  with  each  other,  until  death  do  them  part.  Are  they thereby married? No. Substitute for tennis any nonsexual activity  at  all,  and  they  still  aren’t  married:  Sexual  exclusivity—exclusivity  with  respect  to  a  specific  kind  of  bodily  union—is required. But what is it about sexual intercourse that makes it uniquely capable of creating bodily union? People’s bodies can touch and interact in all sorts of ways, so why does only sexual union make bodies in any significant sense “one flesh”?  

   

Our organs—our heart and stomach, for example—are parts of  one  body  because  they  are  coordinated,  along  with  other parts,  for  a common  biological  purpose  of  the whole:  our  biological  life.  It  follows  that  for  two  individuals  to  unite  organically,  and  thus  bodily,  their  bodies  must  be  coordinated  for  some biological purpose of the whole. 

...  individual  adults  are  naturally  incomplete with respect to one biological function: sexual reproduction. ...a man and a woman’s bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. They perform the first step of the complex reproductive process. Thus, their bodies become, in a strong sense, one—they are biologically united...the whole  is  made  up  of  the  man  and  woman  as  a  couple,  and  the biological good of that whole is their reproduction. 

...   Because  interpersonal  unions  are  valuable  in  themselves,  and not merely as means to other ends, a husband and wife’s loving bodily  union  ...[is] valuable whether or not conception results and  even  when  conception  is  not  sought.  But  two  men  or  two women cannot achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily  good  or  function  toward  which  their  bodies  can  coordinate...This  is  a  clear  sense  in which their union cannot be marital, if marital means comprehensive and comprehensive means, among other things, bodily. 

Download the article here.

For more on this from The Catholic National Weekly read here
Even though marriage has a civil dimension -- tax, property, and so on -- which it is proper for the state to regulate, marriage is not, and has never been, an institution created by the state, or pertaining to the state, even when it is recognized and supported by the state. In all cultures, in all times, marriage exists as a means of providing a means of protecting and providing for children; it is a "sacred" institution, in the sense that it involves rituals, invocations and blessings. It antecedes the state. It belongs properly to the civil sphere. In Christian cultures, it is also underpinned by a theology, one that sees the union of a man and a woman for the good of children as embodying something of God's own covenant with His people.

Keep on listening says Richard Hooker

Richard Hooker! He helps us in a church without a tight confessional doctrinal package.

We have the 39 articles, the confessional creeds of four councils, a book of Common Prayer, or Common Worship, (which does not quite replace the prayer book) and a lectionary so that we might read the Scriptures together and in order. We also have the ordinal to govern the ceremonies pertaining to the offices.

Richard Hooker's was a generous orthodoxy in which he argued that those mistaken were unlikely to be damned. He insisted very much on something rather akin to indaba - a listening process, so that we might all learn from each other and together. He was less antagonistic and more optimistic. Scripture is infallible but it doesn't pertain to governing every detail of our life with prescription, we need reason to work out how our lives might be led according to the supernatural duties of scripture. We understand what is morally right by looking at human nature as God has created it. Hooker is less enthusiastic about tradition and holds fast to the supremacy of Scripture but he expects us to be thinking beings and rather like Tom Wright's five act play idea, asks that we work out how the church conducts itself based on what has been revealed to us by God with the understanding that the church will change as it adapts to new times and different cultures. There are, of course, some absolutes, particularly pertaining to salvation.

I have a feeling that his method will impact my thinking regarding what today threatens to pull the church apart. Forces are not coming in at us from the outside as they did at the Reformation, Puritans on the one hand and Catholics on the other but from the inside. Factions within the church disagree over the ordination/consecration of women and the place of those in same-sex relations. I wonder what Hooker's Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity reveal about what his stance would have been on these two issues and what he would have proposed as solutions. 

Even if these debates can at times make us miserable, (in Hooker's words) one thing's for sure:

... we are happy, therefore, when fully we enjoy God, as an object wherein the powers of our souls are satisfied even with the everlasting delight; so that although we be man, yet by being unto God united we live as it were the life of God.

Indaba-do's and indaba-don'ts

I have been giving some thought to listening lately, which involves listening to my own thoughts, trying to discern my motivations, listening to God, quite challenging at times, no, perhaps always, and listening to others and not in that order - well, there is no order really, thinking doesn't usually involve order, praying might, but praying over a period of time, is usually quite a messy affair, or at least it is in my experience.

I think I have been taken aback somewhat by my feelings regarding reaction to my thoughts about marriage and how I define it. For some reason, I have always had problems spelling that word. I remember spelling it incorrectly every time I discussed it in an English essay once when I was an A level student. I always put the a and i the wrong way around. I still sometimes have to correct my spelling of the word 'marriage'. Putting the 'I' into marriage now is not about me being fully present in my marriage, I hope I am that - challenging as it is at times. I think putting the 'I' into the word now involves me taking some time to really learn to articulate carefully and with grace what I think marriage is.

On another blog, my views about marriage were regarded as narrow-minded and only worthy of ignoring. What I want to learn to do is listen whilst at the same time being true to what I think, without articulating anything other than an openness and I am finding it challenging.

I have been reading around a little in search of some help and I came across the following which I quote below. I know that my biggest failing is a fear that in my own mess-ups I might put a stumbling-block in someone's way to Jesus. In part this is a problem of ego, God can work around my mess-ups because he invites me to work with him but he doesn't rely on me. I have often been very struck by Paul's wanting to be all things to all people and at one time I think I used this as an excuse. I see that today's culture affirms freedom of choice and human rights but that we also need to concern ourselves moreover with our responsibilities to each other and God. Under pressure to do the most 'loving' thing I confuse love with tolerance: the 'great virtue' of our times. Caught up in cultural relativism, I think I am promoting happiness when I affirm freedom of choice but I know we do not always make the right choices.

...I also read...


     Though his primary concern was how to persuade people from diverse backgrounds to embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 9:12, 23), Paul, nonetheless, embodies a principle common to all who would provide leadership to a community comprised of a multiplicitous collection of rigid truth claims and
behaviors. A leader must construct bridges both of understanding and of persuasion in such settings.

Paul, however, does not want to engage in matters that “don’t count.” For him the gospel was central, and he would not become involved with anything that would hinder the persuasive power of the gospel.

By implication, he shows something else foundational to effective leadership: core convictions. A leader must be proved to understand the views of others and to learn of them with a sensitive ear. In such a way, the power to persuade is enhanced. The leader, nevertheless, does not exercise a capacity to lead in a conviction vacuum. Just as in Paul’s example, listening to others does not inculcate a dismissal of what are core beliefs. David E. Garland correctly observes that Paul’s accommodation has nothing to do with watering down the gospel message, soft-pedaling its ethical demands, or compromising its absolute monotheism. Paul never modified the message of Christ crucified to make it less of a scandal to Jews or less foolish to Greeks. The preacher of the changeless gospel could adapt himself, however, to changing audiences in seeking their ultimate welfare, their salvation.  Themelios 33:2

So I can not live in a conviction vacuum and if someone can show me otherwise, I will listen, I really will but for now, I can not help but think that marriage is between a man and a woman. Is it really going to become so outrageous to think this? If I turn to the Church of England's teaching on Issues in Human Sexuality, I discover that Issues in Human Sexuality is a rather ambiguous statement of the Church's stance. It describes how homosexual relationships are not faithful to a God-given sexual expression but that those who feel called to this way of life should be accepted... (point 5.6). It concludes that sexually active homosexuals within the Church 'would be seen as placing that way of life in all respects on a par with heterosexual marriage' and it 'cannot accept such a parity and remain faithful to the insights which God has given it through Scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience.' What it fails to do is lay out pastoral guidelines for churches working their way through these issues on the ground. Lambeth 1.10 sets a moratorium on the consecration of same-sex partnered clergy. However, it fails to give a clear ruling for other people in the church. This opens up debate about whether there should be a different set of expectations for clergy. Shouldn't all Christians seek to transform themselves into the same pattern of Christ-likeness, without a hierarchical ascendency of pre-requisites dependent on position in the church?

Does the Bible help?

Christians read the story of their lives within the overarching biblical meta-narrative but also live in a post-modern society which embraces a fluidity of meanings. As a consequence there is no consensus on homosexuality. Traditionalists regard those who affirm same-sex blessings, and church leaders in same-sex relationships, as supporting innovations which are scripturally disobedient. Lambeth 2008 lost 214 bishops to Gafcon because of a refusal by some to break bread with those amongst them who supported TEC's consecration of the homosexual priest Gene Robinson. Quite often Revisionists are accused of reading the Bible through a post-modern, culturally relativistic lens and traditionalists are accused of reading it through a lens also contaminated by culture, a lens infected by a type of sub-conscious homophobia.

If Biblical analysis leaves Christians in a spin, can philosophy, sociology or psychology help? I do not know. What about the ultimate idea that Reductio as absurdum, (if we applied Kant's categorical imperative to the dilemma) if homosexuality was thought good for everyone, everywhere, humankind would die out. Could it be that God has written the laws of marriage into the very fabric of existence even without the written word?

Ultimately, perhaps this will become a distinctive belief, this belief in marriage being between a woman and a man in the world and the church. I suppose what is difficult, is that other Christians share the same ideas as the world that marriage can be between members of the same sex. What I want to know is does that mean there is a different theology regarding what Christian marriage is. I think that marriage echoes the covenant between God and his children Israel in the Old Testament and Jesus and the Church in the New Testament. Sexual expression is for mutual comfort too, and not always pocreative, and is 'a good tied by God to his good gift of marriage' (Goddard, Homosexuality and The Church of England, p. 10) because it is something pleasing to God as two complementary humans become 'one flesh' and reflect God's perfect community of Father, Son and Holy spirit. Male and female together reflect the Godhead (Image dei). This pattern for relationships was established at our creation.

Reform have released their response today to the issues that have surfaced again as a result of the proposed equality laws. Their statement is reasonable, I think. Christian pontificating about marriage is often however about the ideal and married people are called too to inspect their conduct and wonder whether in their relationship they are loving each other as God would have them love each other. Heterosexuals also fail to embrace God's ordained sexual ethic.

So there you are, I navigate my way through the issues and ask for a little help from my friends.

See Thinking Anglicans for more on all of this

Ministry and Motherhood conference

Click the title for the link
or
Download flyer/booking form here

Described this way:

A day conference with Revd Dr Emma Percy exploring the theological, missional, ministerial and practical implications of this relatively un–visited topic. Emma’s writing and research explores the interface of mothering and ministry and how that dialogue can inform and enrich our self-understanding and ministerial practice.

This conference is not just for women clergy/ministers with children but for anyone – male and female, married and single – who wants to think about the impact of this theme in the Church and wider society.

This came to my attention through the "Clergy mummies" facebook page. This group has attracted 113 members now and has grown very quickly over just a few weeks. There are a great many of us in ministry within the Church of England who have small children. Some of us have husbands who have taken on the main carer roles in terms of school runs and housework. I wonder if over the coming years, we will see more support/social/faith groups for men whose wives are church leaders.

Righteouness by faith in Christ or the faithfulness of Christ to us?

We are looking at Romans with Dr Mark Bonnington.

There are different readings of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22.

...know that a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

.....know that a person is not justified by observing the law, but by the faithfulness of Christ.

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Christ to all who believe.




Try placing 'the faithfulness of Christ' for 'faith in Christ' and there are subtle differences. Hayes and NT Wright prefer this rendering and therein emphasise the historic work of Christ rather than the personal work of Christ - our faith in Christ.

Our faith in Christ or Christ's faithfulness to us? The ambiguity is there in the Greek.

The early church fathers rendered it the first way. 

Love this from Erika Baker

...the collective testimony of people who all experience the "purely subjective" and grapple to put it into words

.... something real can be found in [the] subjective.

... a professor of music ... knows all the theory better than I ever will but ... has never listened to a single note, never actually heard a piece being played. Who speaks of “linguistic work having already been done” as if that said anything meaningful about the tunes being played.

And in some respects, I'm full of admiration, because I certainly would not have spent years of my life trying to understand the theory of something that isn't actually real to me.

It's not surprising that when the written notes and the theories surrounding the written notes disappear there is nothing left ....

But for those of us who are still in the concert hall, the written notes are entirely incidental to what we're hearing. And when we leave the concert hall and try to describe what we've heard, we find that our language just doesn't do the trick. I mean - how would you describe the second movement of Mozart's clarinet concerto in words? Those who heard it, will understand parts of the clumsy description we might try to make and the clumsy description, the faulty written notes ...

But how do you speak to someone who can only see written notes and who believes the concert to be "purely subjective"?

So your question about why we keep using ancient concepts and ancient language is quite simple: because it works. Because to those who’ve been at the concert, those words and those concepts are what helps them to stay in touch with the music. Because the biblical text we refer to happens to have been written so long ago that its language is, naturally, archaic, and because we discover that while we might read the “Street Bible” or any other of the modern permutations that abound, we find that we’re quite content with the ancient images.

Theological rationale for Fuel Women's Course

Here's the theological rationale behind my course for women who have just had babies and who are rediscovering a walk with God in the new circumstances. My lecturer wryly wonders what might happen to the dads...'how might they relate to their partner's new found, re-fueled faith and spirituality...what support might be given to them...? Perhaps someone can take up that challenge.

Introduction
Matrescence is a term that was coined by anthropologist Dana Raphael in the early 1970s1 to describe the process of becoming a mother. Her consideration of this rite of passage, in which one life is created and another transformed, influenced research into motherhood as spiritual formation. Thomas (2001, 90) describes how, 'matrescence is a time of power, a time when a woman encounters new dimensions of self, relation, and God.' However, in a multi-million pound industry of books, programs and self-help guides for the new mother, the Church of England has done little to specifically facilitate a new mother's spiritual reorientation. Thomas (2001, 91) describes how 'the rite associated with birth is infant baptism or blessing, where the focus is upon infant, not the mother.' The Book of Common Prayer is perhaps fruitful where it offers a liturgical response of 'Thanksgiving of Women after Child-birth , commonly called Churching of Women'.2 However, whilst it seeks to affirm a woman for having 'putteth her trust in thee (God)' and recognises her need, with the plea, 'Be thou to her a strong tower,' it does little to nurture specifically her spiritual development after such a profound life-changing experience. The 5 week course 'Fuel' was written in response to this need.

Women's faith development
Human development theorists seek to grapple with our rites of passage and our discoveries and resistance to change. Piaget and Fowler articulate stages of development. Change is often linear and progress is to spiritual maturity. There is often a sense of evolution rather than progress and its arrest. From the outset, FUEL's investigating group, in their quest to facilitate the change that occurs in new mothers, sought out theories that considered the fluid and the transitional, the place 'between'. It was decided that stages are better plotted on a spiral because people will move in and out of stages. The place of liminality is the most rich for its growth and the questions it raises. Streib (2003, 27) explains how researchers into women's faith formation discover that women experience 'a whirlpool experience of faith.'


Rationale for the course's approach
Baumohl describes the need 'to help adults to see that discipleship is not just about understanding the faith but about learning how to live it...' (my italics). He describes how this 'learning is concerned with change,'(1986:10). Facilitating response to times of change in the human life cycle is a responsibility of the church if we are serious about the Missio Dei and our own story as the people of God to which the biblical narrative bears witness. Brueggemann's articulation of disorientation and reorientation helps women understand their feelings against the biblical backdrop:

The faith of Israel, like all human experience, moved back and forth between the polar moods of... deep anguish and misery and...profound joy and celebration. In this back and forth movement the people of Israel worked out the power and limits of their faith... and brought it to expression (Brueggemann and Miller, 1995, 67).

The 'Fuel' course assumes that each woman is seeking reorientation and has already developed a spiritual discipline prior to becoming a mother. Encountering a kind of dissonance now that life has changed, previous rules of life for quiet time or a sacred space need to be reformulated around the demands of motherhood. It was decided that this dissonance should be explored together so that collectively and individually, women might bring 'to expression' their faith as it is now. Baumohl (1986, 90) describes how,


The strength of the small group is that everybody can be involved. Each person’s experience and resources can be at the disposal of others in the group, and the ‘intimacy’ generated can encourage honest exchange.

Over five weeks women are supported as they revisit scripture from their new point of view, engage in creative prayer and discuss their experiences together.3 Fowler identifies this need for community with the third stage of faith development: Synthetic-conventional faith, but where for many people honest communication is restrained by a desire for conformity and difference is often silenced, FUEL anticipates that matrescent women might be more naturally open. Nicola Slee (2004, 32) describes how 'women's distinctive patterns of faith may not adequately be accounted for by [Fowler's] stages' and FUEL acknowledges with Streib (2003, 26) that 'studies in faith development in women present a strong proposal for revising the definition of faith to include a relational perspective....' This relational orientation is promoted by the course's preference for a kind of heuristic exploration over didactic teaching so that women wrestling with issues of power and self-reformulation can be given opportunities to discover their voice and 'make meaning' together. The name of the course corroborates this. Fuel is an acronym for 'Fellowship and Understanding as we Engage with Life as it is now.' The idea of the present moment and the very 'nowness' of life, as it is experienced with children, is emphasised so that whilst the course facilitates space to lament what once was, and is now lost, it might also engage practically with spiritual needs arising out of the new situation and be a place where women can forge out new spiritual disciplines. These disciplines might include means for resourcing each other through group get-togethers once the course has finished. Creating sustaining fellowship is one of the course's core aims.

Choosing activities for the course

In formulating activities, Fowler's categories of faith development proved interesting. It was decided that matrescent women might tend towards exhibiting Fowler's stage 4 and stage 5 tendencies both because of the actual changes they are experiencing and because the course itself facilitates a level of self-consciousness through reflection and open questions. Fowler explores transition from Stage 4 and individuative-reflective faith to Stage 5's Conjunctive faith and the course seeks to accompany women as they demythologise societal, traditional, religious and historical myths which construct the symbol of ideal mother. Women will have already begun to do this as they have explored a dissonance between the image of motherhood they carried during pregnancy and the reality of mothering in practice. Fowler explains how:


The person of Stage 5 makes her or his own experience of truth the principle by which other claims to truth are tested. But he or she assumes that each genuine perspective will augment and correct aspects of the other, in a mutual movement toward the real and the true. (Fowler J 1981:185).

FUEL aims to facilitate women in a journey towards self-acceptance where identity is understood in terms of its value in God rather than against any system of artificial ideal. Booklets take the women through each week of the course and include space for their own commentary and journalling to reinforce their sense of their ownership of the course.4

Facilitators of the course
Laurie Green calls us to act, reflect and act again so that 'through analysis' an assessment can be made about 'how the Christian faith relates' to experience. The spiral begins again on the implementation of new ways of thinking. (Green, 1990, 24-32) The approach taken by the facilitators of the course must be dialogical, conversational and creative.

Arbuckle (1996, 199) describes how the task of a formator is to lead others on a journey. Formators are to learn from Moses, who allowed people to express their loss and re-articulate a vision, which was for Moses of the promised land, but for new mothers might be transformed relationship with God. FUEL's aim is never to provide answers or create dependency. FUEL's aim is to model ways in which intimacy with God might be rediscovered so that practises might be taken into life beyond the course. Women are encouraged by any participating church to recall original attendees to future planning meetings. In this way as Arbuckle (1996, 199) advocates, 'initiates...train to become refounders'.5 Women can reshape future courses evolving out of their experiences and are encouraged to share with new participants ways in which they benefited from the course. There is also a way to keep constantly in communication with others facilitating and participating in the course, through a blog that should become a community forum as the course grows.6

Conclusion
During FUEL's development, important insights were gained into women's faith development so that the creation of the course itself facilitated my own growth. During the module, I had sensed my own dis-ease with some of Fowler's faith stages. Whilst many of his ideas seemed reasonable, his proposal that with faith development there is also a rise in independence and autonomy did not accord with my experience of the interdependent relationships I share with children and husband. In constructing the course, my colleagues and I came to affirm God's multiple callings on our lives as wives, mothers, priests and friends and appreciate our relational orientation. As we discussed the course together, we discovered how similar our journeys were: three young women, mothers and future priests. We found times together life-giving and painful as we shared openly our struggles and joys. We were amused by Maslow's hierarchy of need and reflected on how motherhood can place you right back at the bottom of the triangle again.7 We were spurred on to respond to experiences like Thomas' who describes how as a new mother she 'stopped attending church services for three years...my church had no "cry room,"(2001, 96).Where Thomas uses “cry-room” to communicate the cries of her off-spring, we envisaged a time in church for the release of our own tears! FUEL suggests the course runs parallel with the main worship service for five weeks with attendees rejoining the church family for refreshments afterwards. In turn, FUEL returns refreshed (refuelled!) and reorientated women to a church that might have started to grow pastorally through its attention to her needs. The church itself can gain from the ways in which women experiencing such transition can teach it about how to journey together to the heart of God.

List of References
Arbuckle, G.A., (1996) From chaos to mission: refounding religious life formation. London: Redwood Books

Baumohl, A., (1986). Making Adult Disciples: Learning and teaching in the local church. London: Scripture Union.

Brueggemann, W. and Miller, P.D. (ed.) (1995). The Psalms and the life of faith, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Fowler, J.W. (1981). Stages of faith : the psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Green, L., (1990). Let’s Do Theology: A Pastoral Cycle Resource Book, England: Mowbray.

Raphael, D., (1976), The Tender Gift, USA:Schocken Books.

Slee, N. (2004). Women's faith development : patterns and processes. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

Streib, H., (2003). 'Faith development research at twenty years'. Developing a public faith: New directions in practical theology, essays in honour of James. W. Fowler, ed. R. R. Osmer, St. Louis: Chalice Press, pp. 15-42

Thomas T., 'Becoming a Mother: Matrescence as Spiritual Formation' Religious Education, Volume 96, Number 1, 1 January 2001 , pp. 88-105(18)

1D., Raphael, (1976), The Tender Gift, USA:Schocken Books. Raphael considers post-partum care from the perspective of various cultures. British individualism does little to embrace the idea that it takes an entire village to raise a child.


2See Book of Common Prayer and 'THE THANKSGIVING OF WOMEN AFTER CHILD-BIRTH COMMONLY CALLED CHURCHING OF WOMEN.' Available online at http://www.vulcanhammer.org/anglican/bcp-1662.pdf

3A description of the course's aims and the program of sessions with one presented in full is included in the Appendix, section A.


4Booklets for each week are included in the Appendix, section B


5Arbuckle's chapter 8 'Formators: Ritual elders of a rite of passage' has been useful background reading supporting our aim to explore rather than teach.


6See BLOG built for the course: http://mumsthe-word.blogspot.com/


7We discovered that whilst we were functioning near to the bottom in terms of our basic needs, our quest for meaning and relationship with God meant that according to Maslow, we were operating at the top of the triangle.

Thinking alike: Eternal Subordination of the Son

See Tim Harris here as he explains with real clarity the relationship within the trinity and its implications.

We can note that there is not reciprocal identity—they are distinct and not to be confused. And without making the error of suggesting that there was a time when the Son did not exist, we also observe the Father is the kephale – source of the Son, and the Son is ‘begotten’ of the Father, while the Spirit ‘proceeds’ from the Father. This much is not the point of this post, but the backdrop to what follows.

While the hot issue is whether the Son’s submission is eternal (and if so, whether this is functional or ontological), I wonder whether the wrong question is being explored. It is less the timeframe of such submission, but how that ‘submission’ is understood. Is it necessarily a hierarchical notion, of command and submission?


H/t Peter Carrell

Happy Valentine's Day - What is marriage?

Listen here

I never thought that I would agree with Rod Thomas, I guess stranger things have happened. I agree with his definition of marriage.

Does gender matter? Is God interested in monogamous, loving relationships? He is. He is but I think that there is more to marriage than this, though.

...so might I be asked to marry a man to a man?

Is this a possibility?

I believe that we should all commit to a monogamous relationship with a legal backing. I think that marriage is a sign pointing to something bigger - Christ and the church and so I think that gay and lesbian partnerships have to be called something else. Marriage conveys the idea of two different genders coming together to commit to one another and have children as a product of their union.

I believe in love. I believe that love will express itself in ways we can not control or contain. It is an expansive and exuberant emotion. It is more than this. It is also about sacrifice and understanding yourself only as you are faced by the 'other,' there is less of this mystical 'otherness' in a same-sex relationship. It is different to marriage.

What do you think?

Top gear

Had such fun today.

Heather Marshall has designed my stoles. Her stuff is fresh and contemporary. My ordination stole expresses the variety and colour of life with God.

I have ordered a green stole with chunky daisy flowers on it and little green buttons - imagine Boden. This one made me think of my little girls and I think it communicates approachable and will appeal to the children in the congregation.

My purple stole is a take on the cross but in sackcloth with different purples and reds and metallic threads. It makes you want to touch it - such a mixture of textures - very tactile.

A black scarf for funerals has a simple cross made up of one embossed metallic thread in silver with an adjacent one in turquoise and the same on the horizontal.

I have chosen a dress to go under my cassock. Hold ups can easily go on after as I change. We will need bare legs under our cassocks for foot-washing.

I have a cream alb for Communion and deaconing at communion; a black cassock with a shocking pink lining with surplis and a simple poncho funeral cape with a purple lining, clean lines, no metal clasps etc


I have ordered three crop tops in T-shirt material - cream, chocolate and cherry to go underneath ordinary clothes and one small daisy print shirt in caramel with little red dots and a black, nipped in at the waist, puff short-sleeve black clergy shirt.

I really recommend Cross Designs Derby who make you feel so feminine and make sure everything fits so nicely and Heather Marshall if you like styles that are fresh, contemporary and arty.

To dunk or sprinkle

There are thoughts that they will change the language of the baptism service to make it more accessible. 

A few months ago I chatted with someone over a St John's lunch who is already ordained and had returned for an in-service study week. When you are sat next to someone doing the job for real, it is always interesting. Ordinands theorise and attempt to get their theology in order. Practical ministry shapes these theories and sorts out the naivities. So, this chatty vicar, ten years a Christian and in his second year of curacy, had found Jesus in the RAF (not literally, but you know what I mean).

He explained how he had entertained his lunch companions the day before with a discussion about infant baptism, which had rather divided his friends, whose minds had not been changed by the end of it. I think he probably wanted to instigate such a conversation on our lunch table but only I was prepared to enter into it. Before it really got established, we were interrupted by lunch-time notices. 

I think I probably hold very uncontroversial opinions about baptism. I will baptise members of the community who desire this, even if they do not yet come to church. I believe that it is a chance for God's grace to win victories and for lives to be won for Christ.

Richard Hooker talks about the church visible and the church invisible. For Hooker, inclusion in the visible church requires baptism and a minimal profession of Christian belief. The invisible church is that ‘church which is his [Christ's] mystical body' because that body 'consisteth of none but only true Israelites, true sons of Abrabam, true servants and saints of God'. For Hooker, the church invisible can only be seen by God, not us. 'They who are of this society have such marks and notes of distinction from all others as are not object unto our sense: only unto God who seeth their hearts and understandeth all their secret cogitations unto him they are clear and manifest.’ If this is the case, who am I to turn anyone away who seeks baptism and why would I value more the decisions of those whom the church has initiated, for whatever the church does to prepare its candidates, God knows the state of our heart. 

The curate I was speaking with warned me that our opinions can change once we are actually in the very practical business of ministry to a community, so I am prepared for this to happen. However, I am also aware that Church of England ministers are not actually allowed to withhold baptism from a family desiring the christening of their child, so in some ways I am relieved that I feel as I do. 

Inviting a family in to the church for this sort of occasion is an opportunity to reach out to them and offer God's hospitality. They might also bring something new to the church. If they are unchurched, there is the opportunity that they can share with us what we look like objectively. They help to make strange again perhaps what to us has become familiar and when we see Jesus again with fresh eyes and the foolisheness of the gospel again, I think we are reorientated in awe and wonder. 

To  return to Richard Hooker, I rather enjoy his generous orthodoxy and that charity 'which hopeth all things, prayeth also for all men (people).'

So...

What are we doing when we baptise? 

What is your theology of baptism?

Should we baptise babies?

Should baptism only be of those who understand the commitment they are making?

Baptism - what is it? Initiation? Commitment? Sign? Beginning?

What about those in the Bible who have been baptised in the Holy Spirit and then water-baptism comes second?

What about the Ethiopian - his baptism was witnessed by God (and Philip) but not the community?

What do you think?

Putting on the beauty of holiness

The Telegraph's picture of the Rev Jepson caught my attention. This haute couture cleric is the chaplain for the London college of fashion and so perhaps adapting the usual clergy attire helps her to communicate the gospel to those who have an eye for all things exquisite.

Tomorrow I take shoes and various pieces of clothes to college to arrange with clergy shirts I have had made to measure. Some are nipped in at the waist, others have capped sleeves. Some are patterned. I have had a dress made up for my ordination for underneath my cassock. A friend and I will model clergy clothes for the international Christian Resources exhibition next week in Peterborough and so the tailor coming to college want to make sure that our outfits are in good order and we can walk nicely in the shoes we have selected. We will also model albs and cassocks, bib stocks and the new clergy crop top, which can be worn underneath your every-day clothes.

The male vicar of my sending church performed a full immersion baptism of two new members of our congregation sporting a rather tasteful pink/lilac shirt this evening.

So does any of this matter? Should it matter? And if it does, why does it matter?

If embodied ministry is about taking the whole of me into ministry, then that bit of me that cares about clothes, can that come too?

It is so tempting to value more our thoughts and all that 'soul-stuff' over anything associated with surface and body. Does a wholistic theology help us to avoid body/soul dichotomies?

How do I feel about the fact that I present myself 'made-up' and suitably high heeled to the world? Should I be 'free' of make-up and heels? I have been challenged to give these things up to see what it would mean to me. It was not particularly formative. I just felt like somebody else, so I am now back to being me again. Do I really honour God more with a naked face? I once heard a lecture about how 'Praising God in the beauty of holiness' is about putting on your finest garments to praise the Lord. Is this just want I want to hear? So am I presenting the best version of myself to a world in which I meet God in those people he has formed in his image? Is that my motivation, or am I just stuck in a habit about what I should look like? Do I care about what I look like for the wrong or the right reasons?

Is a biblical view of the body different to the 'church's' view of the body? 

How do Christians feel about their bodies? 

Do Christians care about vicars who care about what they look like? Is it a relief? Should it be that by our clothes we reflect that we are not of the world? Is it considered vanity? Is it none of the above?

Does this topic raise different questions for the genders? 

For men there is a lack of vocabulary about body issues, a lack of creative attention to the body. How do men come to feel about their bodies in the world and within faith? It is not addressed by Christian literature to the extent that it is for women. How do male vicars make decisions about their clothes?

If matter matters to God, do our clothes matter too?

It is certainly more platonic than biblical to try to escape the body. By the very nature of the incarnation, we can not escape the fact that the body is good. 

Rubem Alves explains how maybe we have constructed a theology of finding God beyond, at the end of the body, when in actual fact God becomes in the body, he takes on flesh. We need to redeem the misapplications of a misunderstood 'sarx' theology. Our salvation is bodily. God became incarnate. There is no dichotomy. There is no flesh/body split.

...so with a right theology, a sense of humility and a lot of fun perhaps I will continue to enjoy selecting sleeve lengths and prints and feeling it such a massive privilege that some clever seamstress would make a shirt just for me that nips in ever so nicely at the waist!

Perhaps you will convince me otherwise. 

Being in conversation

If so....
this might be useful...

Are you Biblical?

"The Bible says...."

"Are you a Bible-believing Christian?"

"But if you follow the Bible..."

Emmm.

This happens a lot. Try explaining '"The Bible says..." is problematic. Different approaches begin with different suppositions regarding the answers that they are going to find'. Try saying, 'Well, I practice a .... hermeneutic', or even 'together with the Church of England, it would appear that the Bible might ....' and it could be that you will lose people.

Stendhal, who foreshadows the New Perspective, describes biblical theology in terms of its meaning in the past which we excavate. But doesn't the theology come first in so much as we read with faith and come with presuppositions. Is the excavation polluted? I wonder about Stendhal, I need to read his work. Is he aware that as we excavate, we are adding our own ingredients to this earth that we are digging through; we are pulling out a precious treasure that has had its hue changed by what else has fallen down the archaeologist's hole?

We consider Kelsey's overview of the way that the Bible is used in theological argumentation. Propositional truths are revelation for someone like BB Warfield. For GE Wright the archaeology is important for meaning. For Tillich, the symbolism of the Bible is revelatory. Barth's is an emphasis that examines the narrative disclosure of God's ascendancy in the text: his agency. All would agree that God speaks through scripture. In community the church decides its meaning so that living in the light of scripture is transformative. There is more besides, meriting a separate entry and probably developing ideas in-keeping with Barth.


Perhaps we need to hold numerous approaches in tension. There are numerous approaches.

Key to all of this is a self-consciousness: what do we mean when we say we are biblical? We need to actually articulate our starting points and admit that we are flawed and influenced; that we are not neutral; that our starting point is not clean. This is not post-modern nonsense.  Interpretation is inescapable. The Bible itself interprets the Bible.


DA Carson is dedicated to exploring Biblical inerrancy. It is interesting that the footage we watch of Carson presents him as open to the variety and the complexity, hinting at the superintendence of the Spirit, in presenting everything that should be there as it is and the final picture of the Bible culminating in what it is, exactly as God would have it be. But I know that within that, he practises a particular hermeneutic, particularly of the problem texts for women. Unfortunately, when I hear Carson, I am coloured in my appreciation of what he has to say, however valid, by the hermeneutic he practises with which I disagree. I try to listen. If I were freer of my presuppositions, I would hear more clearly. It is not easy. Is my awareness of the difficulty at least something? I am not sure.

This blog has investigated before the 'plain reading fallacy' that I feel can so infect us all. I understand now that 'plain reading' is an approach all in itself and what is often plain about it is often only its predictable trajectory. But then I come to make that statement because of my presuppositions!

Do you know what I mean when I speak? Deconstruction and confusion.

That slippery thing that is language. For Derrida language games that work in the French do not work in the English. Sometimes his own methods call into question that slippery thing that is language, it all folds in on itself, which is perhaps what he is alerting us to in the first place.

Indaba is all about listening and talking. It means 'a gathering for purposeful discussion.' I will go to New York in May for Continuing conversation Indaba. You can find out about it here.

Pilot Conversations will involve typically a mix of eight lay and ordained participants from three dioceses all visiting the other dioceses to learn first-hand the challenges and opportunities of those contexts. They will also engage in facilitated conversations on a whole range of topics that have the potential to cause disunity in the body of Christ.

The ultimate aim of these visits is to enrich local and global mission in all three participating dioceses.

The four Pilot Conversations so far agreed are taking place between the dioceses of:

• Hong Kong, Jamaica and Toronto;
• Delhi, Mumbai, New York and Derby;
• Western Tanganyika, Gloucester and El Camino Real; and
• Peru, Mexico and Southeast Florida.

I will join the Derby cohort and I am hoping I can blog what happens, although I will ask permission first.

The Anglican communion is unsettled and many of the blogged responses to the Primates Meeting leave me feeling a little disheartened about those who chose to stay away. I guess, as much as anyone, I am complicit in this talking past each other, polarising and failing to use language responsibly at times. I hope to contribute, a little, to Indaba but to learn a lot. We have to at least attempt to understand each other, if we do not there can be dangerous consequences.

Deconstruction is the hermeneutics of the kingdom of God

I am reading Caputo's 'What would Jesus deconstruct?' It is introduced by Brian MClaren which will immediately raise the suspicions of all those who vilify emerging and postmodern church. MClaren explains how the 'powerful ghost of the Religious Right...hovers ominously over his [Caputo's] right shoulder,' a ghost whose whisperings I am sure MClaren would quickly recognise.

I want to know more about this Jesus who stands 'with the "other".' I have just discovered 'Benny's blog' and I have a feeling that this is a Jesus he has come to know well.

Caputo seems to be asking us whether the church would define Jesus a heretic if he were to come back right now and go about his Kingdom-growing business. This is a question Adrian Chatfield hinted at in his analysis of Jonah at the college quiet day last Wednesday. My Bishop, Alastair Redfern was possibly hinting at this too as he asked us to focus on the radical inclusivity of God's plan for salvation as it extends itself even to the cattle at the close of the story about this often misunderstood prophet. It is a question that I think D'Costa is also asking the church to consider.

The problem with asking what Jesus would deconstruct only to realise that it is the church that he would deconstruct, is that this is the institution to which I have nailed my flag and out of which I will live out this following of Jesus. So, I suppose the 'church' Jesus would deconstruct is the institutional church rather than the church that is the body of Christ, the often invisible church. However, it leaves me in a somewhat uncomfortable place.

I think Caputo wants us to ask not WWJD, What would Jesus do? but What is Jesus doing? And are we really joining in?

Caputo will not think of the New Testament as  politics, ethics or dogmatics but a poetics calling for transformation.

It's stimulating my interest again in the word 'hype' and 'hyper,' which I have explored before in the context of Jesus' radically being 'for us' - hyper in the Greek. With Caputo it is about 'über' being in search of the event that exceeds expectation. Religion is this. It is quite literally 'hype.' Deconstruction rather recovers this idea about religion and redeems it. 'It's all hype,' they say, and have said to me, particularly when I return from New Wine and recount experiences of God going about his business there. It is. New Wine has this vision of something beyond, it dares to hope. 

For Caputo being a 'religious people' is to be a people who 'dream of things that have never been' and ask "why not?" and 'still pursue them.

Muslim, Christian unity

90 % of Egypt is Muslim. There are about 500,000 Catholics and the majority of Christians are Coptic Orthodox. The demand for political freedom is uniting people across the faiths. All share the same hopes for religious liberty and so seem to be standing in solidarity to that cause. A common slogan has been ‘Christians and Muslims, we are all Egyptians.’

This is D'Costa's inter-religious prayer in the face of crisis actually happening. We had very interesting debates in the classroom on Thursday but not one of us thought to mention the situation is Egypt which alarms me to the fact that so often academic theology can become theology in a vacuum if we are not careful. I have not quite thought through the implications of this or perhaps even whether my reaction is intelligent. Perhaps we had done the joined-up thinking but didn't follow through on it. Perhaps the classroom thinking prepares us to assess better what is happening in the world.

Whatever was decided in that classroom on Thursday and there were differences of opinion, Christians must combat islamophobia. There are Christian extremists and Muslim extremists and neither the Bible nor Quran supports such positions. The Quran categorically forbids religious compulsion (2:257), which has no Islamic justification. Muhammad also explains that, "You should listen to and obey your ruler..." and where dissent is necessary to defend religious freedom, it must be expressed legally and peacefully and not with violence. Islamic Jihad is actually about attaining nearness to God and does not call for treachery against non-Muslims: "... whosoever killed a person... it shall be as if he had killed all mankind" (5:33). The Quran also commands Muslims to indiscriminately protect all places of worship. Interestingly, the Quran holds that God's mercy offers salvation to Jews, Christians and those of other beliefs who believe in God and live good lives (2:63).

Want to know how to pray, read this:


Dear Friends,

Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

First, I would like to thank you so much for your prayers, phone calls, and messages from around the world that you have sent in the last few days. I want you to know that these meant a lot to me personally and to your brothers and sisters in the church here.

In the midst of the turmoil which Egypt is going through, we have felt that the Lord is very near to us. We have experienced his peace, and we were assured of his protection. In most of our churches and homes, there have been prayer meetings for the situation and for our beloved country Egypt. All our churches are safe,
although they have not been guarded by the security since Friday when all the security were withdrawn. This assured us that the one who protects the churches is the Lord of the Church.

I was touched to see young adults, Muslims and Christians, guarding the streets, homes, and our churches. They did not allow any thieves or looters to come near thearea. They also arrested some of those and handed them over to the Army. I applaud our local Egyptian clergy and people who joined the youth in the streets in guarding homes and churches.

I admired all our expatriate clergy and diocesan staff who refused to leave Egypt in order to stay in the midst of the people who decided not to go,even when their Embassies encouraged them to leave and provided airplanes to do so.

Yesterday demonstrations were very peaceful, in spite of the huge number that gathered in the middle of Cairo. We praise the Lord that we have now the internet backand we can communicate with you all.   This morning the security also returned to guard the churches as normal.

Yesterday, President Mubarak made it very clear that he will not seek re-election after he finishes his term in November 2011. He appointed Mr. Ibrahim Soliman as aVice-President. He has a good reputation among Egyptians. This appointment ruled out the possibility of appointing the President's son as a successor. President Mubarak also appointed a new Prime Minister, Mr. Shafik who was the Minister of CivilAviation (Egypt Air, etc?). He is a very good man and has done a lot of improvement in his previous Ministry. President Mubarak also called for a review for
the Constitution to allow democracy;he also assured the people that those who were
responsible for the violence, destructions,looting, escape of prisoners, etc? will be brought to judgment.

Our concern was that extremist groups would take advantage of the demonstrations to push for violence. We thank God that this did not happen. It seems that the majority of the youth who are demonstrating are aware of this possibility. Many of    them started to see this possible risk. The youth who were interviewed by the television yesterday mentioned that all what they need is democracy. Many groups this morning are demonstrating in support of President Mubarak, the new government, andpeaceful transfer of authority at the end of the Presidents term.

Egypt is a very important country in the whole of the Middle East, and whatever 

happens in Egypt affects the rest of the countries. I was amazed at how the President of Yemen, this morning, announced that he will not seek re-election and will not promote his son to be the next president.We pray that we can set a good example
to the surrounding countries.

We appreciate your prayers for:

Our churches and institutions, so that we can fix our eyes on God who is in 

control. May what is happening help us to draw nearer to God and to know that the time is short.
The end of demonstrations,especially in view of the changes that President Mubarak
announced. This will bring Egypt back to normal and the curfew will be ended.
The new government, in order to achieve the desired targets in serving the people,especially the Minister of Interior who is now trying to re-build the trust with the people of Egypt.
People to find their needs of food and health care.
Wisdom for the youth, in order not to allow the extremists to stir them up.
The families who lost their loved ones in the violence, and those who are injured.
Our beloved Egypt to recover this turmoil.

Once again, thank you so much for your prayers and words of encouragement.
May the Lord bless you!

Yours in Christ,

+Mouneer

The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis

Bishop of the Episcopal / Anglican Diocese of Egypt
with North Africa and the Horn of Africa
President Bishop of the Episcopal / Anglican
Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East

Inclusive, exclusive, pluralist

Cheung Man Kit, the artist of the picture above was the winner of the 2007 International Day Celebration Art Competition. Hhe is from Hong Kong. The 15 year old lives in Hong Kong, China, and has been painting since he was only 6 years old.

This might help. We all found it hard to articulate our position when our lecturer asked us today. If in doubt you can always quote someone more elegant than yourself:

Newbigin is open about his position:

... pluralist, exclusivist, or inclusivist … [My] position is exclusivist in the sense that it affirms the unique truth of the revelation in Jesus Christ, but it is not exclusivist in the sense of denying the possibility of the salvation of the non-Christian. It is inclusivist in the sense that it refuses to limit the saving grace of God to the members of the Christian church, but it rejects the inclusivism which regards the non-Christian religions as vehicles of salvation. It is pluralist in the sense of acknowledging the gracious work of God in the lives of all human beings, but it rejects a pluralism which denies the uniqueness and decisiveness of what God has done in Jesus Christ.

—Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 182-83

God's inclusivity?

How do we relate to other faiths?

With the rise of modernity and the expansion of trade, we became more aware of other faiths and ideologies but now our globalism and the smallness of the global community has increased our consciousness of those who differ to us. In fact, might it be that we are to become more aware of our similarities?

Our neighbours are different and the same.

Christianity sits alongside other ways of interpreting the world and this is how it is today. Christian claims to truth - do they compete with other truth claims? Do we actually want competition? Surely not. Are questions about validity the right questions?

So Christianity and the premise that it is the only way to God? How does this work?

Christians affirming other faiths? What does this look like?

Is evangelism to become dialectic?

There are many ways of thinking this through: Exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. D'Costa rejects these categories, or so it would seem from reading 'The Meeting of Religions and the Triune God.'

Exclusivists hold that there is no salvation outside the Christian church. It involves saving faith in Jesus and is intentional. (Catholics would argue, traditionally, that there is an intermediate state for unbaptised infants and for righteous pagans before Christ. This is extrapolation from Romans 2 and the character of God. For exclusivists evangelism is essential. The problems with this kind of thinking is that it might shrink God's mercy.

Pluralism reacts to this and this might also be at the heart of Unitarianism but you could ask Adrian about that.

John Hick is the archetype for this kind of thinking - ultimate reality is not bound up with special revelation, we can not actually access it but only through our man-made constructs and so all faiths share in the indirect access to something transcendent. Adrian would hold I think to the idea that Christian claims to Christ's sufficiency - (to salvation faith only conveyed by Christ) is a type of arrogance.

This idea does promote dialogue.

D'Costa would argue that pluralism is actually unattainable - there is something exclusivist about pluralism, if you can get your head around that one. Sometimes pluralism can seem rather naive. It fails to take seriously the sincerity with which people hold their faiths.

Inclusivism - salvation is also attainable beyond the church but might differ in quality which preserves the imperative to evangelise. God knows us and has made himself known in Jesus and inclusivism fails to recognise this.

The work of the Spirit goes beyond the church.

Karl Rahner and the Imago dei - so that every outward act has its root in God  - is drawn to its horizon in God through the power of the Spirit.

People are being drawn to God through their faith even if that faith from a Christian point of view is full of erroneous teaching.

There are theological issues for the church to navigate its way through like the sufficiency of Christ, the importance of the church as a body of believers, whether the Spirit is at work beyond the church etc

The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society is a good book to read on these issues by Newbigin. His horizon is the eschaton for making sense of these issues. God's is a commitment to us and our destiny and we are shown God at work by his grace in many places and people.

Read D'Costa on this front too.

Vatican II has its own particular contribution to make as well.

....to be continued.

Whatever it does for us, it has us assume a humble position. We have so much to learn. What we learn does not diminish the particularity of our faith. What we have to decide is that we must hold all of this stuff in tension.