Category Archives: emerging church

Poverty in small towns…

Posted on by
Reply

A few years ago I found myself in the middle of one of those internet ‘spats’- you know the sort- a discussion forum kind of thing that becomes increasingly acrimonious and strangely hurtful.

It was a surprise for several reasons- firstly the discussion ranged across several different Christian sites, and a FB group which I had set up in an attempt to make connections around ‘emerging church’ types of issues. You would have thought that Christians would know better than argue about doctrine and practice wouldn’t you?

Secondly I was surprised how difficult I found the discussion. Insulated by cyber-space and in discussion with people I did not really know, I was still vulnerable. I think this was because I was so hungry for connection at the time, and the end result was the opposite of this. It felt like such an opportunity lost.

And finally because I felt something that I carried as a strength (my commitment to social justice) came under direct attack.

The issue raised was the ‘Emerging Church is middle class’ one. The evidence for this was that it tended to attract white, male, professional Christian malcontents, who lived in the suburbs.

Mixed in with this was a bit of a issue of funding- it was suggested at the time that the resources released to and by these groups tended to go no-where near the disenfranchised and marginalised parts of our society.

One of the protagonists was part of a church planting movement, whom I will not name, but clearly was fired with a passion for urban outreach, which for him meant moving out of the suburbs to live and witness in the city amongst the people in the greatest poverty and the greatest need. I admired and was challenged by his zeal, but pointed out that this was not the only way that the emerging church communities might engage with their context. I listed some of the ways that my own community tried to do this-

1. Many of us worked within caring professions- social work, community work, youth work.

2. Several of us where unable to work for health reasons, but still volunteered in LINK clubs, charity shops, community action.

3. Our group itself was made up of a fairly broad spectrum of people- several with acute MH problems, others in later years, and our activities were certainly not heavy on resources- everything we did was on a shoestring.

4. And we looked for partnerships with other community groups all the time- locating what we did in the middle of our town, not out in the comfortable outskirts (if indeed there are any!)

I also talked about the nature of living and working in rural/small town Scotland- the hidden poverty and stigmatising that can be part of such places- and how suggesting that poverty only existed in cities was rather silly.

None of this cut any ice. From his point of view, I think that social work was part of the problem, certainly not the solution, and all the rest was justification for not doing what Jesus wants us to do- which was to move to the city and work with the poor.

I think in some ways, I kind of agree with him. The comfortable life we live in Dunoon is a far cry from inner city streets. The question of how this integrates with a trying to live as followers of Jesus has exercised my thoughts constantly.

And no-one is a harsher critic of Social Work than I am- even though to blame my profession for poverty makes as much sense as blaming the police for crime, or ambulance drivers for car accidents.

But the fact is, I am here. My kids are here. My friends and my community are here. The measure of the life we live is how we might seek to live out lives full of Grace wherever we find ourselves.

And we should be careful about imposing our own passions and our calling on others. I wonder how things have gone for my friend. I genuinely hope that they have gone well, and that  good has been done in situations of real need. But my experience has been that wisdom comes with miles travelled- and a few failures/successes along the way.

The discussion is ancient history now but the reason I am raking it up again is because of a newspaper report I read today about my little town. Mortality and poverty rates are the third worst for any area across the whole of the Scottish Highland area. Only the Merkinch area of Inverness and Alness, south Wick have poorer measures. I sort of knew this instinctively, but it is still a surprise to see it confirmed by wider measures.

The picture of the whole county is similarly challenging- 18000 of the 60,000 people of Argyll and Bute live in poverty, and our take home pay is 9% less than the national average.

In the mix are high levels of alcohol abuse. Reports from the courts in our local paper are almost all alcohol related.

All this means that inequalities in health have worsened- those in poverty are likely to suffer poorer health than 10 years ago- and these people are also more vulnerable in the current economic climate, as public services are squeezed, and low paid jobs become more competitive.

How do you do anything about this? What combination of micro and macro interventions might begin to change it all? Whole reports have been written about all this (remember the Black report?)

It is never easy- but for sure, one important component is the heart and strength of the communities we are part of. The wellbeing we experience through connection and shared purpose and meaning. The learning of tolerance and respect despite all the usually opponents to these things.

We do not have all the answers- I am no Messiah, but this sounds to me like a calling. A Jesus kind of calling…

V and A post modernism exhibition…

Posted on by
Reply

Interesting discussion about the old P word on R4’s ‘Start the week’ this morning- relating to a new Victoria and Albert Museum exhibition of all things post modern (defined as between 1970 and 1990.)

Post modernism is a term that has rattled around the edges of so many ’emerging church’ conversations and so if it was not quite so far away I would go. Emily is going soon though with school…

Here is the blurb on the beeb-

Once described as “the Swiss Army knife of critical concepts”, Postmodernism is one of the most slippery, fragmentary and contradictory of movements. At the Victoria & Albert Museum’s new exhibition, an angular Grace Jones vies for attention with a pink granite skyscraper and David Byrne’s over-sized suit. Forged as a challenge to the orthodoxy of modernism, its style revolution came to the fore in the 1970s and 80s. The co-curator, Jane Pavitt, argues that although postmodernism is now dead, its irony, exuberance and subversion have left a lasting legacy in the world of design.

I enjoyed the discussion this morning- a few things stood out-firstly the curator, Jane Pavit was describing the early architectural movement as being almost obsessed with ruined buildings, broken things and post industrial industrial degradation. Almost as if in chewing on the END of modernism, it had to be endlessly picked over.

‘Like we have done to all things church’ I thought to myself.

The next thing that stood out was a critical voice asking a familiar questions as to whether post modernism was ever really any different from modernism- just a reformulation of the same old same old.

‘Like the whole emerging church idea is in danger of becoming’ I thought to myself.

Finally, the question was asked concerning what next? Post post modernism? The view expressed on the programme was that now all bets are off, all things are possible, and there are no uniform categories possible.

‘What does this mean for church?’ I thought to myself.

Hmmmmm.

‘Save me’- religious reality TV…

Posted on by
12

Saw this the other day- still not sure if it is a hoax.

Volunteers might have just missed the deadline, but you never know- drop him a line…

The bloke behind all this is Jim Henderson (no not that puppet bloke- his name was Henson.) I liked what he claims as his ‘mission’- 

The Three Practices of Otherlyness (the Way of Jesus.)

• Be unusually interested in others

• Stay in the room with difference

• Refuse to compare my best with your worst

Quite how this will work out on TV remains to be seen. Not sure it will ever air on British TV anyway- if it comes to a screen over there- let me know!

Which does bring to me again the question of the Great Commission for we followers of Jesus. Most of the Christians I know have given up on selling religious product- in fact, perhaps we have gone in the opposite direction entirely. Refreshing then, to read this via Jim Henderson’s blog- 

The old paradigm of presenting a case and demanding a verdict just isn’t working anymore (and nobody is doing it anyway). So what DOES work? And how can we get more people engaged with the process of spreading the Gospel?
Here’s what I’m banking on these days: Listening. Hearing their story. Finding out what God has been up to in their life and (gently) calling their attention to it. Becoming a safe person for others to share their doubts, fears, anger and distress with regarding life. And then, in that kind of context, being asked to share YOUR story (which is simply what Christ has done in your life), and in that context HIS story (as simply as you can). An invitation to follow Jesus may or may not fit that initial conversation. But we should be ready for it just in case, I think.
So, I am suggesting we give up the obsession with making converts and start getting serious about calling others to join us as disciples (students) of Christ. That process is messy, hard to “count”, and unpredictable. But I think it’s more like what Jesus was asking us to do in the “Great Commission”. So the short answer to your question is, “Quit doing that. Make disciples, not just converts.”
Yes, I think I can go along with that!

The houses of the Kingdom…

Posted on by
2

Been doing more Greenbelt thinking- it is only a few days away after all! If you are going to the festival, Aoradh’s worship slot in the Worship Collective (Used to be called New Forms Cafe) is first up- 7.00pm on Friday.

The GB theme this year is ‘dreams of home’, and we have used this to consider something of the contrast between our house-obsessed culture, and the deeper things of home that we long for- resulting for most of us in a kind of yearning, that might be called ‘homesickness’.

For many Christians, this impulse seems to have resulted in a deliberate focus on ‘heaven’- as in some place that we go to when we die. In doing this, the danger is that we enter into that old dual thinking trap- we split into sacred/profane, temporary/eternal. What seems to have happened at times is that our religion became an escape pod from this doomed planet.

This is not the way of Jesus.

How might our homes reflect this then?

I turn once more to the Jesus manifesto from Matthew chapter 5…

 

Beatitudes for houses

 

Blessed is the house of the poor in spirit (for this home belongs to theKingdomofHeaven.)

 

Blessed is the house of those who mourn (for their homes will be places of comfort.)

 

Blessed is the house of the meek (For their house is bigger than the whole earth.)

 

Blessed is the house of those who long for righteousness (for their homes will be pregnant with grace.)

 

Blessed are houses full of mercy (for love will rest in them.)

 

Blessed are the house of the pure in heart (for God will be ever present.)

 

Blessed are the houses of the peacemakers (The sons and daughters of the Living God.)

 

Blessed are the houses that are broken because of Jesus. (The Kingdom of heaven is no earthly insurance policy.)

 

 

 

Starsuckers…

Posted on by
Reply

I watched some of this film the other day-

It is impossible to watch this and not think that there is something bonkers- something rather sick- at the root of our media machine (and therefore at the root of our society.)

We hunger for significance

And the primary way we demonstrate this is through the media machine

Which for its part will chase after any train wreck or celebrity breakdown in order to make a splash of attention, which will then convert into a splash of cash

And because train wrecks and celebrity breakdowns are unpredictable, then the machine manufactures them-

And we play the game- even though we understand that it is a game. Even though we know that it is all fake and phoney. Because what else is there?

How else might we aspire to significance?

How else might life be lifted from the humdrum but by the exposure of some soft subcutaneous celebrity flesh? (Apologies for the Dylan Thomas-esque excessive use of sibilance!)

And how, my friends, do we begin to do things differently? Because each one of our areas of expansion- even the Church- falls into similar traps. We elevate our celebrities, feed on them, then watch them fall.

The TFT counter culture anti-tabloid manifesto! 

So, here it is. Time to push back!

Lets be like fat men who walk past Macdonalds- at least some of the time…

  1. Stop buying tabloid newspapers. I know- they are entertaining, and you only buy them for the sport, but the ink is toxic- and it will stain all sorts of things that you are not immediately aware of.
  2. Let’s stop caring what celebrities think. Rather let’s look for other voices- those at the margins. Particularly those who are poor and weak.
  3. Let us focus on the small scale, not the big scale- let us hope to find our place in small communities as we set ourself towards simple missions.
  4. And as for the interweb- useful though it is- it is not democratic. It is not a means of levelling the playing field. That dream is dead. It reflects all the mess of wider society. So let us sometimes deliberately SWITCH OFF (Scary as it might be to those of us addicted to laptops and smart phones) and so something simple, and hospitable. Go for a walk with a friend. Visit someone who is lonely. Write a letter. Go to a pub and buy someone a drink.
  5. Value the small things. Celebrate them in verse and song.
  6. Cultivate individuality, not image.
  7. Create for the joy of it- not for the relationship to what is cool.
  8. And as for Christian celebrities- well lets make a rule that they can only be seen in public wearing clothes from Oxfam- one size too small. Or if that is too cruel, lets just have an open on going discussion about human frailties and how we measure the wisdom and worth of an individual.
  9. Gossip about goodness. Try to tell stories of people’s secret success and hidden kindnesses.
  10. All that is broken in you, all that is beautiful on others- these things are eternal.

Emerging church- as ‘movement’…

Posted on by
Reply

I liked this post (via TSK), which had some interesting things to say about the old EC words…

I rarely hear the words ’emerging church’ used any more. I had just about got used to using them myself without cringing a little (it always felt slightly pompous to describe my association using this kind of label) and then it seemed to be out of fashion. And despite myself, I do miss it slightly. It is always good to think of yourself as part of something hip and happening- on the pioneering edge of something new.

Over the last few years there has been a lot of discussion (some of it here, or here for example) about the end of EC as a movement. I never agreed with these obituaries- it always depended what you looked for and how you asked the questions. However, it did seem that a lot of the radicalism that went under the banner was cooling, and perhaps being ‘tamed’ by institutional connection.

What was refreshing about the article mentioned above was the generous description of the breadth of the ‘movement’ defined as follows-

A movement has a center without boundaries.  The center is a set of common interests and ideals.  People who make up the movement are more or less committed to those ideals, but all share the interests.  When a movement develops boundaries it is no longer a movement but an organization…

…Movements are notoriously difficult to pin down and describe–except by their common interests, ideals and commitments (although it must be remembered that within any movement, insofar as it is truly a movement and not an organization, levels of commitment to the ideals varies.)  That’s what makes them so interesting and what gives rise to so much discussion and debate about them.

Roger E. Olson (what is it about those initials that always makes it clear that Roger comes from the USA?) who wrote the article compares the EC with the Charismatic movement in the early to mid 1960’s-

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s people debated the nature of the charismatic movement and its boundaries.  Much of that discussion was misguided and misleading because there never was a headquarters or magisterium or universal spokesperson or group for the whole movement.  But a cottage industry arose around attempts to define it and describe it and gain influence over it.  Some organizations tried hard to harness the movement’s energy and control it for their own purposes.  During the 1970s and 1980s Oral Roberts tried desperately to do that with little success.  Eventually the movement died out as charismatics stopped networking with each other and settled into competing organizations.  The charismatic ethos (it’s center) gradually blended into the religious mainstream as demonstrated in, for example, “praise and worship” chorus singing during Sunday morning worship services (something virtually unheard of before the charismatic movement).

Every movement takes up the old in a new way and adds to it as well as subtracts from it.  Every movement includes some diversity and is dynamic–flexible and changing.  Every movement has its founders and its “Johnny-come-latelies” and its exploiters.  And every movement has its would-be popes, its prophets and its critics (both internal and external).  AND, every movement has its adherents who refuse to be identified with it.

Olson goes on to try to define what he thinks are some of the unifying features of the movement. I think this part is a little weaker- most dry lists like this tend to feel rather artificial- particularly when one of the defining characteristics of the movements seem to have been a resistance to restrictive definitions!

Perhaps too the UK perspective is rather different. In many ways the UK EC movement was fostered within the mainstream- particularly by Anglican and Methodist leadership. Sure there were radicals who flared bright and largely burned out, but on the whole the movement here has often been an adventure from and within establishment. Perhaps there was also the ‘desperation factor’ in the UK- churches declined to such a remnant that something had to be done- we needed a new gig.

I found myself wondering about Olson’s description of the end of the Charismatic movement however. The end of networking and the settling into competing organisations. This sounds sad- but is inevitable I think.

The issue is, however, the degree to which a movement ‘moves’ things- how much things change. I think that the EC has brought about significant changes, both subtle and obvious, to the Christian landscape of the UK. I would mention specifically some of these-

  • A change from attractional to missional forms of engagement with the wider world
  • A focus on local, community based ways of living out faith
  • An embrace of older religious traditions, alongside new technologies
  • A more generous and open dogma- you could even say liberalisation of previous Evangelical core beliefs
EC has not played out some things particularly well- whilst there has been a justice and peace focus, it was still largely a white, middle class movement. The EC words seem to have been urban, but not inner-city.
For a while there was far too much theology, and not enough praxis.
I am aware that I am speaking in the past tense about EC- but perhaps the ‘movement’ is over. Now for the organisations and the boundary making?
Hmmmmm.

 

Shared journeys…

Posted on by
23

We had a lovely evening last night with Si and Sue Smith, who are up here on holiday at the moment. Above is a picture of Si by his son Jonah- who is obviously following in his talented father’s footsteps…

Si works as an illustrator/artist/all round creative person, and was responsible for the ’40’ images that I wrote some meditations for (See here.)

Last night however, we shared stories of faith journeys- through churches, experiments with new forms of church, leaving church, alternative worship groups and our concerns about our kids in all of this. It was a good conversation, because in many ways our stories are similar. And there is something about the path that we have found ourselves on that at times makes us think that we are alone.

I think the truth is that we are very far from alone- there are many of us who have been ‘activists’ within the church who have found that the institution form of organised faith has become simply impossible to remain within- and so we have set out alone- at least for now.

That is not to say that community and connections with others with whom we can share life is not important- in fact it is all the more so, hence the deep goodness of conversations like last night…

(Happy anniversary to Si and Sue by the way!)

On standing in a place of (un)belief…

Posted on by
18

I have been thinking about that old polarity of faith/unbelief recently. This because of a few significant conversations with friends who have been grappling  with their faith, and also because it has long been an issue for me.

The old Evangelical way of understanding faith is all about assurance- we would quote Hebrews 11 v1-  Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Faith was something breathed into us by the Holy Spirit- it was about certainty, security, muscular purposefulness. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Except it never felt that way. And so I wondered if God could ever be pleased with me.

Over the years I became more open about the  insecurities of my faith- and discovered that I was far from alone. Sure, I know some lovely people who have not a shadow of doubt- they would echo the words from Hebrews. Some seemed to relax into a beautiful kind of faith, which became a deep well of joy in their lives. To be with these people is a great blessing.

But many others, like me, experience faith as a fleeting presence- ebbing and flowing. Sometimes within grasp, at other times a million miles away.

More recently I have discovered that my faith, rather than being the polar opposite of doubt, can actually flourish in the presence of doubt. It is not that doubt cancels out faith- rather that the honest place of uncertainty and not knowing becomes the means through which I seek to humbly approach God. And sometimes, there he is…

I may well carry temperamental characteristics that skew me towards this kind of faith- but I also wonder if some of this (un)believing (a nod to Pete Rollins for this parenthetical trickery) has been fostered by engagement in all of that deconstruction that happened around the Emerging Church Conversation (Capital letters seemed appropriate!) (Perhaps I am overdoing the parenthesis a little now?)

We became very used to unravelling it all- questioning everything, shaking the theological tree right down to its roots. And once you start, everything is up for grabs. Substitutionary atonement? Biblical Authority? Hell? Virgin Birth? Holy Spirit wackyness? An Interventionist God? Everything has a question mark.

I think that those of us that went through this have a faith that in many ways is stronger- but at the same time is far less concrete- far less dogmatic and assured. What Pete Ward described as ‘Liquid Faith’ may well have the capacity to move like water flowing through our postmodern culture- but there is also a danger that it finds a crack and disappears out of sight- at least for a while…

But there comes a time when deconstruction is not enough- we need to start laying down some more big stones on which to place some of our smaller ones. Or if the brick wall analogy does not work for you- time to stop jumping up and down on the theological trampoline and to rest on it’s soft sprung surface.

I think our starting point in this constructing is becoming clearer. In the words of NT Wright-

And how long must it be before we learn that our task as Christians is to be in the front row of constructing the post‐postmodern world? The individual existential angst of the 1960s has become the corporate and cultural angst of the 1990s. What is the Christian answer to it? The Christian answer is the love of God, which goes through death and out the other side. What is missing from the postmodern equation is, of course, love.’

(Sorry forgotten where I got this quote from…)

Others leaders within this debate are increasingly beginning to commit themselves to foundational beliefs- and in some cases getting a bit of a kicking in the process. I am still working on this for myself, but I have been thinking about what might help me navigate within all this creative flow- in my state of (un)belief.

Here are some of the principles that make sense to me-

  • Cynicism– it is almost always a bad thing- corrosive like battery acid. And it is infectious too. I must strive to remain hopeful- which is to say, uncynical.
  • .
  • Choice- despite my resistance (cynicism?) towards the evangelical three card conversion trick, I continue to think that faith is a choice- we choose to believe, even in the presence of unbelief. That is not the same thing as ‘pretending’, it is about putting ourselves in the place of seeking, hoping and yearning for God, and learning to live in his ways.
  • .
  • Open to encounter- It is my continued hope, and sometime my experience, that God is to be found in the most unlikely of places- “Lovely in limbs and lovely in eyes not his.”  My reaction against the ways I formerly was told to expect to encounter God (primarily through preaching and ecstatic worship) has opened up the possibility of all sorts of other encounters. And I am going to stay open to them as much as I can.
  • .
  • Open to tradition- I strive too to learn from how others have understood God, both in the past, and recently. It is easy to either rely on a narrow, pre-selected set of references- the good guys, the stars of the Greenbelt festival speaking circuit. I must navigate further, and avoid the simplistic romanticisation of older men and women of faith also- the celtic saints also had feet of clay.
  • .
  • Faith encountered through praxis and ritual- Sometimes the shape given to faith by tradition, by ritual and by practice is vital. More than just dead habit, it may become the place in which faith is rediscovered.
  • .
  • Faith in community- sharing common encounters- Can faith ever exist in total isolation? Perhaps- if you are a pillar saint. But Jesus talked about his church. The essence of the followers of Jesus was discovered in the collective- in the sharing of stories and the life of love. In this way faith is tested and sometimes broken- but often shared and strengthened.
  • .
  • Transcendence– there is much that I do not know. Much that my head can not grasp nor make sense of. But there is often this singing in my spirit- there in all sorts of small things- art, small kids, new leaves, the smell of seaweed. These things often seem to transcend my own narrow experience, and open up the possibility of something much bigger, much more eternal. And this brings me again to God.
And may God find his way to us through the cracks of our unbelief.

Bible nasties 3- truth and scripture…

Posted on by
3

(This is a continuation of a series of posts (here and here) asking questions about the dark passages of the Bible. Forgive me if this is all old news to you theological types- I began writing this as a review of where my own thinking is up to….)

So, we come to that truth word. I am tempted to try to deal with this as a philosophical concept- but for now, lets stick to Jesus-

 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

John 8:32

What did Jesus mean?

When you read the full passage, the whole thing gets even more complicated- Jesus is in the middle of one of his regular arguments with the religious hard liners- the Pharisees. Firstly they try to catch him out by bringing him a woman caught in adultery- who by law (Biblical, scriptural law that is) should be stoned to death. (Check out Deuteronomy 22:22 for example.)

Leaving aside the fact that only the woman was brought to be stoned, not the man who was the other half of the coupling, what Jesus did here was to take an absolute unequivocal law- an absolute scriptural truth- and turn it upside down and inside out. The way he did this infuriated the religious folk, and thrills us as we read the story.

Next, Jesus claims to be the Light of the World, and the Pharisees try to challenge him using logic and truth- asking him to bring forth witnesses. Then there is a lot of isicussion about the nature of sin- all of it aimed at the very people who seemed to have got it all together in terms of scripture.

So- what sort of truth is it that will set us free when we get to know it?

The church tradition (Protestant Evangelical, slightly Charismatic, left leaning) that I grew up in would have suggested that the issue was that the Pharisees did not get the real truth- they were caught up in surface deep ‘goodness’- all of which may be the case. But this tradition has made a sport of ‘truth wars’ for generations- ever since the reformation there has been a constant schism followed by splinter followed by subdivision- each grouping claiming that their truth was truer than the last one.

And each one of these schisms has used the Bible (or rather their enlightened interpretation of the Bible) as evidence for their claims to truth. Which is just what the Pharisees did. Is this really the kind of freedom that Jesus had in mind?

Is this the kind of truth that he had in mind?

Because in this passage, and in all others, Jesus seemed to apply the truth with a distinct bias towards the poor and weak. It is one of the reasons that I am still captivated by him. The freedom he seemed to promise was from the tyranny of the law- the application of hard, rigid, unyielding truth- particularly when wielded by the powerful. This kind of truth he always (and I mean ALWAYS) seems to have turned upside down and inside out.

Which kind of brings us back to the issue of how we might read, understand and apply the words of the Bible- particularly those troubling aforementioned passages in the Old Testament.

It is probably worth remembering that what we know as ‘The Bible’ is a relatively modern creation- in terms at least of the canon of scripture that is gathered together in the way we understand it now. There is more about this here if you are interested, or check out this summary of the Biblical Canon from Wikipedia. In the pre modern area, Scriptural truth emerged from debates between learned monks, or was ruled upon by the hierarchy of the Church.

Interestingly enough, I was reading something about the early Ionan writings- from the time of St Columba. One of the books that has survived is the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis– a collection of biblical Christian teaching and law making, written on Iona some time in the late 7th Century. What is striking about this book is that it often quotes contradictory sources- the was no concern to decide what should be the absolute final truth- rather the writer appears to expect people to look at the evidence, and work it out for themselves.

Does that mean that there is no truth, just debate leading to a thousand personal opinions that shift according to influence and fashion?

Well- some might suggest that this is the logical outcome of post-modernity as applied to religion. The pendulum swing may yet need to correct itself lest we deconstruct everything to it’s eventual destruction (if you will forgive the mixed metaphor!)

Interestingly enough- what I believe is happening in the emerging church conversation at the moment is that the deconstruction phase is over- we are starting to build again. People are starting to be more comfortable in stating what they have come to believe (rather than just questioning what they had once believed.) We see this creating some conflict- as in Rob Bell’s new book. Of course, such concrete statements (even id tentatively phrased) become targets for the  truth mongers. ‘Oh’ they say ‘I knew all along this man was a heretic/a universalist/un biblical.

I think that is why I started to write this series of blog pieces. I feel it is time to take my own stand on some of these issues- you could say, to find my own bit of truth.

But it needs to be the sort of truth that sets me free.

And if it is to be this, then it needs to be a Jesus kind of truth-

Humble

Biased towards the poor and weak

Driven by love and grace, not existing independently of these

Destablising and challenging- not always obvious

Encountered in stories, relationships and mistake making- not just(or even) in written lists of laws

Applied deeply, not just on the surface

Applied first to oneself, but softly to others- apart from those who wield power

Hmmmm….

The Good Book- AC Grayling…

Posted on by
Reply

A C Grayling, secular humanist/atheist has taken it upon himself to re-write the Bible- as a secular, moral document. It seems his motivation was to make available the ‘good’ stuff whilst editing out the ‘God’ stuff.

Fair play to the bloke, people have accused me of the same. The whole emerging church conversation has often been accused of sanitising the unpleasant judgmental side of the Bible in favour of a more accessible and cuddly message.

I do not agree with either Grayling, or the assessment of EC critics of course…

Because the God we encounter in the stories of the Bible is capricious, glorious, confusing, challenging, forgiving, condemning, war making, peace bringing. Because of this, no matter how hard we try, systematising and defusing our ideas of God always fail.

It might be possible to read the Bible as a book of moral fables, of quaint historical interest, but also vaguely character building in indefinable ways. You will have to ignore whole bits of the Bible to do this of course, and along the way may come to wonder whether the Bible can be regarded as ‘moral’ at all.

What makes the Bible vital, engaging and alive is the spine tingling possibility of- God. What transforms the reading of the Bible is the fact that we use it to approach- God.

Without God- there would seem very little point in reading this miscellany of stories of ancient people.

So sorry AC- I will not be reading your ‘Good book’, I will stick to my not so good one, in all its messy challenge.

But then you did not expect me to do anything else did you?