Category Archives: Spirituality

4 thought TV…

Posted on by
Reply

Just discovered 4thought.tv– “A series of highly personal short films, broadcast 365 days a year, reflecting on a broad range of religious and ethical issues, and aspects of our spiritual lives. These 90 second films challenge some traditional views, providing a platform for both scepticism and devout religious beliefs.”

Somehow passed me by, but there is some wonderful stuff-

Here is a little Foy Vance

Then there is the polar opposites of the homosexuality debate-

And lots more besides!

I think I might be visiting from time to time…

Richard Rohr on Dualism…

Posted on by
Reply

My friend Maggie sent me a link to a quote from Richard Rohr the other day. We are both looking forward to hearing him speak at Greenbelt Festival in a couple of weeks.

(Yikes- a couple of weeks! Aoradh are doing various things at GB, and we have a lot of work to do before we will be ready!)

Anyway, the quote tapped into the theme of dualism- which I mentioned before- here, and has also been a central idea in McLaren’s recent book–

Dualism.

As applied to theological understanding, this debate goes something like this-

Western civilisation has been hugely influenced by Greek philosophy, and in particular the work of Plato.

This is not a new idea- I have been in a number of emerging church discussions that have highlighted the contrast between the philosophy of the ancient Hebrews with the potential skew in perspective that comes from wearing our Western Platonic goggles. But it is an idea that appears to have become increasingly important as we seek to re-engage with the ancient scriptures, and as some of the core tenets of our faith are being reshaped.

Plato (in contrast to the polar opposite- you could say ‘dual-‘ position of Aristotle) regarded all that was of the earth as temporary, worthless- a mere shadow of the ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is not material- it is the essence behind the fumbling form and shape we humans give to things.

The end result was a culture skewed towards division. Enlightened thinkers tended to view the world as made up of the profane, and the sacred. The sacred was unchanging ultimate reality, whilst the profane was changing, shifting, worthless.

The tendency to divide every subject into two seems to have been pervasive- left/right, good/bad. evangelical/liberal etc- the dualities multiply and abound.

As these ideas mingled with the founders of the early church- who after all were at the centre of the Greek/Roman world that embodied this dualism in terms of their philosophy and origins- then it potentially had some powerful effects on religious thinking-

  • The sense of the material world being of lesser importance than the ultimate reality of an orderly, dispassionate unchanging God.
  • The resultant need to focus on winning souls, as a priority over any other religious activity.
  • The in-out stuff- the us and them stuff. We are enlightened and saved- you are not.
  • Enlightenment means becoming aware of our imperfection, set alongside the perfectness of God.
  • In the creation of this ‘ideal state’- a Christian version of Pax Romana– it is only citizens who count- only people who have converted.
  • And in return, Christians can confidently expect prosperity and blessing commensurate with being a citizen of this ideal kingdom.

The interesting and difficult question that McLaren is suggesting that we need to ask in ‘A new kind of Christianity’ is about considering the faith of the Ancient Hebrews- their understanding of God. He (and others) propose that this Ancient Hebrew God was very different from ours.

For a start, many of the simple dualities that we take for granted are challenged by the stories of the Old Testament.

  • This God is not unchanging- but appears to be persuaded, and is willing to engage with the most gritty earth bound issues in way that can only suggest wild and uncontained passion.
  • Winning souls or converts is simply not an issue. The Jewish people appeared to have no idea of heaven or hell- but rather were to be a source of blessing to others in the here and now.
  • They were a people set apart- but not in the idealised sense. Rather they had a difficult and tortuous relationship with their identity and calling- constantly getting caught up in becoming too superior, too big for their boots, too independent and self sufficient.
  • There does not seem to have been the same ideal of ‘perfection’ either. God was unknowable, unfathomable, mysterious. His ways were not orderly and predictable- and so engagement with him was dangerous. Purity was about keeping laws, about living a communal routine governed by festivals and ritualised repentance/sacrifice. In this context, there was not a simple dual version of saved/unsaved- rather a process of engagement and belonging to community.
  • The Hebrews saw themselves as the ‘Children of God’, and as such were a Holy Nation, belonging to God. But they constantly incurred the wrath of God through their lack of respect of the ‘other’, the aliens in their midst. There was also a lot of war making and slaughter apparently commanded by God, which is frankly confusing and difficult to understand, and fit poorly with the words of Jesus.
  • Finally the Hebrews clearly looked to God to be the source of their prosperity and nationhood. But it did not end well did it? The succession of advancements and cataclysmic downturns that categorise the history of the nation of Israel might suggest that God is not interested solely in national or even local prosperity- that this can never be commanded, or guaranteed through orthopraxy.

Back to the Rohr Quote-

Jesus’ teaching on moral equivalency between himself and God and everybody else includes the neighbour, the outsider, the foreigner, the Gentile, the sinner, and finally, the enemy.  This is total non-dualistic thinking.  It was from this level of non-dual thinking that we find Jesus finally saying in John 17:21- 22:  “Father, may they be one.  May they be one in us as you are in me and I am in you.”Jesus lived his human life inside of a unitive consciousness, and yet he could make use of the dualistic mind to make clear distinctions, as well. (“You cannot serve both God and Mammon” [Matthew 6:24].)  And this, too, is the goal for all of us: unitive (non-dual) consciousness is the only way to deal with the big issues like God, love, suffering, death, and infinity.  But then we can revert to dualistic consciousness to make practical decisions about turning left or right, or whether to buy apples or oranges.

Adapted from Experiencing the Naked Now (webcast)

Another one of those discussions about church…

Posted on by
4

I shared lunch with some friends today- I meet with three other blokes to pray every couple of weeks. It is a really good mix of folks as each of us are very different, but share a desire for honesty, friendship and to create a safe space to share faith and life.

Today we spoke about church.

It is a familiar theme. I am the only one of the group who is no longer attending a regular Sunday morning service in a church building. All of my friends are still hanging on in there- just.

It is not that any of us do not appreciate the value of meeting and worshipping communally- it is just that the baggage that comes with this seems to have a high price- and also that the activities through which communal worship is celebrated can just be so suffocatingly irrelevant- for us, let alone for our kids or our friends and neighbours.

The question of what might be possible as an alternative has exercised much discussion, including on this blog.

In particular, today we asked a local version of this question…

A couple of days ago, in response to a comment on this piece by Aileen, I wrote this-

I wonder  if  we were ‘over sold’ some of the ideas about what it means to be a Christian. We have been told repeatedly that people are of two sorts-
Saved and unsaved
Good and ‘of the world’(or even ‘evil)
Transformed and untransformed
Enlightened and deceived by the devil
We have the Holy Spirit who will sort us out- they don’t.

This dualism allows us to then suggest that Christians are elevated above all other people- more holy, more loving, living better lives. And then when we discover (as we inevitably do) that Christians are often just as screwed up and damaged /damaging as the next person, we are exposed to a great disappointment- and what the Americans would call a ‘disconnect’ between our rhetoric and reality.

I have come to believe that the Kingdom of God at loose on the earth is NOT the same thing as ‘the church’. Rather “God plays in ten thousand places, from the father to the features of mens faces, lovely in limbs and hands not his”

The question is, if this is true, what the POINT of the church is? If Christians are untransformed by encountering Jesus- what is the point?

I think I would reply that we are not untransformed- the very fact that you and I are asking these questions is proof of that. Rather what we come to is an awareness that we can reach higher, and deeper- and expect an encounter with the divine as we do this that is so much more than a one directional intellectual exchange of religious ideas/doctrine. But also that we are called to walk humbly- and to hold ourselves in awareness of our sinful state- not other peoples sinful state, but our own.

Perhaps then the purpose of the church is to be a sprinkling of salt, bringing out flavours of the world, and a source of light that illuminates good and beautiful things. This kind of church I can belong to!

I have no desire to start a new church though- in the sense of a new institution, or a new exclusive gathering of people who try to sell their ‘product’ and their version of truth to everyone on the outside.

But what began to emerge today in our discussion was the possibility of a more regular celebration event, in partnership with others where possible.

In many ways this might compliment some of the more intimate small group church things that I love.

Who knows what might emerge, but I have a feeling that it might be time to make some noise again…

“In the name of Christ, I quit being a Christian…”

Posted on by
5

Not my words, but the words of novelist Anne Rice– see this recent article in the Guardian.

I confess not to have read anything that she has written- I am not into Vampire related literature, but others who are tell me that she is very good.

This is what she said on her facebook page–

For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For tenyears, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

And later-

As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

Check out her facebook page– it has literally thousands of responses- mostly supportive, but some predictably angry-

I read Rice’s comments, and find myself in full agreement. In the circles I move in, these are not controversial. There seems to be an increasing number of Christians who can no longer cope with Christianity- or rather what we have made of it.

The challenge for organised religious Christianity is to find a way to engage with us again. Some will return later- we will have our times of rebellion, but then come home. Others will never come back- it is too hard to return to an environment that may have been perceived as abusive and manipulative.

Many more are looking for a way to re-engage and network with a different kind of Christianity- even though we are not quite sure what this looks like. We know what it is NOT, but lack certainty as to what it could be.

But it is certainly about a return to Jesus- to a radical, counter cultural faith that turns over the tables in the temple- that takes another look at all this baggage we have accumulated.

And it will happen. It is happening.

Here is another status update from Anne Rice-

My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.

Amen.

Jesus the magician…

Posted on by
Reply

Bad day today- so needed cheering up. Time for some t’internet comedy.

I came across this clip- and watched in trepidation, as I do not really like people laughing a Jesus. It is like someone mocking your wife or child- if only they could see what you see…

On second watching- there seemed to be a deeper meaning here.

Something to do with the Jesus we make use of.

The Jesus who shifts product.

The Jesus who gets us what we want.

The Jesus that we can wear like a lucky charm to ward of all unpleasantness…

The Jesus who is made after our image.

Hmmmmm….

In which I take for myself a patron saint…

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Berry recently told me that his community (Safespace, Telford) had a patron saint- St Brendan.

It had never previously occurred to me that a patron saint would be useful,  sensible or even possible- but in the moment I idly confessed to slightly feeling the lack of a personal saint…

I am not quite sure what they are for however. Some people believe that saints intercede for them in heaven- a kind of word in God’s ear from someone on the inside. I do not mean to be dismissive of other people’s faith, but this makes little sense to me.

However, I began a little journey of discovery on my holiday recently, enquiring into some of those old Anglo Saxon saints. In a trip round Whitby Abbey, you trip over them after all.

Whitby Abbey was founded (or perhaps organised by) Hilda in 657. All I knew about her and her times, I learned fromthis book–

It is a good book- history made real, with some good earthy bodice ripping (if the Anglo Saxon’s wore bodices.) Certainly worth a place in the suitcase if you are away on holiday. But it is Melvin Bragg’s take on the times- information is pretty sketchy after all.

Melvin Bragg did a programme on Hilda’s influence on his wonderful ‘In our time’ programme- well worth a listen here.

What is clear is that Hilda was a pagan who converted to Christianity aged 13 along with a whole Kingdom. There is a fantastic story about how this came about- her own father had been on the wrong side of some dynastic troubles and ended up poisoned, and so Hilda, a princess of royal blood sought refuge at the court of King Edwin in Northumbria. Edwin came under the influence of Christian missionaries, and asked his whole court to come to a consensus as to whether they should convert to Christianity. One of his courtiers is recorded as asking the court to imagine a sparrow flying into the great hall and finding itself surrounded by the glories of court. The suggestion was that we too are sparrows, living a short life amid much uncertainty- and here was a faith that promised an eternal relationship with the divine…

They converted, along with Hilda.

The venerable Bede, author of  The Ecclesiastical History of the English People around 731 is our main source of information about Hilda. Bede probably met people who knew her.

Bede describes Hilda as a woman of great energy, who was a skilled administrator and teacher. She gained such a reputation for wisdom that kings and princes sought her advice. Considering all the fuss at the moment in the Church of England over women Bishops (and the Pope preposterous pronunciations about women priests being a sin along side child abuse) it is interesting to note that Hilda presided over two houses- one male and one female. She was part of a tradition of royal princesses who became leaders of holy houses all along the north east coast of England- wherever a river met the sea.

Hilda’s kindness and leadership seemed to allow others to flourish in learning and leadership- 5 of her monks went on to be bishops in the Anglo Saxon church. She was also well enough thought of that her house became the site of the famous Synod of Whitby, where the date of Easter was debated, and many believe the power of Rome finally overcame the Celtic churches.

She also had a concern for ordinary folk such as Cædmon, however. He was a herder at the monastery, who was inspired in a dream to sing verses in praise of God. Hilda recognized his gift and encouraged him to develop it.

Although Hilda must have had a strong character she inspired affection. As Bede writes, “All who knew her called her mother because of her outstanding devotion and grace”.

The stories of lives of faith lived out in these ancient times are fascinating. The accounts are not history as we understand it- rather they are seeking to inspire and encourage devotion.

Hilda, because of her support of Caedmon , Hilda is regarded as the patron saint of Poets everywhere.

Everywhere- and here…

Bishops, Centurions and sexuality…

Posted on by
Reply

So the Church of England is in the middle of another storm caused by the nomination of Jeffrey John as one of the candidates to take over as Bishop of Southwark. He is openly gay, although celebate, and has already had to stand down as suffragan bishop of Reading because of his sexuality after protests from traditionalists.

It makes more likely the prospect of a split in the Anglican Communion, a prospect which makes me sad, as the real strength of the C of E is it’s diversity- and generosity to a wide range of theological positions.

Tonight, our housegroup had a discussion around chapter 8 of Matthew’s gospel- including this familiar passage-

5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6“Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”7Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”

8The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.

(NIV)

Audrey and Paul discussed the fact that they had hear it suggested that the relationship between the centurion and his servant may have been sexual. Apparently it would not have been unusual for Romans to take ‘servants’ as homosexual lovers.

The speculation then is whether the centurion did not want Jesus to come to his house because he was trying to hide the true nature of their relationship.

But if this is true- then Jesus would have known. He was Jesus after all.

And if he knew, it was not relevant to him was it? He did not mention it, focussing on the faith of the centurion, and the fact that those outside the religious institution of his day- or even outside the ‘kingdom’- might yet be welcome at the table.

I am sure you get my point.

My position has moved a long way on this issue. The dominance of individual sexuality as a measure of a person, and as an exclusion criteria for their service in the church- I am increasingly frustrated by it.

And I remain convinced that in 20 years, the dominant view within a broader cross section of the church will move in this direction also. I just hope that the C of E will make it that far.

Emerging church and the new Charismatic-Mystics…

Posted on by
2

I came across a post on on the Emergent Village blog that really resonated with me. This was a piece by Dave Brown, who speaks really well about his background in the Charismatic movement. His ambivalence towards this background is very familiar- a combination of cringe and affection that I have spoken about before- here for example.

He talks about a new emergent kind of Charismatic movement, typified by the tripped out whacky stuff that surrounds John Crowder- Check this out!

Scary?

Hilarious?

Or just totally baffling?

My reaction is no surprise to me. Mostly I just recoil. But I have been in environments like this- usually hiding behind a guitar, but enough to feel a slight yearning for the uninhibited emotional and spiritual outpouring that such encounters provide- even the slightly more buttoned-down British version of them.

And talking of the British version, Dave makes mention in his article of Sloshfest- and other festivals in Wales, associated with familiar names (to us here in Aoradh anyway) like Godfrey Birtill. (We invited him to Dunoon once, and it was a bit of a road accident- but that is another story!)

Check out this site too- by the ‘Drunk Monk’.

What of all this then? Those of us who have escaped environments like these have common stories- of the oppression and madness that comes when you overheat and over sell ecstatic experience, leading to all sorts of leadership excesses and psychological damage. But we will also remember the freedom, then joy, the sense of release and belonging. Lots of good, mixed in with some really bad. I am happy to leave most of it behind…

But fringe movements like this are emerging at the same time as our own. People are forging a new frontier of faith, because the old one is whithering- and as Dave points out in his article our direction has been too often into the intellect- we have congratulated and celebrated deconstruction and theological debate. And we have eschewed emotion, and joy, and outward celebration.

And to be honest, I have simply never liked ambient chilled out music. I like music that engages, rather than simply providing a blank wallpaper.

I liked what Dave had to say here-

None of us on the fringes want to be held down by spiritual tyranny. That’s why we’ve voluntarily exiled ourselves to the desert of edge-pushing spirituality. And that was one of the things that attracted people like my parents to the Charismatic movement. They wanted more than establishment-friendly religion. And while Charismania has frequently (and often rightly) been criticized as all emotion and no substance, I think it’s unwise to adhere to the opposite extreme of all head and no heart. More specifically, I think we all could handle a little more emotion in our spiritual regimen. It’s okay to cry or laugh in church. It’s okay to express our passion with boisterous antics…or weepy, knees-on-floor reverence.

It’s okay to come out from behind the mask of objective distance. Because sometimes life sucks and we need to share the burden with somebody. And sometimes God has worked a miracle and we need to shout it from the rooftops. Sometimes we’re pissed off and it does more harm to hold it in. And sometimes we’ve experienced a hit of holy joy and freedom that we can’t explain, and we should share these things because that’s what community is for.

I don’t want this precious movement of the emerging church to end up as just another dry, debate-filled clique that gradually becomes the empire it set out to avoid. But I have enormous hope that that will never be the case. Because we are all part of a bigger story that will continue to evolve. Even as we sometimes try to distance ourselves from the label, we on the fringes are still an integral part of the larger Christian movement that’s been rolling on for millennia, and it always will be bigger than any one empire that tries to lay claim to it.

Amen brother (as I used to say)

Amen.

Anyone want to buy a used crown of thorns?

Posted on by
Reply

I have been continuing to enjoy the radio 4 series ‘A History of the world in 100 objects.’ It is a great idea- using ancient objects as windows into the culture and circumstances that produced them. It almost (but not quite) justifies all of that Victorian relic collecting in the days of Empire (otherwise known as plundering.)

Todays programme concerned itself with an object I had never heard of before- the Holy Thorn Reliquary.

This object was made some time around the 1390’s to be the receptacle for a thorn from what is claimed to be the crown of thorns that Jesus was made to wear when he was crucified.

It is decorated with scenes of the crucifixion, and an imagination of the return of Jesus on the day of judgement. It is a fabulously expensive object- covered in jewels and gold. The thorn itself is displayed behind some polished rock crystal.

The King of France bought the Crown from Constantinople around 1239- after it had been sold to the Venetians to pay off a debt.

At the time, it was probably the most valuable and expensive object in the whole of Christendom. Its owner was able to use it as evidence of his piety and power, and claim it as a blessing on his nation and Kingship.

In many ways, this object might be seen to objectify a pre modern medieval world view that the coming of the modern enlightenment and the Reformation swept away. All the bad stuff of bloody crusades and rich sinners buying indulgences to atone for terrible crimes.

And of course, in the brisk trade in religious relics- from the bones of minor saints, right through to the Holy Grail, or fragments of the true cross of Jesus.

But perhaps the most venerated object of all is the Crown of Thorns- kept as it is in the centre of the most famous Cathedral in the middle of Paris- Notre Dame. Stained with the blood of Jesus. Forced onto the head of God, come to earth.

Now I know what you are thinking- surely no one really thinks that these objects are genuine?

It certainly seems that people did- from as long ago as 409 AD there are records of people venerating these objects, and the King of France was prepared to shell out a huge sum of money- 5 times the cost of building a cathedral- to get hold of the Crown of Thorns.

What interests me, as ever, is what these objects might have meant to the faith of individuals- indeed, what they might STILL mean to the faith of individuals. Where they just power statements of a faith-gone-wrong, or was there something about them that might have carried the sacred into people’s minds and hearts?

Like all faith, we can only understand from our own perspective. Meaning is always filtered by context and experience.

We POST moderns seem to have a fascination with the pre-modern world. It represents a mystical perspective that we lost for a few hundred years- replaced by hard logic and rational discourse.

And these relics offer a window into other forms of Christian faith…

Hope for recovery…

Posted on by
1

I spent an afternoon meeting with some people who came together to discuss the establishment of a Recovery Network for people who have experienced mental ill health in Argyll.

The Recovery movement is one of the most exciting things to happen within the mental health world for years. It is a grass roots movement, turning the power relationships in psychiatry upside down. It’s persuasive idea is that we need to stop doing what we are doing, because it is not working- rather we need to equip, empower and inspire people towards control of their own choices and decisions towards building real and meaningful lives.

I was reminded again yesterday of the word HOPE.

Because recovery does not depend on the presence or absence of illness- for most people mental health ebbs and flows. For some of us, this ebbing and flowing can be more severe.

But recovery very much depends on the presence or absence of HOPE.

And where hope is being raised, it makes visible to me a kind of humanity that make clear that we are beautiful creatures, made a little lower than the angels.

But let us make no mistake- hope is a dangerous and scary word. It contains all possibilities, but also the danger of disaster and failure. It is something that we need to hold on to firmly but tenderly, like a bottle of nitro-glycerine.

And we need to acknowledge that for many, there is a recovery journey that begins first in daring to use the word again…

Here is a little more Foy Vance-

If theres one thing that I know
It is the 2 shades of hope
One the enlightening soul
And the other is more like a hangman’s rope
Well it’s true you may reap what you sow
But not that despair is the all time low
Baby, hope deals the hardest blows

There was once someone I loved
Whose heart overflowed his cup
And his shoes got covered in blood
Oh but he never knew cos he only looked up
Well he was in trouble and so
Had known pain more than most I know
Yet it was hope that dealt the hardest blows

And the girl that holds the hand
Of her somewhat distant man
Though she did everything she can
Still his heart set sail for distant lands
And she wonders sometimes if he knows
How she feels like a trampled rose
Baby, hope deals the hardest blows

Well some people think their sin
Caused the cancer thats eating into them
And the only way that they can win
Is by the healing of somebody’s hands on their skin and praying
But when the cancer does not go
Baby, hope dealt the hardest blows

And now all these truths are so
With foundations below them
They were dug out in a winter’s cold
When the world stole our young and preyed on the old, well
Hope deals in the hardest blows
Yet I cannot help myself but hope

I guess that’s why love hurts
And heartache stings
And despair is never worse
Than the despair that death brings
But hope deals the hardest blows, dear
The hardest
Hope deals the hardest blows