Standing on the rock

What an odd few days I've had as Remembrancetide, building on All Saints and All Souls, headed towards the climax that is Armistice Day (11th November) - the variety was sublime but some of those I met during the exercise left me just a little bruised and bewildered. It is to them that, as promised, I write the following (but all may read and offer correctives for that in which I miht have erred and, like a lost sheep, strayed).

One end of the 'knowledge/opinion' spectrum' appears to be filled with opinionated people with very little knowledge (and/or understanding) and yet they shout about everything in quite an unsettling manner. At the other end we find people who are quite passionate about stuff but, having taken the time to learn 'everything' about whatever it is that matters to them, they proceed to bombard you with their version of the truth whilst sticking their fingers in their ears.

Thankfully there is a centre ground populated by people who've taken the time to surround themselves with knowledge of all kinds and engage with others in a most impressive way whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. These people are a joy to spend time with and regardless of their position on things, whether it be with or against you, dialogue is generally a joy (even when I found I might be wrong!). It is these whom I feel are those who are 'standing on the rock',

The sad thing is that 'bucket mouths' are usually, because they are the loudest, the people that are most noticed and therefore most reacted against; this is something that permits those in opposition to them to act with a high degree of general public support. A good case in point might be some of the stances taken on a variety of issues by groups like Westboro' Baptist Church (who I thought were a spoof when I first found them so extreme were the views expressed by them).

These people put forward views that no one I know supports and yet rather than see them as an isolated bunch of (insert your own word or words here) those who wish to portray Christians as something extreme, stupid, ignorant, downright, bigoted or generally wicked (delete whichever do not apply in your opinion - please note, your opinion might just be as wrong as Westboro's !!! ).

The equally sad thing about those who have ALL the facts (as they understand it) and do not engage in a civilised, rational and wonderfully enlightening manner - especially those who having ALL the answers are against anything that might suggest things that they do not wish to consider (and it's usually choice rather than something logical or reasonable - if you don't believe me read some of the books that a famously pseudo-scientific atheist has scribbled and tell me I'm wrong).

Ignorance is not usually the sole property of any group - It is something that all people whether they are wise or foolish, bright or dim, theist or atheist can make their own - and therein lies the rub, for as Christians I would hope that whatever we think should be influenced and set by the words of Jesus, the Christ, and the accounts of God's dealing with humankind. The problem is that science can make superstitious people out of the wise (and those who consider themselves wise( too: It can endow mind reading capabilities upon those who have read too many books to the extent that they have forgotten how to read, and enjoy, people.

The same is true of religion, for truly religion is humanity's greatest rebellion against, and rejection of, God. When blind rules are taken up in such a way as we can no longer see the image of the invisible God made visible before our very eyes (1 John 4 - you can't love God and hate your brother) then we are lost.

The problem is that between those who are ignorant and happy to remain such AND those who have all the answers can easily lose sight of the valid stuff. For me this is the message that Christ came to reconcile people to God, not teach them 'facts'.

To be 'Christian' and occupy either of the extremes on my spectrum is to act against Christ and His message of reconciliation and love; it denies everything that Jesus is and came to make known and fuels those who oppose us and confers upon them a degree of credibility they do not deserve. So the choice is ours: rock or rocky - crushed or broken?

Hello Vicar, "I've sort of lost my doubt!"

In conversation with an atheist acquaintance I was surprised to hear them say that they'd become an agnostic, no longer being sure that God (or gods perhaps) did not exist. Feeling just the beginnings of that ever present sin, pride, at my part in influencing them, I found myself brought back to the earth with a bump! The reason for this was their attributing this new found state to Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion'

"The more the book attacked the beliefs, the more I considered them and found something coherent and consistent and this has got me thinking and I'm not so sure there's not something I haven't wanted to notice before."

We'd spoken on a few occasions about the many 'nice' Christians they'd encountered and seen them merely constrained to the 'mad but nice' bin; people who lived in the world of 'I want it to be' who pinned their hopes on someone whom, having been invented to salve their needs, lived their lives of belief in that same person.

The burden of proof is whose I wonder - Is it on the part of the believer or the doubter? That's the question isn't it?

You can't see gravity and yet let go of something and the effect of gravity is immediately obvious and gravity's existence is confirmed.

You can't see God either and yet let go of Him and what is the observable effect?  Is their an empirical test? Can we remove God from the equation and see some difference or add Him to the mix and find a precipitate in the test tube of faith or a 'pop' as the dying splint of faith reignites in the substance of God?

This is going to be a interesting journey indeed - thank you Mr D :-)

Made me smile: A game to try after the port's been passed . . .

Peter Ould posted his 'Steps to break through a liberal's theological nonsense'.

 1. Ask the question, "Do you want to live a life that is surrendered to the will of God for you?"

 2. Ask the question, "Do you think it's unfair that God would permit you to have a sexual desire you shouldn't act out on?"

 Repeat asking questions 1 and 2 until the penny drops!

I love Peter's posts - he's so subtle :-)

Still - I get the feeling it would work well as a conversation starter!

God's Not Dead - a Curate's Egg of a film

Two days on and I'm still very much engaged with some internal dialogue over the film 'God's not dead! for (sadly) like the Curate's egg - not all of it is good!

Now I know this view might draw some fire from those who loved it unreservedly but I cannot excuse nor applaud some of the elements within it even though it was one of the better examples of this this genre of film (which perhaps also indicates how awful much of it is). Here's some of the current struggles:

There were some valid sections but the sharp apologetic was in stark contrast to some of the poor dialogue and the film might have been greatly improved by a pair of electronic scissors! Why they had to include the Islamic convert sub plot I have no idea - as an apologetic it was already sorted - this was tacky and unwarranted (and yes I know it goes on - but if the issue is to be raised, do it in coherent and contextually secure manner for Pete's sake).

The end was simply amazing (and not, I'm afraid, in a good way) but at least it cut the bluebirds singing and the Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm conclusion that I feared was becoming inevitable. Mind you complex medical diagnosis at a glance and a street death conversion of epic length and amazingly extensive dialogue (did it really take an hour or was that merely my perception?) all conspired to cloud over, and out, the positives and leave me with an unwieldy and unpalatable scene that provided if the the final, then it was the penultimate, nail in the coffin.

But I loved the apologetics, the analogy of sin as a cell was outstanding and the call to not only 'give an answer to all who ask' but to stand up for our faith regardless of the opposition  - but especially when it comes from within.

Waiting for the DVD now so I can cut out the dross and celebrate the good (it's called gleaning - something it seems that many Christians seem to have lost) - Happy Friday

No, it's not a 'normal' blog!

Had a most challenging and enjoyable conversation with someone who felt they need to make the point that my blog wasn't a 'normal' Christian blog! My response went along the lines of 'No surprise there then Sherlock!' because it isn't supposed to be, and here's why:

Many of the 'normal' Christian sites I encounter trawl out the same old theological explanations (often it seem lifting them from other places) relating to the same old theological issues. They work hard at looking clever (something I'd never be able to carry off) and and amongst their highly polished (something I'd never claim to have) web presence they produce extremely clever theological thinking - often proving it with proper theological words and quotes from the great and influential theological minds what clever people refer to (I can't event spell SchloerMarker!).

Sadly, what I try to do here is look at issues that collide with me and having survived the impact define some baseline for me, and perhaps others, to begin to dialogue with and establish some sort of understanding of the issue before me (and perhaps us).

I will engage with things theological but, thanks to some excellent training which taught that theologians are accessible or academic, I have decided that I favour the former and so try to appeal to things with less syllables and fewer names of the Germanic variety*!

I will also continue to leave myriad typos as I rush in, scribble and rush out again - it's the curse of the scratchpad nature of the blog (but will try to remedy said typos at some stage to protect the brains of those around me).

I accept that this place will never be one with a myriad of whatever it is that those wonderfully polished site with loads of neat little adverts and clever little gadgets have to make it stand out as 'something to win prizes'**

What you will find here is stuff that I come across, dialogue with, find myself (and others) challenged by as something we can engage in and develop our own apologetic as we do theology in a real and everyday manner.

So that's me and this place and who, what, how and why it is here - please feel free to become a part of it and make it your own in whichever way you can - All are welcome to view my own brand of weirdness and my journey for integrity in my own faith and ministry life.

Pax

*mind you hypocritically, and just a little inconsistently, I will continue to turn to Barth, Moltmann, Bonhoeffer, Hauerwas and many other of my inappropriately germanic styled heroes as I seek to grow my faith and learn.

** A cool comment from someone who stumbled across the site and, applauding some drivel I'd scribbled, made a number of 'design and features' suggestions which, they assured me, would make me 'an award winning'  offering. Not the aim (but of course if you'd like to applaud - feel free (and if you'd like to offer suggestions, correctives and dialogue - feel freer still).

Blue Sky Thought - Opposites

This is so true, for often I find people who are comfortable in what they know, think they know or believe and then . .

Blue Sky Thinking - Ignorance

Saw this in a slightly different form and thought I'd post it as a bit of 'Blue Sky Thinking' as it's something I wish we, as Christians, did a lot more of and would love some of the 'I'm a thinker and I'm a scientific sort' to engage in a lot more! After all so many people out there claim to be thinkers and yet their assumptions and glib off the cuff comments show them generally to be better sheep than the Christians (who are supposed to be after all!!).

Anyway, enjoy yourself with this one:

Would be good to think that there were more willing to dialogue across the strata that exists in Christendom and with those outside who claim - wouldn't it?

The Bible: Inerrant?

 'You don't believe the Bible is true do you?'

And it was with those words that our conversation begun - and what a conversation it was - and the day became just a little more interesting. After all, who believes the Bible is anything more than a collection of good thoughts and some wisdom wrapped in a bit of poetry that might help us to live a bit better? It's not like it is the actual word of God is it?

Now before I go any further I think I should let you know my convention regarding Bible and 'word'. Bible is 'word' and Jesus is 'Word' - that is  logos and Logos - the written word and the living Word. Simple innit?

The conversation spun a bit and there were two words that kept coming up, from them not me I hasten to add, and these were: inerrant and infallible. So I let them talk to (for that read 'at') me for a bit and kept smiling - and they talked and I smiled, I smiled and they talked and . . .

Well actually before we get to the 'and' let's freeze frame and think what the two words mean first shall we, because (to be brutally honest) most of the people I find using them rarely have a consistent or even accurate definition to inform or legitimise their views. The problem is that (like sex and gender) the two words are used interchangeably and (as Alice in Wonderland shows) words can mean whatever you wish them to mean (and perhaps not mean too)!

I realise that within the time I have I can only do one word a day and so, if you're sitting comfortably, the words is:

Inerrant: Has no errors - does not 'err' (have error) or wander from the truth or facts. It is what the Bible is - that is not just 'not wrong' but 'unable to be wrong either - I liked the thought that it is not, and cannot, sin! In a nutshell - it is Truth.

There is a struggle here for the Bible is seen as a mirror to who, and what, and how, God is. If He is Truth (and 'All-knowing truth' at that) in all its forms - then that which comes from Him and reflects Him and speaks for Him and (well, I'm sure you get the picture) has surely to be true also. If it's not then conversely neither can God be. If it's a light to our path (psalm 119) then it's a true light and if not then it is surely a stumbling block and needs to be consigned to 'literature'.

Break the mirror and you only see fragments of God*

This is a real biggy when you think about it because taken to it's ultimate consequence we can but see God disappear in a puff of self-serving, God-crunching, pronouncement.

Our first problem is that we can translate stuff wrong (through ignorance and by design) and this can have a great impact on what is written and how we understand it.

The second problem is that we can take things out of context and apply our own assumptions (like 'they're primitives and we are sophisticated') which colour the way we interpret it - after all, most I find with a view on something in the Bible hold that view to deny something others or permit themselves to act under the warrant of the very same Scripture they would otherwise deny.

Indeed the Simon and Garfunkel gene is active and virulent in Christian world - so many of us hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest!

But we have a high degree of confidence in the manuscripts - and many who will tell me they were deeply edited and added to to sell 'Coca Cola' and support political and cultural views and are totally untrustworthy. There is a chasm extant between the word of god and the way we interpret it - one is 'holy writ' and the other (at times) is more like 'Holy Cow!' One is to be considered inerrant and the other just ain't and this is where the 'Let's revise the Bible for today's language, culture, and [implied greater] more sophisticated society' tumbles into error - for the Bible becomes 'Bible Lite' rather than the 'Full Fat' version that is inerrant.

When I posed this I was asked whether I believed 'Each and every word in the Bible was true?'

My response was that every word was true, because it is after all just a word. The question of truth only becomes valid when we put words together because it is the construction, materials, attitudes and the like that make the untruths appear. It is the heart and the intention that chooses the words rather than the words themselves.

'I do believe that sentences and clauses, when read and taken contextually point to truths (even when we don't want them),' was my summation. Something which was not as well received as I might have hoped! In fact it brought back the response, 'So you take it all literally?'

This in an invitation to greater joy in that in those few words more doors are opened, and even more lunatics enter, to make the circus just that bit more fun. The reason for this is that I don't take it all literally and, if Donald Guthrie (whose every word I used to hang on) is to be believed, we shouldn't! It is true in that it is true when I say I boil an egg for three minutes I am not employing a scientifically, to the millisecond, timing but what I say is indeed true. It isn't 'literal' but it is correct and this is where I find myself with the Bible.

Creation: Years, days or what - I know there are in the narrative distinct periods and these 'aeons' might have an arbitrary delineation and yet the delineation exists (and don't get me going about the order because I go from bang which would be light followed by sound and struggle from there depending on what book I've read!).

Literal or accurate: two sides of extremely different coins I would have to say and struggle to examine, critique, define and pack away everything and you end up with something as clumsy and confusing as the Athanasian Creed ;-). There's a middle of the road approach (but then again being part of the 'via media' that is the Church of England I would say that wouldn't i?).

Being Christian is about brains, faith, reason and tradition too (we call this 'orthodoxy') for we need to read the Bible contextually with regard to the author and the focus of His dealings (us) and to reduce it to equations, rigid 'literal' stuff is to make a sterile and impotent thing of the Bible. Conversely, to read it with stalled breath and hushed tone - as if each word itself was made of crystal and needed kid gloves and falling on the knees would be to render it overwieldy and underimportant.

Emphasis, context and balance - that's the way to do it (who let that parrot in?).

Seems to me that in the final analysis the problem is that some of the stuff in it we just don't want to understand, accept or live by - do we?

*discussion for another day - debilitating or delivering?

Theologically sensitive or merely seeking to be popular?

I've been asked to think about how we think about thinking about thinking theologically. So here it the beginning of it (I think):

If there is anything that makes thinking theologically an interesting and, at times, potentially frustrating thing, it has to be the fact that so many of us want to work in a world where things are always mutually exclusive. Add to this the challenge of having people who call upon us to 'interpret the Bible using the lens of our heart' and those who are happy to embrace all and every thinking on the grounds that we are 'called to peace' or because we are called to be' inclusive' (phrases that need to be interpreted and understood at some stage)  and we find ourselves in a very interesting place indeed - and it don't always look 'Christian' (if that means 'Biblical' or refers to the way we live our faith!). The challenge is that we do indeed need to be 'theologically sensitive' and we seek the truth whether it is popular or not.

I'm having a bit of a struggle with a few issues at the moment. This is what I do because I'm called to do it for myself as a believer and for those I pastor, as a pastor, and those teach and  . . . (you know what I mean I'm sure).

My faith demands that I examine and question and explore and dialogue (with those who believe like me, unlike me and not like me at all) with the things I believe, think I believe and think I might not believe too. This is the Christian's quest - to ask awkward questions and seek unbelievable answers to questions of belief and then, having managed to do that to some extent, direct my life (and help others to follow too) on the way that God hints* that I should go.

Looking, as I am, at the question of infant baptism I am encountering many friends who are happy for this to feature alongside adult baptism. Both have their place in Church practice and are indicated in the Bible. 'What's the problem with having both?' they cry.  And before the words are dry in the ears of the hearers response, 'We can only have one baptism - and that's . . .' is heard and battle is joined. There can be but one solution and, fallen human nature to the fore, we need to our view to be the persuasive, compelling and predominant viewpoint. Anything else is obviously just plain wrong because . . . well because it's 'MY' view for a start and the fact I WANT it to be the way things are done should surely be enough for it to be exactly that!

We then starts the horse trading:

'We have 'always' done this!'
(isn't 'always' a real curse? It is the province of the insecure and the feeble-minded or the faux security of those who who know they're on shifting and uncertain ground!). It's also the opportunity for the, 'But we know better know' brigade (and let's be fair, you can only refer to slavery and the like so many times before it just becomes a little hollow and worthless!).

'We live in a different time - that was then, this is now!'
The irony with this approach is that those who bring this gambit into play seem to forget that there are a number of factors to be considered:

i. Many of the things they oppose were actually part of the Church when people could remember the stuff the people we call Apostles were doing their stuff pretty accurately. It was the practice 'then' for them - not history!

ii. When it comes to 'ignorance' we forget that living and doing Church from first principles without the assistance of search engines, the internet and the resources that make even the most idiotic appear to have some knowledge (I know, I've looked in the mirror!). They weren't 'thick or primitive or ignorant' in fact, discovering it for themselves and thinking about it actually makes them look a darn sight cleverer than we give them credit for!

iii. When it comes to being 'enlightened' I have to say that it doesn't hold water from where I'm hiding. In fact I have to own up and say that I am just a little tired of the people who think that we are the brightest and the best and that 'our modern thinking' is the datum from which all else is to be judged and the yardstick by which all is measured. In a world of polyamory, natural law and revenge-ridden madness I find this grasping just a little too far.

'Let me quote . . .'
If this quote happens to be from the Bible then we have a few opportunities for problems in that many who like to quote for the Bible also enjoy engaging in the practice of 'prooftexting' - this is the method of finding words that meet our needs, support our words and give us the opportunity to look smugly at our opponent with 'incontrovertible truth'. The problem is that to do this the proof text needs to be in context and not just a few words selected because they say what you want them to say.

My Favourite example of this is the fact that the Bible supports the claims of some in that, 'There is no God!'  An Atheist friend used to use this with the reference: Psalm 14 - and he was right to quote it as he did. The reason for my thinking being that the whole verse (verse one) tells us: 'The fool says in his heart, There is no God!'

Engage in prooftexting  in the secure knowledge that you, and your argument, are destined to be on the wrong end of a good kicking.

The other end of the 'quoting someone' spectrum is the person who will quote some self-absorded, self-supporting, all-knowing plankton as if their very words had been handed down on Sinai's mount itself. Dorkins may find himself quote worthy and perennially valid, but most of my atheist friends don't. Claims to rational thinking need to be rational and valid. Wanting them to be is (sadly) not the province of any one player in the world of theological debate - all have fallen into this trap (and will continue to do so I'm sure).

So there we are - fifteen minutes of splurge from the recesses of my bonce. Madness, misdirection and mayhem? Probably - but if it get us talking, thinking and challenging ourselves and others (always best to start with ourselves - easier to win against limited intellects).

More soon!

*'Hints' - Recently, listening to a preacher on the radio I heard them tell their listeners that 'God commands us to do nothing but love and how this shapes everything else - Love is the only absolute and it ignores everything in its name. Outside of love there are no commandments - only hints as to how we might live!'

The Fallacies and Faith of the 'faithful AND faithless'

I have recently been amazed to find the often proclaimed 'arrogance of Christians' residing more aggressively and entrenched in those who claim to have no faith.

Time and time again I find people of faith reading books from those who oppose their belief on the grounds of reason, rational thinking and logic and yet rarely do I find the opposite taking place.

Time and time again I find those who claim that reason, research and evidence form the basis of their thinking and attitudes rarely exercise reason, never do research (unless this is the revised usage of what I call reading newspapers) and accept the flimsiest of evidence (anecdotal and unsubstantiated is always of course acceptable if it's not faith for some).

The reality is that there are those from both camps who dialogue, read, think and continue to engage in research. When I became a Christian I was challenged to collect a brain at the door rather than leave it as those of no faith often accuse. My faith demands that I continue to study and to challenge the Bible and the settings - I acknowledge consistencies and similarities with some of the Biblical narratives and other writings; I accept the psychological imperatives and definitions of faith and can agree that religion does indeed provide someone to thank when it goes well, plead with when it's going wrong and appease when 'under a curse'. That said I also acknowledge the empirical evidence before me and test it with eyes that seek explanation in both science and faith. I look at the stuff I can understand and seek to find answers to that which I cannot - acknowledging the intelligence of those 'ancients'  and trying to see what their cultures might have added to the mix too!
Would that those on the other side of the divide did the same.

Recently I encountered two sides of the same 'ignorance' coin on the same day in the one episode - I find myself returning to the people and their comments and, on each replay, find myself more frustrated and (to be honest) just a little angry with them each time - Let me explain:

The Christian
This person was firmly stuck in a position whereby their faith was something fixed and what they believe was totally dug in and fixed. They 'knew what they believed' and they were not going to be shaken from it. The problem was that what was on view was an immature faith in a long-term believer and this was all due to the place they worshipped in. You probably know the type of place - great sermons on a dozen passages, a Bible with about twelve books and a faith that move mountains and a reality that made its members walk around them!

They were rigid in their belief and vehement in their rejection of 'God haters' - the primacy of the Word they neither knew or understood was central - and yet they could neither defend it or show themselves to be able workers for it. 'In the name of the Lord' is a great way to travel - but the words need to be fleshed out and take upon themselves the incarnacy that God's Word did!

There was no willingness to debate - just to shout people down and assumed to work on the basis that by repeating trite little Christian mantras and closed statements that others would 'be saved'.

The Atheist
Were keen to tell me how open-minded they were and yet even had it been open (and believe me it wasn't) there was so little of it (a mind) that chewing gum and walking would have cause a core failure!

As the conversation progressed I realised that they kept using the word evidence and yet when prodded and probed it was obvious that their evidence was gleaned from the laboratory that is the pub, newspaper and that oft quoted source: The Friend. They (mis)quoted from their prophets and gurus and (in the name of balance I'm sure) also misquoted Bible and other 'religious' stuff too. They appealed to reason but there was little of it. Pointed to facts, but they were misquotes and error-filled utterances. They spoke of research and yet had never really even read the basic books of either faith (for theist and non-theist are but two opposing faiths - God or Science, free or under authority, self-pleasing or God-pleasing - divide it as you will).

What was sad in these encounters was that both adversaries worked from a position of entrenched ignorance. There was no research into what they or those with whom they disagreed believed (or didn't) and thought. There was no ability (or apparently willingness) to engage in dialogue and find out what the other side believed - just a reliance on the belief that merely opposing, and writing off, the other side was enough.

What was really sad was that neither of the people had even the basic tools to be able to defend their own beliefs and this, in my book (and God's too) is probably the most sad part of the whole.

The way forward (for theists and non-theists):
Please remember that faith engaged in without involving your brain is useless and hollow religion - it is the stuff that ignorance grows in to choke everything that God (or not god) would have us celebrate and renders us an impotent and limited, superstitious and empty people.

So read the books that form the basis of your belief (And where this is the real Bible - read ALL of it, there's 66 books you know!)

Read books about the things you think challenge our faith and find out for yourself.

Read books by people you might think oppose your faith (and people) and dialogue with them, then

Dialogue with people who believe what you believe and check your understanding (and theirs) and, that done, engage in dialogue with people you think you don't disagree with.

Remember that no one group has the monopoly on being good, acting wrongly, being stupid, having closed minds, bias, ignorance, stupidity, blind faith, selfishness, exclusivity and best of all - being just plain ugly people!

How can we say we love God when we hate the image of Him made visible in the person before us?


I scribbled this over a period of weeks - revisiting and rethinking about how what I'd encountered informed and challenged my own position and attitudes. I think that this might be the right time, as we reach the end of 2013, to post it.

Atheists and the brain of a Goldfish

I have to be honest and say that the image below made me smile when I saw it:

Always good to see the ball bounce back over the net isn't it?

Especially when it makes you smile :-)

Happy Friday guys

Collars? Something to get hot under!

A friend wrote, 'I'm always amazed at how often people get 'hot under the collar' about this issue,' and they were right because I had a few comments* that fit that description, and many that didn't.

Anon writes, 'There are times when I choose to wear my collar and times when I have to wear my collar but generally I don't because I don't want to be labelled or pidgeon holed by people around me because of the job I do. I think you've got it all wrong with what you have said and feel quite attacked and angry by it.'

I think that we all have times when we choose not to wear our collars, that said I find that I probably wear it more than I don't these days because I think the 'Taxi' analogy is valid and so feel that when I'm out with it on am fair game to be stopped and engaged with. The fact that I am stopped and engaged with so much seems to confirm this thinking. But we have, and make, our own choices and unless it says 'don't do it' in the big Black Book (BBB), all are valid.

I wasn't trying to pour burning oil on people's heads, but was merely trying to get some of those I engage with on the journey of exploration of vocations to think about the role being more that just a job and to explain that there are a number of factors (which I listed in the original post) that we need to consider across a number of areas - and the piece of plastic that adorns our necks is just one of them.

Many of those who don't generally wear collars have told me that they wear them when it's appropriate, by which they mean occasional offices, but otherwise they are to be found in the study. Again, this isn't an issue, I wasn't saying you must, or you should, but I was saying what I thought and how this relates to me. Mind you, I have wondered since the 'only  appropriate' comment which places might be deemed to be inappropriate and my weird mind has had a bit of field day - but I'll spare you that.

A few have told me that the collar doesn't work these days, the pick of the crop being:

'In this day and age, the wearing of the clerical collar is outdated and outmoded. To wear it is to invite being ignored and avoided: So I don't and make relationships as me and wait for them to ask about the God side and if they don't then I've won a friend even if not a parishioner.'

And to be honest, I was disturbed by this because as nice as it is to make friends, I was under the perhaps deluded idea that I was to make family; to make disciples who understood and lived in the ways that God, through the Cross, required us to live. It's a bit like the people I met who 'want to be friends, not parents' with their children. Just as I am a parent first and hopefully a friend later, the same is true with the priestly role.

I have many friend who being into New Wine (like me) wear the alternative clerical outfit of check shirt (open-necked), brown shoes, hornrimmed glasses and flannels or cords and have the view that clerical garb of any form is outmoded, popish and to quote one, 'So yesterday!' The problem is that much of the negativity they perceive towards them and their message is towards them and their message rather than the kit they wear. That said, one chap said that by not wearing anything that said 'Vicar' they found they could get closer to people before they rejected them - which I really like!

I think the same applies to wearing of cassock albs and the like during the services. When I started where I am now I decided that I wouldn't wear 'tat' during the service for the first few weeks and see where the congregation wanted to go. I wore a clerical shirt and black trousers and shoes but that was it, opting for cassock alb on feast days, festivals and holidays. After a couple of months I asked the congregation what they wanted and how they felt about the way we did our services and as a response altered what I did. Now I wear the clerical shirt rig until we reach the Eucharist and then, coming as President from the people, I put on the cassock alb and preside. After the Eucharist I take it off again and return to the people - seems to fit what I see as the NT way.

Now I don't expect everyone to like what I do, but it works and seems to fit the bill. This is the same for clerical collars - at the end of the day we do what we do and whilst we may get it wrong at times, that's our prerogative.

So please don't read what I'm writing as a criticism or putdown (unless it is - and you will know when that happens) because it;s not - it's me taking stuff from my brain and putting it somewhere where I, and others, might dialogue with it.

All comments are welcome and for any I may have inadvertently offended - apologies.

Pax










*I am amazed that Blogger appears to be such a tough  place to leave comments - many write to me because they cant successfully leave a comment - something that needs fixing methinks :-)

So many non-Atheistic Atheists

Interesting conversation with chap who notice that my book was concerned with the issue of atheism.

'I'm an Atheist,' said he and then went on to explain the reasons why he disagreed with my views (which he hadn't actually asked for or heard, he'd merely assumed the dogcollar meant what he assumed to be was what he assumed it to be!).

As is often the case, he threw in the fact that he believed in faeries and the like because that explained the odd happenings in his home. 'Could be Poltergeists,' said I (helpfully); and amazingly he agreed!! So I continued:

'So you're not really an Atheist at all! You can't be because you believe in the existence of the supernatural and in beings that have less credibility than Jesus, who is (after all) a person of historical substance.'

His response was that he could, 'Believe in the supernatural and maintain his belief that there is no God without conflict!'

So I asked him to define supernatural realms where mischievous spirits (of faeries) could exist and yet god, any god, couldn't (and explain the 'why,how, what' and the like to support it).

Taking up his coat he merely said, 'I don't choose to believe and that, for me is enough!' And with was vanished into Rugby!

Totally agree :-)

So farewell 'Agnostic of Rugby' (or should that be confused?) - thank you for the dialogue, distraction and company.

May God (who I'm sure does exist) bless you as you continue life's journey :-)

I've tried - but I can't believe

Demanding

Disputing

Denying

Proclaiming

Claiming

It's tough as they just keep on trying

Going on and on and on and . . . 

Quoting him

His words

His beliefs

his example

which, they claim, cannot be denied

Offering proof of his existence

Claiming that he's real

Not the invention of a needy people

Pointing to the logic

Appealing to reason

Making fantastic claims

For a wondrous future should we follow him

But - hard as I try

As much as I'd like to

As much as they want me to

I can't

I really can't 

I just can't believe in

In

Dawkins

©Vic VDB 2013

Finding one God less than You

Another cool image that made me smile today:

An interesting thought indeed!

Atheists and Christians - Both Fundamentalists?

This made me smile and so I thought I share it with you in the hope that it brightens a cold and wintry Spring day:

At Last: Atheists say believers are right!

Here's a great image - and a great opportunity to defend (or otherwise) one's position (with a smile)"

Happy Saturday people

Human Rights, Commonsense and Registrars

Looking at the case of Lillian Ladele, sometime registrar for Islington Council in London who lost her job when she refused to take a civil partnership. Now, as I understand it, this woman did her job well but, because of her beliefs, didn't feel that she could in all good conscience conduct a civil partnership and someone decided to make a complaint about it.

First and foremost we have to ask whether or not anyone who wanted a civil partnership was inconvenienced or refused because of this woman's beliefs. The answer to this is a resounding 'No' for what occurred was that when there was a civil partnership to be conducted the woman merely exchanged that task for another.

The second question is that of asking 'Why'?

Why did someone make a complaint that lead to the eventual dismissal of Ms Ladele?

Well I can't imagine it was someone with a relationship with the woman who was aggrieved that she wouldn't take their service. It surely can't have been someone who had their heart set of having their civil partnership service conducted by a black woman (can it?) or wanted a Christian lay person to do the job!

No M'lud, what I have to say is that the complaint was actually little more that a spiteful and rather malicious act. The intention was to hit out at Ms Ladele and act against her and whilst it might look like it worked, actually she emerges from this as a 'hero of the faith' rather than bigot, homophobe or any of the other comments some (who actually own the rights to those very titles for themselves) have used!

The grown up response was that as long as there was no refusal of service then surely the right to believe and act according to them harmed no one and as long as that situation continued, there was no problem.

I cannot for the life of me believe that someone wishing to take part in any event would wish to have it done by someone who didn't want to do it. The ideal is someone who is keen to provide whatever service is required and if not keen, then at least ambivalent or neutral - I wouldn't want someone who did the thing without being fully engaged (mind you - having dealt with registrars in some places they were rarely engaged or even (apparently) interested in what was going on - it just seemed to be (what it might well be for many) - a job!

So did human rights win here?

No, I don't think so. What we had was someone using the system to exact some sort of revenge rather than stand for anyone's rights and so I think that commonsense, the right to live and act as one's beliefs demand and the law itself all lost out here.

When one person acts and another disagrees then surely each has a right to live as they might and as long as neither demands nor imposes upon the other on the grounds of primacy of rights we find a coexistence and place where respect, however uneasy, is to be found.

This is what society, rights, life choices and faith are all about - we may not agree but that doesn't mean that we have to engage in conflict.

Well, not unless one of us has a different (and wrong) agenda (and that's exactly what I think we have here)

Some might actually call it Christophobic :-)

Pax

Pentecost - Speaking Boldly

I have always been struck by the transformation of the wibbly-wobbly followers, hiding behind closed doors, into bold and courageous people of faith who proclaimed the truth regarding Jesus.

Today as we come to this I find myself challenged by people who seem to have lost the plot in that they regard the Christian faith as something that can evolve and deliver new ways forward and still be 'orthodox' Christians (that is, in-line with the tenets, practices and beliefs of the Christian Church as it has been for a couple of thousand years!). They look at the always counter-cultural Judeo-Christian faith that we have and as if it were some weird sociological entity and seek to change the very tenets of it whilst assuming that others will regard this new creation as one and the same faith! How [insert word or words here]!

I tire of those who seek to continue using 'evangelical' when it is obvious that 'evangelical' they most surely are not (whatever it is that we consider'evangelical' to mean but that's perhaps another discussion for another day). Seems to me that universalist and evangelical is an oxymoron and that to have 'evangelicals' who wish to see us accept (when they really mean promote) people who act contrary to the teachings of the Church is another misuse of the word and a departure from 'orthodoxy', 'evangelcial' or otherwise!

In dialogue with someone who considers themselves 'evangelical' I soon realised that they had in fact (in their own words) "Grown out of the evangelical bit with its rules and oppositions and oppressions." This would, I assume make them merely 'post-evangelical'. To assume that the 'evangelicals' have had their day and to proclaim a glasnost that embraces and accepts differing lifestyles, attitudes and behaviours surely makes them no longer 'evangelical', for the evangelical is not a sociological term which, much like modernism, leads us to a 'post' period of it but a term that refers to personal sin, accountability, responsibility and grace ('grace' is not translated as "Turning a blind eye towards," is it?).

Perhaps those who wish to use the term 'evangelical' with something that clearly isn't, no matter how 'open' one wishes to be, would be more honest if they dropped the 'evangelical' label completely and told is as it is. They are liberal or revisionist or libertarian or whatever they want to call themselves but surely once one removes the responsibility for personal sin and the opportunity, no command, to refrain from it there has to be a question mark over whether is it even Christian at all. For just as Mormons, Christian Scientists or Quakers and many others are not Christian perhaps it is time to accept that using the words 'Jesus', 'God' or 'Christian' does not make what you believe 'Christian'. You've moved on and if that's true then I am happy for you to pursue your own NEW faith, but stop billing it as Christian, for it barely is (as I understand it in terms of teaching and practice that is).

As an open evangelical I am appalled at many of those who see themselves as 'fundamentalist evangelicals' and struggle with many who call themselves 'reformed evangelcials' for this seems to give permission to be wicked, cruel, harsh and bitter. My Christian faith means that I will continue to embrace those with whom I disagree, but how I wish they would be honest and tell it as it is and call themselves 'post evangelical' or whatever it is that they are (for some post-Christian fits the bill even better it seems for the faith they peddle has little similarity to the traditional 'orthodox' faith and is merely modern society in a building with a pointy bit!) and let us dialogue and work together from a place of honesty.

Let us not put aside the boldness of the early believers and the fidelity to God's word that the Christian faith has called us to for generation - let us not put off addressing personal sin for the popularity of this world, for when we look like the world, what point is there coming into a body that offers nothing and is no different from that they have outside it?

Pax

ps I also struggle with the fact that we have to have labels, but that's another issue!

What this blog does

I had an interesting email from a kind person who assures me that what I have to say on my blog is "Interesting, theological and often funny." Kind words indeed, but as might be expected, there's a bit of a sting in the tail to come. "But, I have found your words, taken a step further by others, possess great depth within them. It's a shame others have to finish the journey you so often start."

Actually, I don't think it's a shame at all. In fact it's a joy because I seek to dialogue with the internal voices and the external stimuli and paint for myself, and others, a rough sketch. From this I hope to stimulate some dialogue, some development of the issues and situations around me and some perspective. That which I do in fun can easily be transformed into deep theological thinking and if not careful become the 'last word' on a subject.

I hope to make sense of the difficult and make it accessible to the simple, to take the simple and make it commonplace, this is the task of the theological type (something I had rammed home after moving on to postgrad work where my 'theological' essays were slated for being written in theological speak such that the 'ordinary' people would find it inaccessible. I find this to be true in many of the journals and papers (blogs too) that I read.

A tutor once told me that the 'sociological imperative is indicated by the eschatological imperative'. Sensing my confusion, he repeated his statement. 'We love, because He first loved us'. (1 Jn 4:19)

This, for me was one of those 'I Learned A Lot About Theological Thinking From That' (ILALATTFT) moments. The same is true of Stanley Hauerwas, a bar room brawler of a theologian. A man who is erudite, pithy, challenging and so accessible that he has become another hero to sit alongside Barth, Moltmann, Bauckham and so many others who grace my shelves and share their thoughts.

This, for me, is not the place to do intellectual theology but is a place to do deep theology, the theology that brings people into contact with, and encourages recognition and dialogue with, the one true loving God. I make fun of things (especially me) because God has a sense of humour and thankfully takes us less seriously than we often do ourselves, like a parent enjoying the foolishness of his favourite child. Where we see fine words and deep pronouncements, He sees crayoned scribbles and drawing of 'Daddy', and He rejoices in them.

If my words stimulate others, then Hallelujah.

If my words illuminate situations for what they are, then I am thankful.

If they help bring understanding, awareness, dialogue and healing, then I am fulfilling my call as pastor and theologian, brother and disciple - Praise God!

Pax