An email regarding yesterday's posts (seems many find the response system a bit flawed and clumsy) asked whether we could really consider there to be a 'core morality', even for Christians. I think there is and it would appear that if we look at the various offerings regarding human rights and the expectations contained within them, so do others.
The problem of morality is that because one of the parameters which shapes a public morality is the culture itself. This means that what might have been disapproved of, or left unspoken at another time, can suddenly become public and obvious. It appears that there is a Rake's progress which sees what is good in society eroded and that which was abhorred taken up and even approved of. This might be expected in a purely social setting but one would hope that within a religious setting this might not be the case, after all, constancy of belief and rule was one of the big selling points when discussing conversion to Islam. It appears that the Christian faith might be less constant and secure in its tenets than some of the other faiths in the market!
One of my clergy colleagues pointed out that morality means many things to many people, a very true statement. The problem with morality now is that I am seeing it shaped locally by a form of 'natural justice' whereby stealing, retribution and revenge (to name but a few features) are now considered to be fair game. If someone is considered to be a 'not nice' person, then whatever they get is merely what they deserve and all is well.
My core morality begins with the ten commandments - after all, keeping them is the start of a secure and consistent lifestyle (isn't it?). Now I know some may have problems with the One God bit but the rules about possessions that possess and using God's name as a swear word (in fact using any swear word can sit here) would make life a lot more comfortable, pleasant and free from all that credit stress too!
Looking after oneself should be a factor and therefore I will leave the Sabbath bit in (you can just call it a day off!).
Then we come to some of the big issues: Don't murder! Simple and good advice for everyone, we all live longer that way! Stick to your own partner, be faithful and work at the relationship (and the kids that come from it) and society (which is already living longer) is healthy and balanced.
Not stealing and not lying would see us with a society where you really could leave you front door unlocked at night (that's a myth by the way, there was more murder in the thirties and forties that there is today!) and if people didn't tell lies, about others or themselves, we'd see no need to murder, no way unfaithfulness could be nurtured as a continuing thing (there would still be blips I'm sure) and relationships would be much better (for not lying would not be like the sadly flawed film 'Invention of Lying').
There are core moral issues and we as Christians need to embrace them and demonstrate them to the flawed and fallen world in which we find ourselves.
Pax
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Morality - What is it?
Yesterday's post suggested that the event which started the journey to Strasbourg, "Spoke volumes about the man and his morality." This brought about the question, "Did it? Only if you believe that there is a definitive statement as to what morality actually is. The word carries with it a multitude of meanings and interpretations, even for Christians." Indeed there are 'a multitude of meanings and interpretations, even for Christians', some Christians more than others!
The reality is that the acts which set the ball rolling in March 2008 did indeed 'speak volumes' about the man just as do our comments, acts or attitudes speak volumes about our beliefs, values and standards. But putting the obvious aside, let's look at the deeper issue, that of morality.
What is Morality?
As I understand, and teach it, morality is the means whereby our actions are assessed as either right or wrong. This is not a simple thing though, for 'morality' is influenced, shaped and managed by a number of things religious and philosophical. It is shaped by, and shapes the, societal values and often becomes codified and regulates society, seeking to maintains good and positive traits within that society.
That we conform to these rules and act within their parameters is considered to be essential for the well-being of the culture in which we live (because we speak of acting 'ethically' there is a need to also determine what 'ethics' is, for they are not interchangeable, but not today).
I get the feeling this might become a bit of a thread, so let's deal with the immediate and leave that before us exactly there.
Are there definitive statements to what morality is? Is morality merely something imposed as a normative enforcement or is it more in that there is perhaps an ambiguous morality too? Can there be universal moralities? Loads of lovely questions . . now what about some answers!
I see morality as being the principles of right behaviour as defined by societal, cultural, religious, familial and other considerations (education perhaps?). Morality does appear to have some universal tenets in that it seems most societies abhor some common acts and attitudes, for instance:
Murder - Stealing - Lying - Adultery - Inflicting pain - Acts of aggression - Genocide - Slavery and more besides (I have left for others to fill in the blanks and bring their own viewpoints to the party).
But, for the first stage of this, hopefully, developing discussion I think it is obvious that the acts which started this process obviously spoke volumes for it revealed what had been hidden in a forty-odd year marriage, bringing to light payment for sexual gratification and favours, adultery and other aspects which have been considered wrong by those who call themselves Christian and those who do not.
A quick for instance, I asked fifty soldier about the man's actions and not one voice endorsed them as moral, right or acceptable - obviously a consistent moral view! I found the same when I asked Christians so I guess this leaves any others living in a place where neither Christian or secular group condones the acts and actions!
Hope this helps.
Pax
The reality is that the acts which set the ball rolling in March 2008 did indeed 'speak volumes' about the man just as do our comments, acts or attitudes speak volumes about our beliefs, values and standards. But putting the obvious aside, let's look at the deeper issue, that of morality.
What is Morality?
As I understand, and teach it, morality is the means whereby our actions are assessed as either right or wrong. This is not a simple thing though, for 'morality' is influenced, shaped and managed by a number of things religious and philosophical. It is shaped by, and shapes the, societal values and often becomes codified and regulates society, seeking to maintains good and positive traits within that society.
That we conform to these rules and act within their parameters is considered to be essential for the well-being of the culture in which we live (because we speak of acting 'ethically' there is a need to also determine what 'ethics' is, for they are not interchangeable, but not today).
I get the feeling this might become a bit of a thread, so let's deal with the immediate and leave that before us exactly there.
Are there definitive statements to what morality is? Is morality merely something imposed as a normative enforcement or is it more in that there is perhaps an ambiguous morality too? Can there be universal moralities? Loads of lovely questions . . now what about some answers!
I see morality as being the principles of right behaviour as defined by societal, cultural, religious, familial and other considerations (education perhaps?). Morality does appear to have some universal tenets in that it seems most societies abhor some common acts and attitudes, for instance:
Murder - Stealing - Lying - Adultery - Inflicting pain - Acts of aggression - Genocide - Slavery and more besides (I have left for others to fill in the blanks and bring their own viewpoints to the party).
But, for the first stage of this, hopefully, developing discussion I think it is obvious that the acts which started this process obviously spoke volumes for it revealed what had been hidden in a forty-odd year marriage, bringing to light payment for sexual gratification and favours, adultery and other aspects which have been considered wrong by those who call themselves Christian and those who do not.
A quick for instance, I asked fifty soldier about the man's actions and not one voice endorsed them as moral, right or acceptable - obviously a consistent moral view! I found the same when I asked Christians so I guess this leaves any others living in a place where neither Christian or secular group condones the acts and actions!
Hope this helps.
Pax
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Free to act without comment?
Max Moseley, former head of Formula One, is to visit Strasbourg's European Court of Human Rights today in a bid to change the way the excesses of celebrities is reported. Moseley is making a case for what is called, 'prior notification', a process whereby the press tells any celeb' (or public figure) that there is a story about them in the offing.
The reality is that, as I understand it, this is already done by the reputable newspapers (that limits it I guess!) and what this really is about is that it give those engaged in what might be considered 'newsworthy' articles the opportunity to have injunctions slapped on them so that their dirty deeds never come to light.
Now when there is some form of entrapment involved this might be considered to be in the public interest, but as I recall with the Moseley story he surely finds himself in handcuffs (again?) over this one! It was obvious that he was not set-up regarding his sadomasochistic get together and although it could be considered to be part of private life, it also spoke volumes regarding the man and his morality. Those who wish to live in the spotlight need to realise that it will illuminate the good and the bad, so better be good I guess!
The biggest loser surrounding this move would be serious reporting and things which are in the public interest. Some of the trashy celeb magazines (are their any others?) would find their 'exclusives' and the photojournalistic revelations (goodbye nip shots?) greatly reduced - they'd have to make it up instead (What! They already do?).
So Moseley goes to Strasbourg and pleads his case. It will take some months before we hear the result and so Max will find himself hanging around!
Seems some things just don't change!
Pax
The reality is that, as I understand it, this is already done by the reputable newspapers (that limits it I guess!) and what this really is about is that it give those engaged in what might be considered 'newsworthy' articles the opportunity to have injunctions slapped on them so that their dirty deeds never come to light.
Now when there is some form of entrapment involved this might be considered to be in the public interest, but as I recall with the Moseley story he surely finds himself in handcuffs (again?) over this one! It was obvious that he was not set-up regarding his sadomasochistic get together and although it could be considered to be part of private life, it also spoke volumes regarding the man and his morality. Those who wish to live in the spotlight need to realise that it will illuminate the good and the bad, so better be good I guess!
The biggest loser surrounding this move would be serious reporting and things which are in the public interest. Some of the trashy celeb magazines (are their any others?) would find their 'exclusives' and the photojournalistic revelations (goodbye nip shots?) greatly reduced - they'd have to make it up instead (What! They already do?).
So Moseley goes to Strasbourg and pleads his case. It will take some months before we hear the result and so Max will find himself hanging around!
Seems some things just don't change!
Pax
Monday, 10 January 2011
Harvard teaches - Hollywood Educates!
Teaching and educating are not synonymous and therefore not interchangeable (much like the gender/sex issue)! Teaching, especially these days, is becoming less and less of what it was (as the move towards concepts and away from first principles and actually understanding and manipulating numbers, words or facts demonstrates) when I was studying back in the dark ages.
Education brings the recipient to a place where they possess knowledge, skills and the ability to live with the stuff that is taught. It fosters the ability to assess, understand, manipulate and exist (whilst continuing to grow).
We can stand in front of whiteboards, chalkboards (apparently we mustn't call them blackboards in case it offends boards of differing colours) and TV screens spouting stuff until we're some hue in the face (avoidance of naming the colour spares us from hueist comments I guess) but what really touches those in our society is the experiencing something, even when that experiential exercise is merely film!
I have been discussing attitudes with people for a while now and find that the majority of the attitudes held, regardless of age, social status or national/ethinc origin owe much to the influence of film (TV and Web-based media too).
This can work for good and can also be damaging or corrupting at personal, familial and societal levels.
So there's a thought . . .what do we watch, read or otherwise engage with?
How much damage does watching certain things do to us, our values, witness and mental/emotional/spiritual well-being?
Be careful little eyes what you see - you might just get educated!
Education brings the recipient to a place where they possess knowledge, skills and the ability to live with the stuff that is taught. It fosters the ability to assess, understand, manipulate and exist (whilst continuing to grow).
We can stand in front of whiteboards, chalkboards (apparently we mustn't call them blackboards in case it offends boards of differing colours) and TV screens spouting stuff until we're some hue in the face (avoidance of naming the colour spares us from hueist comments I guess) but what really touches those in our society is the experiencing something, even when that experiential exercise is merely film!
I have been discussing attitudes with people for a while now and find that the majority of the attitudes held, regardless of age, social status or national/ethinc origin owe much to the influence of film (TV and Web-based media too).
This can work for good and can also be damaging or corrupting at personal, familial and societal levels.
So there's a thought . . .what do we watch, read or otherwise engage with?
How much damage does watching certain things do to us, our values, witness and mental/emotional/spiritual well-being?
Be careful little eyes what you see - you might just get educated!
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Baptism of Christ. More than a wet witness?
It's Epiphany and Christ has been made manifest to the world. He's been revealed to the Jewish chappies out in the fields and we have celebrated his revelation to three wise geezers what have arrived from afar with their oh so telling gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Now the liturgical calendar moves on to His baptism.
In the lite version of Matthew 3:13-17 as found in the NLT, we find:
"Then Jesus went from Galilee to the Jordan River to be baptized by John. But John tried to talk him out of it. “I am the one who needs to be baptized by you,” he said, “so why are you coming to me?” But Jesus said, “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.” So John agreed to baptize him.
After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened* and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy.”
In the baptism story we find an unusually consistent account between the four Gospels (usually we have an eye-witnesses perspective which results in slightly different views of the same thing).
Now we know that John the Baptist has recognised jesus, he would do though wouldn't he, after all he's family! But he recognises jesus as more than family, i's the same recognition that John had when he 'jumped for joy' in the womb of Elizabeth his mother (Luke 1:44). It's the recognition that the salvation of the world has come into the world, it's the recognition that He's about to begin his salvific mission. The touch-paper was lit when the prophecy was fulfilled in bethlehem . . at last the fireworks are about to be seen!
Jesus has no sin, that's part of the role and all of who He is! Yet here Jesus is, coming to John to be baptised and John recognises that in fact it is he, a man and therefore sinful, who needs to be washed clean by the God incarnate before him!
And yet Jesus tells John that this is the way it has to be, for this is what the Father wants. Here's a first lesson for us in that no matter how we view ourselves or our theology, status or whatever, if Jesus obeys the Father, even when it appears (to our little minds) that there's a better plan, then perhaps this is a model for us too?
And so the Son goes out and does as the Father commands and the heavens open and the Holy Spirit appears - a theophany (literally, an appearance of God) - and the Father commends and launches His new revised model of humanity to the world, Jesus!
We are baptised because Jesus was baptised. This is our signing the paperwork that says we will be obedient to the command of God the Father. We do so in association with Jesus, the Son and have the transaction blessed, affirmed and continuously from that day forward enabled.
In the baptism of Jesus the salvation of the world is made public - more than three foreign chaps, a few shepherds and the innkeepr (I assume he looked outside to see what the attraction was!) - in our baptism we look for the same in us. A proclamation, a beginning and the start of a journey with, for, and through (by the enabling of His Holy Spirit) God!
Alleluia!
In the lite version of Matthew 3:13-17 as found in the NLT, we find:
"Then Jesus went from Galilee to the Jordan River to be baptized by John. But John tried to talk him out of it. “I am the one who needs to be baptized by you,” he said, “so why are you coming to me?” But Jesus said, “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.” So John agreed to baptize him.
After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened* and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy.”
In the baptism story we find an unusually consistent account between the four Gospels (usually we have an eye-witnesses perspective which results in slightly different views of the same thing).
Now we know that John the Baptist has recognised jesus, he would do though wouldn't he, after all he's family! But he recognises jesus as more than family, i's the same recognition that John had when he 'jumped for joy' in the womb of Elizabeth his mother (Luke 1:44). It's the recognition that the salvation of the world has come into the world, it's the recognition that He's about to begin his salvific mission. The touch-paper was lit when the prophecy was fulfilled in bethlehem . . at last the fireworks are about to be seen!
Jesus has no sin, that's part of the role and all of who He is! Yet here Jesus is, coming to John to be baptised and John recognises that in fact it is he, a man and therefore sinful, who needs to be washed clean by the God incarnate before him!
And yet Jesus tells John that this is the way it has to be, for this is what the Father wants. Here's a first lesson for us in that no matter how we view ourselves or our theology, status or whatever, if Jesus obeys the Father, even when it appears (to our little minds) that there's a better plan, then perhaps this is a model for us too?
And so the Son goes out and does as the Father commands and the heavens open and the Holy Spirit appears - a theophany (literally, an appearance of God) - and the Father commends and launches His new revised model of humanity to the world, Jesus!
We are baptised because Jesus was baptised. This is our signing the paperwork that says we will be obedient to the command of God the Father. We do so in association with Jesus, the Son and have the transaction blessed, affirmed and continuously from that day forward enabled.
In the baptism of Jesus the salvation of the world is made public - more than three foreign chaps, a few shepherds and the innkeepr (I assume he looked outside to see what the attraction was!) - in our baptism we look for the same in us. A proclamation, a beginning and the start of a journey with, for, and through (by the enabling of His Holy Spirit) God!
Alleluia!
Saturday, 8 January 2011
The ultimate reredos?
I just love this - what an excellent piece of animation.
Jesus leads - the faithful back Him up!
Friday, 7 January 2011
Too much conversion conversation?
Yesterday I was talking to someone who asked about the mass conversions that were taking place. Foolishly I assumed it was a comment about the swimming of the Tiber but no it was about former PM Tony Blair's sister-in-law, Lauren Booth. "Who?" I asked naively and carried on with the original topic (after all, she's not on my Christmas card list!).
They weren't going to be shaken off that easily though. Like a BNP advert they started speaking of this becoming a Muslim country and sharia law, hijabs and all that stuff. They obviously weren't going to be diverted from discussing their fears and concerns, which I assume means they read the fascist! Here's, essentially, what I told them:
Let's be a bit rational about this topic. My reality tells me that the majority of the female converts I have met are married to men who are Muslims and this has to, therefore, play a big part in the process!
Also, whilst there might be some converts in places (like Birmingham) it seems that there still aren't that many of them, nowhere near the hundred thousand some speak of anyway, but that wouldn't make it newsworthy would it (and it's always good to publish and have people take notice of your results)? After all, look at Masters and Johnston, Kinsey and some of the other stuff that has caused a stir but perhaps been subjective or possessing another flaw (note, I'm not saying the research is flawed, I haven't read it - only experienced the knee-jerk response).
The fears of a nation which is in the thrall of Islamic sharia law and 'expelling the Queen from Buckingham Palace' is pure fantasy. The droves of people rushing from the CofE to Islam is a load of tosh for it is obvious that the majority of those who make the journey don't have a clue about Christianity and if they wear the badge 'CofE' it only through the nominal folk-faith that sees them 'christened'!
In short, what this indicates is positive in that it shows that people are hungry for spiritual meaning and purpose in their lives, that they seek something that is constant and upholds the traditional values of morality and decency and if this is the case, we have something that will meet their needs more than adequately.
So let's put out our stall and let's stop worrying about other religions. Anything looks good until it's put up against the real McCoy (ever been to a pound shop?).
They weren't going to be shaken off that easily though. Like a BNP advert they started speaking of this becoming a Muslim country and sharia law, hijabs and all that stuff. They obviously weren't going to be diverted from discussing their fears and concerns, which I assume means they read the fascist! Here's, essentially, what I told them:
Let's be a bit rational about this topic. My reality tells me that the majority of the female converts I have met are married to men who are Muslims and this has to, therefore, play a big part in the process!
Also, whilst there might be some converts in places (like Birmingham) it seems that there still aren't that many of them, nowhere near the hundred thousand some speak of anyway, but that wouldn't make it newsworthy would it (and it's always good to publish and have people take notice of your results)? After all, look at Masters and Johnston, Kinsey and some of the other stuff that has caused a stir but perhaps been subjective or possessing another flaw (note, I'm not saying the research is flawed, I haven't read it - only experienced the knee-jerk response).
The fears of a nation which is in the thrall of Islamic sharia law and 'expelling the Queen from Buckingham Palace' is pure fantasy. The droves of people rushing from the CofE to Islam is a load of tosh for it is obvious that the majority of those who make the journey don't have a clue about Christianity and if they wear the badge 'CofE' it only through the nominal folk-faith that sees them 'christened'!
In short, what this indicates is positive in that it shows that people are hungry for spiritual meaning and purpose in their lives, that they seek something that is constant and upholds the traditional values of morality and decency and if this is the case, we have something that will meet their needs more than adequately.
So let's put out our stall and let's stop worrying about other religions. Anything looks good until it's put up against the real McCoy (ever been to a pound shop?).
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Via Media - keeping the middle ground
I was told this howler during one of my Church history lectures many, many, many (sorry have an over-active Police Academy gene) years back. It went something like this:
Pope - "Why did the Anglicans cross the road?"
Cramner - "We didn't, we stopped in the middle!"
The Church of England is the Via Media, that is the 'middle of the road' denomination which sits neatly between Rome and Protestant beliefs. We share many of the creeds and formularies with Rome and yet have a reformed theology. We're basically watered down Catholics or Protestants with Prayer Books and a sense of the sacred!
Problem is that, as the discussions on converting to Islam have revealed, we need to become a new style via media in that we have to sit somewhere between the excesses of a number of groups, holding all in tension and trying to be the Christians we're called to be. There are
Evangelicals - Charismatics - Liberals - Middle of the road - Reformed Evangelicals - Revisionists - High Church - Low Church - Feminists - Mysoginists - Prayer Book - FiF - New Wine - Reform - Nominal Christians - GAFCON - FCA - Homosexuals - Bisexuals - Heterosexuals (think we still have some :)) - WATCH (don't WATCH) and many others besides.
It used to be that Anglican was about a relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury (the pointyhead formerly known as Wowan!) and in each area and province around the world (I worked with the church in the Province of Kenya) there was but one group in communion with him. Now there are many who aren't in communion with him but don't want to move aside for those who are it seems! Have your cake and eat it sindrome (sic!).
We need to maintain our position and keep the balance between all the extremes. We're not book-burners but neither are we rampant revisionists. We don;t have any allegiance to Bennie in Rome but neither are we reformed evangelicals or non-comformists. We are Anglicans and we bring balance, perspective and tradition such as no other denomination, grouping or movement in the UK, and the world beyond can.
The middle way which eschews extremes and looks for balance, Scriptural warrant, reason and tradition.
We're orthodoxy with understated style and panache.
Pope - "Why did the Anglicans cross the road?"
Cramner - "We didn't, we stopped in the middle!"
The Church of England is the Via Media, that is the 'middle of the road' denomination which sits neatly between Rome and Protestant beliefs. We share many of the creeds and formularies with Rome and yet have a reformed theology. We're basically watered down Catholics or Protestants with Prayer Books and a sense of the sacred!
Problem is that, as the discussions on converting to Islam have revealed, we need to become a new style via media in that we have to sit somewhere between the excesses of a number of groups, holding all in tension and trying to be the Christians we're called to be. There are
Evangelicals - Charismatics - Liberals - Middle of the road - Reformed Evangelicals - Revisionists - High Church - Low Church - Feminists - Mysoginists - Prayer Book - FiF - New Wine - Reform - Nominal Christians - GAFCON - FCA - Homosexuals - Bisexuals - Heterosexuals (think we still have some :)) - WATCH (don't WATCH) and many others besides.
It used to be that Anglican was about a relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury (the pointyhead formerly known as Wowan!) and in each area and province around the world (I worked with the church in the Province of Kenya) there was but one group in communion with him. Now there are many who aren't in communion with him but don't want to move aside for those who are it seems! Have your cake and eat it sindrome (sic!).
We need to maintain our position and keep the balance between all the extremes. We're not book-burners but neither are we rampant revisionists. We don;t have any allegiance to Bennie in Rome but neither are we reformed evangelicals or non-comformists. We are Anglicans and we bring balance, perspective and tradition such as no other denomination, grouping or movement in the UK, and the world beyond can.
The middle way which eschews extremes and looks for balance, Scriptural warrant, reason and tradition.
We're orthodoxy with understated style and panache.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)