Gravitational Cognisance:

Anyone who has watched cartoon will be familiar with characters walking off high places and continuing their progress in mid-air until they realise solid ground has gone as, looking down, the begin to plummet to the ground. We may find a parallel between Wile E Coyote and those who have lost the solid ground of their Christian faith. They continue walking as if they're on solid ground until something causes them to look down and then . . .  Whoosh . . .  Satan-like they plummet out our sight and are lost forever.

Some manage to never look down, they keep plodding on in the hope that they will have one of those Damascus road experiences or be hit by a bolt of lightning and so live out their lives of obedient drudgery when all it needs is for them to encounter and engage with their doubt! It is this that makes me think that doubt is one of the most excellent things we have in the arsenal of our faith.

And if doubt is one of our greatest gifts then one of the greatest curses has to be the loss of meaning that has been supposedly gifted to us by postmodernity. I say 'supposedly' because it has always been with us throughout all the ages. Those generations who have known the price of everything and the value of nothing, the many good men who have failed to act (regardless of the reason) and the valueless faith that imposes no standards to demands that we keep - this I that of which we speak.

The tension between getting all the good stuff (forgiveness, approbation, affirmation. acceptance, etc.) without having to believe 'all the ****!'* (absolutes, commandments, rules, standards, etc.) is an ever present reality. This is the bottom line for many and shapes and makes their faith life. No surprise because, when it comes down to it for we are like little children who want the sweeties but baulk at having to eat the cabbage (or whatever your dread vegetable happens to be), aren't we?

It is here that some cling to religion (rules and absolutes) whilst others turn to ritual (bells, smells and tat) and others still turn to inclusivity and freedom from restrictions (the 'God wants you to be happy' approach).

Whenever I encounter this area, personally or in others, I find myself coming back to Matthew 21.44 and the words that 'Whoever falls upon this rock will be broken and those upon whom it falls will be crushed.' Doubt needs to be be broken by recognising the thin air upon which the doubter is standing and, having acknowledged it, addressing and remedying it. Denial of doubt is death (spiritual and sometime physical too) and has no place in the Christian faith - we need to encourage doubt, for otherwise we push it underground to creep, cancer-like, behind the scenes just before we notice the weight-loss (and there are many emaciated Christians out there) that heralds the slide into being departed. Early prevention comes through checking for the signs and responding when they are found.

Have a look at your feet and see whether they are are solid ground or about to lead you into the plummet that is terminal decline.

Remember: Christianity demands that you do not leave your brain at the door! 


*A quote from one of those trendy clerics with which we are so blessed with these days!

Sophia and the 'Pink Church' - the opening shots!

A friend has asked me about 'Sophia' as they are struggling with friends who are seeking to redress the  'male dominated theology and language' of Church and society.

I often find myself rather frustrated when certain friends talk of the male domination that is Church especially when they descend into talk or 'rights, positive discrimination and redressing the errors of the past!' One of the biggest issues I encounter is the increasingly 'Pink Church' - that place which, as one clerical colleague put it, 'Seeks to undo all the misogyny of the past two thousand years!' (something for another day)

We need to be affirming all people and to be a truly inclusive entity and yet, as the tide turns, this is not the reality and I think we might be in danger of entering into something that might be somewhat terminal.

But back to the 'Sophia' issue:

Whilst at college I had many conversations with a feminist who asked why she should be expected to be celebrating God as man. Her position (in a nutshell) was: 'I am woman, what does Jesus 'the man' have to do with me and what does he know of my experience?'

She was heavily taken up by three main themes:
i. God as 'She'  (but if pressed would retreat to 'He, She or It')

ii. Sophia as a remedy to the 'God is male 'heresy

iii. A female Apostle by the name of Junia (whose name had been diminished by other apostles to oppress women).

It is the Sophia issue that is the focus of today's perambulations - it's an opening shot in the discussion and will be followed by some Bible references and related material later (for I think we often fail to establish concepts and points of agreement before we rush into what is often mere prooftexting):

I know 'Sophia' is Greek for wisdom but rather than being an actual person have seen this to be an anthropomorphic construct. War is male, beauty and wisdom are female - trains, cars and planes are 'she' - you know what I mean I'm sure!

Thinking of the female names we have with such roots: Grace, Chastity, Patience, etc. I find many confuse this, giving it the attribute of personhood and this is what I have found with Sophia. For it appears than many are so keen to have something upon which they can hang their argument and pin their hopes that their theology, and thinking, is rather slipshod and shoddy (now that's an invitation to a fight I'm sure). What makes challenging the views dangerous is the fact that any challenge is often met with the ad hominem that is 'sexist' or 'misogynist' rather than a robust and tight response.

I am of the opinion that the Sophia route is not only fraught with danger but leads those who embrace it into a place where the Wisdom literature is corrupted, bringing into being a new deity and denying the sex of Jesus, the Christ, the incarnate man. It is not a remedy for those who who claim that a male Trinity is offensive, divisive and even cruel for those who struggle with fathers or males but a denial of something important.

I have been challenged by many who bring cases of women who were damaged by men as evidence that we need to rethink God as a women to make the God character acceptable to them. The problem is that this is a wrong position to be taking for the issue is not how to compensate or impart some divine CBT (where coping mechanism and accommodation are sought) but to seek healing and wholeness in person and Church too! One (feminist) lecturer of mine once followed an extremely misandrist comment with the coup de grâce*, 'After all, all men are potential rapists!' Me, being me, and always up for a conversation added, 'And of course, conversely, all women are potential whores!'

Now although I thought that levelled the scores, the head of department cautioned me for 'sexist language' and discounted the lecturers comments with, 'Well that's who she is!' Now tell me that that wasn't a prime example of sexual inequality :-) !!!!

And back on track.

As we look at this area, of which I know absolutely nothing, I'd love people to point me to the bits they know and observations from their own experience and theology. My premise it that God embodies both male and female and that changing the gender to accomodate issues with the male changes neither sex (for gender is not 'sex' - sex is biological, gender is sociological and not transferable, unless you have an agenda!). we need to seek unity, equality and inclusivity and this demands healing, wholeness and orthodox thinking - all else is error.

Looking forward to this (gulp)

* perhaps that should have been  coup de main :-)

Blue Sky Thinking - Inclusivity

This is one of those thoughts that has caused a fair bit of dialogue - but perhaps that's because what it says is real!

Now that's a thought in itself, innit?

Church - Inoculates against faith epidemics

Many years ago when I was a Pentecostal Pastor type I became aware of the Church's practice of inoculating non-believers against developing a most chronic disease - faith! Let me explain:

Inoculation is the process whereby a body is exposed to a weakened form of the contagion which triggers causes a mild strain to be developed. This situation brings about an antidote to the 'disease' that is faith in the well-known, 'I've tried it before thanks!' antibody.

here's a couple of 'for instances':

As a Pentecostal Pastor I attended many services where people were asked to commit their life to jesus. They were asked to stand (as a public witness) and pray the 'sinner's prayer' and were then told, "Congratulations, you have made an important decision today - you are now Christians! Welcome."  And then they went home.

Sometimes we took their contact details and tried to help them become regular members (which now seems as if this might have been the most important bit :-(  ) and other times we left the 'new believer' to make their own way in the sea of faith, swimming as best they could (but always with the promise that we were there if they needed us). Sadly, whilst some of these tried to grow their faith, many others never did and this sows the seeds for immunity to the call of God later.

My second 'for instance' comes from the large evangelistic event such as missions and 'Crusades' (not a harken back to the good old days of Saladin but more reminiscent of Billy Graham, Luis Palau and Peter Polycarpou - who I'm sure goes by the name J John these days) and the pouring in of people to football grounds and tents (not what we mean by intents Christianity I'm sure).

I was a counselling supervisor at one of the large mission somewhere events and a few weeks after the event had a go at contacting a random sample of those who had come through the doors as having made a commitment. My sadness was that not a single one of the people who had made a commitment had actually settled into a church congregation (and they were all represented).

What we had done in both examples was 'spawn bastards' for we had brought them (supposedly) to 'New Life in Christ' and failed to parent them (for this is what making new believers is if we don't bring them through to maturity as shown by being disciples!).  If you think this, or the words I am using are harsh then I can but point you to Paul's words in Hebrews  12: 7 - 8:

"For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline - then you are not legitimate . . . "

The Church is guilty of presenting a weakened form of Christian faith to people in the hope that a weakened strain will be both palatable and acceptable. One insipidly weak strain presents some form of permissive ersatz Christianity, which sadly is assumed to be merely 'inclusive'. Another tries a social gospel and something that makes Jesus look like a New Testament social worker or Green campaigner. Yet another attempts to work on the fear glands of those outside the Church by frightening people into Church by presenting the grim spectre of hell (and offering Jesus as the great 'Get out of Hell free' card!).

Sadly, there are many more strains including the fundamentalist, the 'True  Church', the Charismaniac, the isolationist (we really are the only true believers left - honest) and more than I have time, or inclination, to describe at this time.

Here's the reality - we need to engage with a 'full strain' variety of the Christian faith with the effect of making Christ known in the host and bringing forth the symptoms of discipleship. This will in turn bring our sympathetic cell cultures of commitment,  worship, prayer and (let's make the archdemon's happy) paying the Parish Share.

We need to stop worrying about numbers - let them take care of themselves (like grey hairs).

We need to stop worrying about Parish Share (but always ask ourselves whether we can justify a post)!

We need to concentrate on talking about Jesus such that people catch the bug and develop a full set of symptoms - a full on, in your face, active and aggressive strain that infects the places we serve and the people who live nearby and the people passing by and their friends, families and colleagues.

Resistance is futil - we are the contagion and the cure :-)

Church - Looking like the world!

I have had a rather interesting conversation regarding 'the Church' being more accessible and acceptable to those outside it. Their claim is that the more we become welcoming and accepting the more it will grow. They used as their evidence to support this the changes made in the Episcopalian church which they claim is now inclusive and therefore more acceptable to those outside who no longer find it to be 'phobic' or fundamental. They tell me that this is the way that Church will grow!

Now I had to admit that the more we move ourselves from the old values and standards in terms of lifestyle, attitudes and actions, the more we look like the world and remove the 'counter-cultural' elements that have been the hallmark of the Church since the Old Testament origins *when of course it was Judaism); not only that but the orthodoxy that once existed is lost. The end result of this is not an open and growing Church but a liberal, revisionist and declining one.

Now my viewpoint caused a bit of a kerfuffle as what the other person heard was something akin to the Phelps-like attitudes of Westboro, which was neither intent nor reality. What I heard from the other person was that anything goes and that we should realise that the Bible has to be re-written to work in the society we now live in - the old needs to be put off and new attitudes and requirements need to be added. Inclusive Church is a growing Church because everyone can come in!

Now I don't like Church when it excludes people, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (not mine but Paul's words - Romans 3) and all are welcome because Christ died for them (NT everywhere). I believe that there are certain things that are contrary to that which the Bible calls us to be and do and that these things are consistent and should not be erased in the name of inclusive popularity. I also struggle with those who wish to use the Eucharist as a weapon as much as I do with those who consider universalism and all gods leading to the one true God!

To try and explain the folly in the belief that looking like the world and being 'more acceptable' and inclusive brings people into Church I turned to some statistics (thanks to Not Another Episcopal Church Blog) relating to the Episcopalian Church;

Net Change in Active Membership from Prior Year

       2006             2007         2008       2009         2010
     -50,804        -37,823     -59,457    -51,949    -54,436

ASA
       2006            2007         2008       2009         2010
    765,326       727,822    705,257   682,963    657,831

Change in ASA from Prior Year
       2006             2007         2008       2009         2010
     -21,945        -37,504     -22,565    -22,294    -25,132

So I'll let the figures explain what I was trying to say yesterday. Being 'inclusive' such that we look like the world is not the way to grow church numbers (thinking here of Episcopalian and CofE) - we need to be preaching the Gospel, living the Gospel and remain counter-cultural - why bother to come into a place that's the same as the place you are leaving?

I think the numbers reflect this quite well, don't you?

Pax