[4.4] CYBERTHEOLOGY
Debbie Herring of the Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield, has a fabulous set of resources on her cybertheology.net website. She explains: "This site is intended as a resource for those interested in the study of theology in cyberspace, theology of cyberspace and theology for cyberspace. You'll find collections of links under each of these headings. There's also a section of links concerned with research method in this environment. There are links to some of my own lectures, essays and articles on cybertheology."
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Friday, September 19, 2003
[4.3] MEANINGS HUMAN AND DIVINE
From a review of Kenneth Cragg, 'Am I Not Your Lord? Human Meaning in Divine Question', London Melisende, 2002, ISBN 1 901764 21 4, hardback, pp. 255, £18.
"In spite of its hard-headedness [this] is a redemptive work. The final chapter contains a clear-sighted repudiation of religiously sanctioned nationalisms, a call to discernment and discrimination (in the technical, non-pejorative sense of the word) among faith communities, and a redrawing of the virtue of secularity away from irreligion and anti-religion. Both the character of the transcendent God and the unity of human beings in a world divided by ideological manipulations are at stake in the confessions we make. Rigorous self-examination is implied in the divine question, says Cragg. If society is not to be overcome by cancer, faith is needed. But if faith is not to turn bad, despair, despotism and false hopes must be overcome. This is the religious quest."
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
From a review of Kenneth Cragg, 'Am I Not Your Lord? Human Meaning in Divine Question', London Melisende, 2002, ISBN 1 901764 21 4, hardback, pp. 255, £18.
"In spite of its hard-headedness [this] is a redemptive work. The final chapter contains a clear-sighted repudiation of religiously sanctioned nationalisms, a call to discernment and discrimination (in the technical, non-pejorative sense of the word) among faith communities, and a redrawing of the virtue of secularity away from irreligion and anti-religion. Both the character of the transcendent God and the unity of human beings in a world divided by ideological manipulations are at stake in the confessions we make. Rigorous self-examination is implied in the divine question, says Cragg. If society is not to be overcome by cancer, faith is needed. But if faith is not to turn bad, despair, despotism and false hopes must be overcome. This is the religious quest."
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[4.2] FULCRUM AND FIRE
Evangelicals in the Church of England meet this weekend at a time of high drama over the sexuality argument within the Anglican communion. While much of the media attention will no doubt go to the more belligerent protagonists, 'central' evangelicals are trying to create a space for debate and encounter through a new network called Fulcrum.
They say: "While diversity among Evangelical Anglicans is one of their strengths, fragmentation is not. Our desire is to see the various strands within Evangelicalism drawn together by a shared outlook that flows from historic Evangelicalism's commitment to Scripture, the cross, conversion and mission. We believe this commitment unites all Evangelicals, whether they count themselves as conservative, open or charismatic (or a mixture of all three). It is this that forms the centre of gravity which we seek to renew."
For non-evangelicals that begs a large number of questions, of course. There are some within that fold who deny the diversity of the Bible and its shadow sides, for example. A more serious dialogue on hermeneutics is required. And is the strengthening of 'party identities' really what's needed at the moment? In what would a 'shared outlook' among evangelicals consist -- and how would it enable them to handle the deep convictions of those who disagree with them?
It seems unlikely that hard-liners will be appeased by such moves right now, capital 'E' or not. But Fulcrum's willingness to acknowledge the divisions of their own tradition and to engage collegially with Christians of other outlooks is an important sign of hope. There is a generosity to their statement which is to be applauded.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Evangelicals in the Church of England meet this weekend at a time of high drama over the sexuality argument within the Anglican communion. While much of the media attention will no doubt go to the more belligerent protagonists, 'central' evangelicals are trying to create a space for debate and encounter through a new network called Fulcrum.
They say: "While diversity among Evangelical Anglicans is one of their strengths, fragmentation is not. Our desire is to see the various strands within Evangelicalism drawn together by a shared outlook that flows from historic Evangelicalism's commitment to Scripture, the cross, conversion and mission. We believe this commitment unites all Evangelicals, whether they count themselves as conservative, open or charismatic (or a mixture of all three). It is this that forms the centre of gravity which we seek to renew."
For non-evangelicals that begs a large number of questions, of course. There are some within that fold who deny the diversity of the Bible and its shadow sides, for example. A more serious dialogue on hermeneutics is required. And is the strengthening of 'party identities' really what's needed at the moment? In what would a 'shared outlook' among evangelicals consist -- and how would it enable them to handle the deep convictions of those who disagree with them?
It seems unlikely that hard-liners will be appeased by such moves right now, capital 'E' or not. But Fulcrum's willingness to acknowledge the divisions of their own tradition and to engage collegially with Christians of other outlooks is an important sign of hope. There is a generosity to their statement which is to be applauded.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[4.1] THE BLAINE TRUTH?
The amount of verbal (and now physical) abuse occasioned by illusionist David Blaine's 44-day self-deprivation ordeal is truly astonishing. He is supposed to be the narcissist (according to received wisdom on the subject), but the truth is: we just can't bear not to be in on the act
Suspended in his glass cage over London's Tower Bridge, Blaine's antics naturally raise all kinds of questions. Isn't it more than a little tasteless for a super-rich American to dress himself in introspection and risk his life needlessly in a world where many have no choice, where people face death daily? And how much less does someone have to do, in practical terms, to court a world media transfixed by the glare of mere spectacle?
Those are among the obvious issues. But, as with much postmodern performance, there is something rather more threatening at stake. Blaine is doing no more or less than holding up a blank canvas to his public and seeing what projections they decide to thrown on to it.
His role is passive. But what is revealed about some of the watchers is disturbing, frightening even. We are ready to vilify and scapegoat even the most unthreatening of presences. We hate so easily. We are stirred to anger so needlessly. Even those who "couldn't give a monkey's" are obviously enraged.
Blaine sits in his cage, eyeing his spectator-tormentors. But they (we) are the ones caught in the spotlight. Who is afraid of what -- and why? What's worse, a slow sapping of life or the shock of utter emptiness? In certain respects that box might as well be a crucifix.
Meditative musings aside, there is nothing overtly religious about Blaine's fast. Nothing Christ-like about his 'sacrifice'. And thankfully no religious system has yet been able to 'claim' his presence. Quite the opposite. The cage is a voluntary non self-emptying, a none (sic) event, an exercise in purposeful fruitlessness. But perhaps that is exactly what it takes to expose the massive cruelty at the core of our palpably vacant agenda...
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
The amount of verbal (and now physical) abuse occasioned by illusionist David Blaine's 44-day self-deprivation ordeal is truly astonishing. He is supposed to be the narcissist (according to received wisdom on the subject), but the truth is: we just can't bear not to be in on the act
Suspended in his glass cage over London's Tower Bridge, Blaine's antics naturally raise all kinds of questions. Isn't it more than a little tasteless for a super-rich American to dress himself in introspection and risk his life needlessly in a world where many have no choice, where people face death daily? And how much less does someone have to do, in practical terms, to court a world media transfixed by the glare of mere spectacle?
Those are among the obvious issues. But, as with much postmodern performance, there is something rather more threatening at stake. Blaine is doing no more or less than holding up a blank canvas to his public and seeing what projections they decide to thrown on to it.
His role is passive. But what is revealed about some of the watchers is disturbing, frightening even. We are ready to vilify and scapegoat even the most unthreatening of presences. We hate so easily. We are stirred to anger so needlessly. Even those who "couldn't give a monkey's" are obviously enraged.
Blaine sits in his cage, eyeing his spectator-tormentors. But they (we) are the ones caught in the spotlight. Who is afraid of what -- and why? What's worse, a slow sapping of life or the shock of utter emptiness? In certain respects that box might as well be a crucifix.
Meditative musings aside, there is nothing overtly religious about Blaine's fast. Nothing Christ-like about his 'sacrifice'. And thankfully no religious system has yet been able to 'claim' his presence. Quite the opposite. The cage is a voluntary non self-emptying, a none (sic) event, an exercise in purposeful fruitlessness. But perhaps that is exactly what it takes to expose the massive cruelty at the core of our palpably vacant agenda...
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Thursday, September 18, 2003
[3.3] TEXTS UNDER NEGOTIATION
More (see also 3.2 and 1.2 below) on the challenge and opportunity of encountering biblical texts, from a review published last year:
"[Walter] Brueggemann suggests a twofold interpretative strategy in relation to the Bible: making critical use of the tools around us, certainly, but above all allowing ourselves and our world to be challenged by the ‘counter-drama’ of the text itself. This is how we can ‘fund’ post-modern imagination with the fragments of a Gospel which bursts open new possibilities – instead of merely buying into a new ideology, or trying to create another citadel within which everyone is supposed to submit.
"In this ‘re-reading’ process, imagination – the capacity to portray, receive and practice the world in ways different from the ‘common sense’ view generated by dominant orthodoxies – is the vital ingredient. For Brueggemann what lies behind the text is a God who both reveals the basis of life and invites us to join in the redemption (re-construal) of the world. In the final third of the book he helps us to re-enter the biblical counter-drama by sketching, with the aid of specific biblical passages, the shape of a ‘Gospel infrastructure’ for living – in direct contrast to ‘the infrastructure of commodity consumerism’. ...
"... The question for the community that is shaped by its encounter with these texts – as the church must necessarily be – is ‘what authorises us to change or go beyond the received text?’ Here the theological case must be made for a creative interaction between the fruits of the living tradition, the excesses of language, the constraints of reason, and the uncontainable God who lies behind and beyond the world in which it is set."
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
More (see also 3.2 and 1.2 below) on the challenge and opportunity of encountering biblical texts, from a review published last year:
"[Walter] Brueggemann suggests a twofold interpretative strategy in relation to the Bible: making critical use of the tools around us, certainly, but above all allowing ourselves and our world to be challenged by the ‘counter-drama’ of the text itself. This is how we can ‘fund’ post-modern imagination with the fragments of a Gospel which bursts open new possibilities – instead of merely buying into a new ideology, or trying to create another citadel within which everyone is supposed to submit.
"In this ‘re-reading’ process, imagination – the capacity to portray, receive and practice the world in ways different from the ‘common sense’ view generated by dominant orthodoxies – is the vital ingredient. For Brueggemann what lies behind the text is a God who both reveals the basis of life and invites us to join in the redemption (re-construal) of the world. In the final third of the book he helps us to re-enter the biblical counter-drama by sketching, with the aid of specific biblical passages, the shape of a ‘Gospel infrastructure’ for living – in direct contrast to ‘the infrastructure of commodity consumerism’. ...
"... The question for the community that is shaped by its encounter with these texts – as the church must necessarily be – is ‘what authorises us to change or go beyond the received text?’ Here the theological case must be made for a creative interaction between the fruits of the living tradition, the excesses of language, the constraints of reason, and the uncontainable God who lies behind and beyond the world in which it is set."
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[3.2] ENDISM IS NIGH, TEXTS ARE TRICKY
One of the mixed blessings of writing about religion on the web is the correspondence that comes your way. Any letter with the word 'prophecy' in the header is always a good warning in itself, since it invariably announces the writer's conviction that they hold some special key to unlock the 'meaning of the Bible' and (inevitably) the end of the age. It is such patchworks of de-historicized texts and half-baked, retrojective regarblings of current events which have, for many thoughtful people, confirmed the suspicion that Christian and Jewish scriptures are little more than primitive playgounds for the deranged religious imagination.
Those who deploy historic texts in this way are (without intending it) showing the deepest possible disrespect for them. Understandably, most serious biblical scholars just ignore this stuff -- and meretricious nonsense such as 'The Bible Code'. Of the scholarly challenging of misunderstanding there is no end: and since the 'answers' that the Bible pundits seek are to do with human certainty (not the contingency in which open faith deals), the grounds for conversation seem pretty sparse. The trouble is that this leaves a huge gap between those who learn and those who leap.
One of the few scholars who seeks to fill this particular void is Craig C. Hill, Professor of New Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. His book 'In God's Time' (and the website created to promote it) is a model of patient wisdom. Likewise, but at a more rarified level, Peter Ochs of the University of Virginia demonstrates what is at stake in scriptural reasoning, even if he is, perhaps, a little too dismissive of historical-critical methodology. The Society for SR, of which he is a leading light, has a stimulating electronic journal. Another treasure is Stephen Fowl's book, 'Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation.' Different perspectives are offered by 'The Postmodern Bible', ed. George Aichele et al., (Yale University, 1995) and 'Voices From The Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the third world', ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (SPCK, 1991).
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
One of the mixed blessings of writing about religion on the web is the correspondence that comes your way. Any letter with the word 'prophecy' in the header is always a good warning in itself, since it invariably announces the writer's conviction that they hold some special key to unlock the 'meaning of the Bible' and (inevitably) the end of the age. It is such patchworks of de-historicized texts and half-baked, retrojective regarblings of current events which have, for many thoughtful people, confirmed the suspicion that Christian and Jewish scriptures are little more than primitive playgounds for the deranged religious imagination.
Those who deploy historic texts in this way are (without intending it) showing the deepest possible disrespect for them. Understandably, most serious biblical scholars just ignore this stuff -- and meretricious nonsense such as 'The Bible Code'. Of the scholarly challenging of misunderstanding there is no end: and since the 'answers' that the Bible pundits seek are to do with human certainty (not the contingency in which open faith deals), the grounds for conversation seem pretty sparse. The trouble is that this leaves a huge gap between those who learn and those who leap.
One of the few scholars who seeks to fill this particular void is Craig C. Hill, Professor of New Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. His book 'In God's Time' (and the website created to promote it) is a model of patient wisdom. Likewise, but at a more rarified level, Peter Ochs of the University of Virginia demonstrates what is at stake in scriptural reasoning, even if he is, perhaps, a little too dismissive of historical-critical methodology. The Society for SR, of which he is a leading light, has a stimulating electronic journal. Another treasure is Stephen Fowl's book, 'Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation.' Different perspectives are offered by 'The Postmodern Bible', ed. George Aichele et al., (Yale University, 1995) and 'Voices From The Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the third world', ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (SPCK, 1991).
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[3.1] SUN SPOTTING
An extraordinary conversation unfolded on the train yesterday evening. Armed only with The Sun, three commuters pontificated on what they would like to do to "violent and intolerant" Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri. Most of these ways of "dealing" with "the mad Mullah" involved reciprocal degrees of intolerance and violence, it seems. So no surprise there. Finally one protagonist, warming to the tabloid's own suggestion, came up with the best idea of all. "They should send him back to Islam," she declared without a flicker of irony. I wanted to suggest that until we stop being the mirror of the problem, we cannot see the light. But I didn't have the courage...
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
An extraordinary conversation unfolded on the train yesterday evening. Armed only with The Sun, three commuters pontificated on what they would like to do to "violent and intolerant" Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri. Most of these ways of "dealing" with "the mad Mullah" involved reciprocal degrees of intolerance and violence, it seems. So no surprise there. Finally one protagonist, warming to the tabloid's own suggestion, came up with the best idea of all. "They should send him back to Islam," she declared without a flicker of irony. I wanted to suggest that until we stop being the mirror of the problem, we cannot see the light. But I didn't have the courage...
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
[2.3] THE CHALLENGE OF THE GOSPEL TO THE CHURCH
Has the church grasped the central ethos of the message that formed it? Or is it constantly in danger of betraying the freedom and love of God in a world crying out for such things? These questions re-asserted themselves in my mind when I read, in the Church Times, a review of a book I co-edited a couple of years ago with Graeme Smith ('Christian Mission in Western Society', CTBI, 2001). The piece was written by Robin Greenwood, and the heading -- possibly not of his creation -- was 'Back to Jesus now that religion's done.'
At one level I feel uneasy about the simplicity of that. I want to say that there is no way 'back', only ways forward. And 'Jesus' can be a sticking plaster... and in many cases religion is far from 'done' (whatever we might wish). The questions linger.
Yet the more I think about it the more I have to accept the truth in this incidental but crucial phrase. Historic Christianity is, indeed, in crisis. And its salvation is not abandonment, but the recovery of its foundations -- which are in a person and a dynamic, not a dogma and an institution.
"The defining logic of Jesus is, in fact, God. In particular, it is the self-giving of a God who is wholly beyond our manipulation and (mostly in hidden ways) closer to us than the murmering of our hearts.
"How such a God is to be understood and responded to in an age of secular reason and irrational faith is, for the theologian, the key issue. And problem. And opportunity.
"Without doubt many have, for a variety of reasons, given up on God. And many of those who haven't given up (and who couldn't even conceive of it) have turned God into an ideological weapon of their own convenience.
"This is, sadly, as true in Christian communities as it is in those of other great faiths. 'Religious' or 'spiritual' people are not immune from falsehood. Actually, they may be prey to it in especially dangerous ways, because their wrong-headedness can quickly acquire a divine sanction – thus becoming invulnerable.
"To re-discover God through Jesus helps in this regard, because believing in Jesus' Lordship becomes, paradoxically, an essential means by which we can be empowered to disbelieve the ruling ideas (and most especially the ruling religious ideas) which currently imprison us as human beings, or even as Christians.
"Put simply: if God (whatever else God is about) is like Jesus, or more accurately, if God comes to us in and through Jesus, then we have some basis for knowing what God is not.
"We know, for instance, that God does not inflict violence and suffering. Quite the opposite. God endures and absorbs it. That is the meaning of the cross and the hope of the resurrection.
"To discover God in Jesus is also, through prayer, reflection and action, to discover that God is actually nothing like the God we thought we believed (or disbelieved) in.
"Who God finally is remains beyond our capacity, of course, because God’s ‘being’ is absolutely unlike ours. But the promise of the Gospel is that, in terms which can be made flesh, God is not less than God is in and as Jesus – that is, God is not less than infinite, uncontrollable, non-violent love.
"And that is just the beginning of a renewed hope which might make a vital difference for us and for our world -- if we, as followers of this Jesus, can develop the courage and the capacity to act on it. " From: To change the world.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Has the church grasped the central ethos of the message that formed it? Or is it constantly in danger of betraying the freedom and love of God in a world crying out for such things? These questions re-asserted themselves in my mind when I read, in the Church Times, a review of a book I co-edited a couple of years ago with Graeme Smith ('Christian Mission in Western Society', CTBI, 2001). The piece was written by Robin Greenwood, and the heading -- possibly not of his creation -- was 'Back to Jesus now that religion's done.'
At one level I feel uneasy about the simplicity of that. I want to say that there is no way 'back', only ways forward. And 'Jesus' can be a sticking plaster... and in many cases religion is far from 'done' (whatever we might wish). The questions linger.
Yet the more I think about it the more I have to accept the truth in this incidental but crucial phrase. Historic Christianity is, indeed, in crisis. And its salvation is not abandonment, but the recovery of its foundations -- which are in a person and a dynamic, not a dogma and an institution.
"The defining logic of Jesus is, in fact, God. In particular, it is the self-giving of a God who is wholly beyond our manipulation and (mostly in hidden ways) closer to us than the murmering of our hearts.
"How such a God is to be understood and responded to in an age of secular reason and irrational faith is, for the theologian, the key issue. And problem. And opportunity.
"Without doubt many have, for a variety of reasons, given up on God. And many of those who haven't given up (and who couldn't even conceive of it) have turned God into an ideological weapon of their own convenience.
"This is, sadly, as true in Christian communities as it is in those of other great faiths. 'Religious' or 'spiritual' people are not immune from falsehood. Actually, they may be prey to it in especially dangerous ways, because their wrong-headedness can quickly acquire a divine sanction – thus becoming invulnerable.
"To re-discover God through Jesus helps in this regard, because believing in Jesus' Lordship becomes, paradoxically, an essential means by which we can be empowered to disbelieve the ruling ideas (and most especially the ruling religious ideas) which currently imprison us as human beings, or even as Christians.
"Put simply: if God (whatever else God is about) is like Jesus, or more accurately, if God comes to us in and through Jesus, then we have some basis for knowing what God is not.
"We know, for instance, that God does not inflict violence and suffering. Quite the opposite. God endures and absorbs it. That is the meaning of the cross and the hope of the resurrection.
"To discover God in Jesus is also, through prayer, reflection and action, to discover that God is actually nothing like the God we thought we believed (or disbelieved) in.
"Who God finally is remains beyond our capacity, of course, because God’s ‘being’ is absolutely unlike ours. But the promise of the Gospel is that, in terms which can be made flesh, God is not less than God is in and as Jesus – that is, God is not less than infinite, uncontrollable, non-violent love.
"And that is just the beginning of a renewed hope which might make a vital difference for us and for our world -- if we, as followers of this Jesus, can develop the courage and the capacity to act on it. " From: To change the world.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[2.2] SOUL SEARCHING
Well, it's one way to sell your product in this damnably commercial environment. WeWantYourSoul.Com provide a survey to find out where your heart really is -- and therefore where your treasure will stack up best, too (as St Matthew might put it). I discovered the following: "Your soul is worth £30205. For your peace of mind, 17% of people have a purer soul than you." Well, that puts me in my place for the time being... but I think I'll leave the cash on the shelf.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Well, it's one way to sell your product in this damnably commercial environment. WeWantYourSoul.Com provide a survey to find out where your heart really is -- and therefore where your treasure will stack up best, too (as St Matthew might put it). I discovered the following: "Your soul is worth £30205. For your peace of mind, 17% of people have a purer soul than you." Well, that puts me in my place for the time being... but I think I'll leave the cash on the shelf.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[2.1] CHURCHES SUPPORT PEACE WITNESS IN ISRAEL PALESTINE
The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme run through the World Council of Churches, in association with NGOs and the heads of the Churches in Jerusalem, is an enormously important peace-and-justice building mechanism in a deeply fractured political climate. An example of how faith communities can make a positive contribution in a situation of conflict where religion is often darkly entwined in wrong-doing.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme run through the World Council of Churches, in association with NGOs and the heads of the Churches in Jerusalem, is an enormously important peace-and-justice building mechanism in a deeply fractured political climate. An example of how faith communities can make a positive contribution in a situation of conflict where religion is often darkly entwined in wrong-doing.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
[1.3] NON-EVOLVING EDUCATION
For many years, it seems, the influence of the US religious right has been restricted in terms of its impact on faith communities in Britain. Now that is beginning to change. One of the first areas in which the new climate is blowing is education, where two 'Christian schools' (in Gateshead and Middlesborough, respectively), have declared that they will teach 'creationism' (a grotesque distortion of biblical faith) alongside evolutionary biology -- which will in turn be described, quite disengenuously, as 'a faith position.' It is sad that new generations are coming into existence whose experience of Christianity may be that of a religion which turns its back on reason and the enormous gains of scientific discovery. This is far from how the tradition has been in the past. Here are some resources and reactions to the current situation. See also Faith and Reason.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
For many years, it seems, the influence of the US religious right has been restricted in terms of its impact on faith communities in Britain. Now that is beginning to change. One of the first areas in which the new climate is blowing is education, where two 'Christian schools' (in Gateshead and Middlesborough, respectively), have declared that they will teach 'creationism' (a grotesque distortion of biblical faith) alongside evolutionary biology -- which will in turn be described, quite disengenuously, as 'a faith position.' It is sad that new generations are coming into existence whose experience of Christianity may be that of a religion which turns its back on reason and the enormous gains of scientific discovery. This is far from how the tradition has been in the past. Here are some resources and reactions to the current situation. See also Faith and Reason.
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[1.2] WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'BIBLICAL'?
Many of the arguments in the Church of England (and elsewhere) at the moment concern the role, status and interpretation of the Christian scriptures -- which are, themselves, located in the midst of many other competing texts and authorities in an irreversibly plural world. Much of what is said on this topic in the arena of the media is vastly misleading. Here are some resources for beginning to think through this challenge sensibly and faithfully...
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
Many of the arguments in the Church of England (and elsewhere) at the moment concern the role, status and interpretation of the Christian scriptures -- which are, themselves, located in the midst of many other competing texts and authorities in an irreversibly plural world. Much of what is said on this topic in the arena of the media is vastly misleading. Here are some resources for beginning to think through this challenge sensibly and faithfully...
Comment on this post: FaithInSociety
[1.1] TO CHANGE THE WORLD?
Where to start this diverse collection of posts on subjects as diverse as politics, property, passion and preaching? With a declaration of conviction, I suppose. But given the state of the world, that is far from easy.
As faith-based extremism straddles the globe, religion is getting a dubious press, and understandably so. Arguments revolving around God cost lives, say the sceptics. They are right.
From Muslim-Christian violence in Nigeria to bombers in Bali, from the 'Lord's Resistance Army' in Uganda to 'promised land' settlers in occupied Palestine, from communal conflict in India to sectarianism in Ireland... misplaced faith is deadly.
If you're gay, love your partner, and have been nominated to be a bishop things are not quite as drastic, of course. But they are still hugely unpleasant.
When people disagree about the fundamentals of faith they can be deeply unattractive and wounding to each other and to those around them. Often without realising it.
For anyone who belongs to a religious community this is more than just "someone else's problem." It raises questions about the enterprise of faith per se.
So it is an extremely foolish person who embarks on the journey of 'reflecting theologically' about society at large without recognising just what a hugely destructive force religion can be. Any religion.
And yet, and yet... We all know that faith can also be a source of immense inspiration, redemption and exemplary humanity. Think of Desmond Tutu. Or Sojourner Truth. Or Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Or Hildegard of Bingen. Or a cloud of other witnesses.
What's more, and whatever the urban sophisticates may wish, religion is not going away. It is now a bigger player on the world scene today than anyone would have credited, prior to the terrible crash of those twin towers in New York on 9/11.
So where do we go from here?
[read on]
Where to start this diverse collection of posts on subjects as diverse as politics, property, passion and preaching? With a declaration of conviction, I suppose. But given the state of the world, that is far from easy.
As faith-based extremism straddles the globe, religion is getting a dubious press, and understandably so. Arguments revolving around God cost lives, say the sceptics. They are right.
From Muslim-Christian violence in Nigeria to bombers in Bali, from the 'Lord's Resistance Army' in Uganda to 'promised land' settlers in occupied Palestine, from communal conflict in India to sectarianism in Ireland... misplaced faith is deadly.
If you're gay, love your partner, and have been nominated to be a bishop things are not quite as drastic, of course. But they are still hugely unpleasant.
When people disagree about the fundamentals of faith they can be deeply unattractive and wounding to each other and to those around them. Often without realising it.
For anyone who belongs to a religious community this is more than just "someone else's problem." It raises questions about the enterprise of faith per se.
So it is an extremely foolish person who embarks on the journey of 'reflecting theologically' about society at large without recognising just what a hugely destructive force religion can be. Any religion.
And yet, and yet... We all know that faith can also be a source of immense inspiration, redemption and exemplary humanity. Think of Desmond Tutu. Or Sojourner Truth. Or Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Or Hildegard of Bingen. Or a cloud of other witnesses.
What's more, and whatever the urban sophisticates may wish, religion is not going away. It is now a bigger player on the world scene today than anyone would have credited, prior to the terrible crash of those twin towers in New York on 9/11.
So where do we go from here?
[read on]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
