[107.1] TRINITY SPLITS, OFFICIAL

Where would be without humour? Yes, I know, Worthing. (That one's bound to go wrong, but I spent some of my callow youth in the town, so I do possess first-hand knowledge. "It's a place people go to die in ... and then forget what they came for", so the cruel joke went. Fabulous today, of course.)

Anyway, this proves an effortless segue into a witty post about the doctrine of the Trinity, that hot canteen topic, on The Grace Pages. Chuck Wineguard's Rumours true: Trinity to split brought a happy smile after a very tough day. The ultimate celeb gossip story, no doubt. To be read, perhaps, alongside my own sock-horros: Pope is not a Catholic, says writer and US gay sex bomb exposed.

But back to the Triune Mystery. In order to begin to get to grips with trinitarian theology one unfortunately needs to bear in mind that, in its originating concepts, 'persons' doesn't mean what we mean by persons, 'three' doesn't mean the number three and 'one' doesn't mean a singularity. Then it starts to become tricky. Nicholas Lash's Believing Three Ways in One God is the best short exposition I know. And as luck would have it, SCM Press have it on sale right now. See also his fantastic Holiness, Speech and Silence: Reflections on the Question of God Today (Ashgate, 2004), unpacking the grammar of God in terms of the globalisation, conflict and suffering. I used it in this meditation.

The SCM reviewer presents Lash in context:

"Nicholas Lash has long been one of Britain's most interesting and creatively original theological voices, though it is often said that his influence has been mediated most distinctively through short pieces and essays, a genre that he used to great effect in important collections such as Theology on Dover Beach, Theology on the Way to Emmaus and Easter in Ordinary.

"However, while acknowledging the impact made by these miscellanies, one should not overlook what is perhaps Lash's most significant piece of work, and arguably his most sustained and systematic theology: Believing Three Ways in One God, which offers a subtle and nuanced appraisal of the Apostles' Creed. While continually thought-provoking, and written with all the elegance and economy of style that one associates with Professor Lash, the book is at bottom a practical one, and is intended to bring those who use the Creed to a deeper understanding of the words they say.

"In deepening the understanding of those words, and by emphasising the fundamentally trinitarian character of the Creed, the author shows how we grow in a knowledge of ourselves, each other, the world, and the mystery of God. This is a book that - in outlining the essential contours of Christian faith - remains as fresh and as helpfully usable as when it was written a decade ago."

My only marginal dissent would be to suggest that the word "miscellanies" might be in severe danger of underestimating the aformentioned titles, each of which (especially Easter in Ordinary) forms a coherent whole. See also Lash's The Beginning and End of Religion.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[106.1] LOVE IS THE SUFFICIENT REASON

Thanks to Maggi Dawn (whose site has just been added to my growing blogroll, along with the splendidly revamped Kinesis) for this moving poem, which is permalinked here.

Credo

Theologically speaking
I'm one of the awkward squad,
always asking questions
or questioning answers;
it's uncomfortable for all concerned,
especially me.
I wish it wasn't so;
wish I could tuck myself up in tradition,
snuggle down in certainty,
learn to trust,
but I don't know how
- don't even know what the God-word means to me now.
I do know love when I meet it though.
Oh yes, I recognise Love.

(c) Frances Copsey

I can't recall who said words to the effect that "as I get older, I find myself believing more and more in less and less." Copsey's verse calls this aphorism to mind. I remember once hearing the sentiment behind it dismissed as 'reductionist'. That misses the point completely. It isn't about erosion of faith, but the way faith finds sufficient reason to trust more and hypothesise less. Sufficient reason, but not too much... or too little.

This astringency of the mind and openness of the heart is, again, what Lent is all about. I find myself again and again talking of the God of Jesus as being "beyond manipulation and beyond metaphysics". This "beyond" is not about intellectual evasion, as in the more careless or dogmatic forms of neo-orthodoxy popular among some younger theologians at the moment. It is about realising that, in St Paul's words, knowledge is first and foremost unfolded by love, rather than the other way round.

Believing is seeing, but it proceeds by way of a dark, murky luminosity. Or as a songwriter I know put it, half by accident, I suspect: "Look in the light of what you're searching for." Just accept that the light may not be what you think it is.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[105.3] CHURCH ASKED TO 'GIVE UP ESTABLISHMENT FOR LENT'

Ekklesia director Jonathan Bartley is a good man, and I'm glad that he has been prepared to go for the jugular on this one:

' Ekklesia, the UK Christian think tank, has become the first body publicly to call for moves towards the formal disestablishment of the Church of England in the wake of the engagement of Prince Charles and Ms Camilla Parker-Bowles, announced yesterday. It is asking for an ecumenical reconsideration of church-state relations.

' “The circumstances of this engagement clearly illustrate how inappropriate it is that the Church of England should remain established”, says Ekklesia’s director, Jonathan Bartley. “As a state church it has no say over its Supreme Governor and its interests remain subject to those of the Crown.”

' He continued: “In decision-making about the Royal wedding the Church of England has been shown to be little more than a bit-part in constitutional affairs. It is time to end this humiliation and set the Church free.” '

But even more crucially:

' Ekklesia believes that the case for disestablishment will be strengthened by the Church’s current plight, but it stresses that the theological case for ending the state link is paramount, and has nothing immediately to do with the Prince’s wedding.

' “The Church of England is the only state church in the worldwide Anglican Communion”, says Jonathan Bartley. “That the Church should be subject to the Crown compromises its ability to proclaim and live the Gospel free of state interests. It inhibits equal relations with other Christian churches. And it is also inappropriate in a plural society. Faith cannot be imposed. It must remain a free choice.”

' Ekklesia points out that Christ’s message of equality, justice and special concern for the poor stands in contradiction to the principle of Monarchy, which is based on privilege for the few through heredity. '

The full story is here.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[105.2] NEW THINKING PROVES VERY DIFFICULT

It's always fascinating to look at what really causes a stir on Ekklesia. Right now we have stories up about oppression in Zimbabwe and brave Archbishop Tutu; world poverty and how to end it; Christians working against nuclear weapons; Christian-Muslim cooperation on nonviolent change in Iraq; anti-Catholicism, and Christian social vision. (You can always consult the news archive if it has moved on by the time you read this.)

However, what is really making people click away at the moment is the monumental question over ... what the Evangelical Alliance has to say about how naughty Charles and Camilla have been. Yes, that's right: more people are apparently exercised about this than all of these other issues put together.

Now don't get me wrong. Adultery matters. And what the EA says is not insignificant, because it represents a big swathe of opinion, whatever we think of it. Ekklesia reports, it doesn't just comment. Moreover people surf in for particular stories, so the direct comparison may not be entirely fair. But even taking these factors into account, the capacity for a bit of Royal nothingery to dominate our consciousness is truly amazing.

Or perhaps not. Maybe the magic word is 'evangelical'. Either way, the idea that 'a new way of thinking' (let alone a new way of behaving) is any easier for Christians than for others doesn't wash. We all feed from the same trough, and we all fall short of the same glory. This is one reason why easy moralism about Chuck and Cammie's second chance should remain circumspect about its own interests. Moats, beams, that kind of stuff.

Anyway, following on from my acerbic comments yesterday (for which I feel some penitence, but not too much), here are links to previous articles about liberating the church in England from monarchical illusions, the question of disestablishment, and more on the Royal bug.

The review of Ian Bradley's book is a lot more even-tempered than the comment below, by the way. But these issues do, I think, cut deep -- and the wound is barely noticed (to re-employ another metaphor-of-the-moment on this weblog). So maybe the odd prod with a sharp stick isn't out of place.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[105.1] FELLOWSHIP OF RECONCILIATION

A 'Called to be Peacemakers' event was due to be held over the next few days. It's been postponed until October. Further information from FoR. I still think the poster is worth looking at as a focus for Lenten prayer...



Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[104.1] RICH BLOKE MARRIES POSH BIRD AS NATION GOES MAD

I refer, of course, to the engagement of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. It is dumbfounding to see exactly how much airtime and newspaper space is spent analysing and dissecting this event. As if there weren't important things to worry about.

Monarchy is some kind of polite but persistent psychosis, I think. Or perhaps an unwitting psychological contract whereby people project their own expectations and unfulfilled longings onto a small group of self-selecting people -- whose continuation is a matter of pure eugenic priviledge. This is about as far removed from the Gospel of God's special love for the last, the least and the lost as you could plan to get, at least in terms of constitutional routine.

All of which makes the Church of England's continued involvement with it a horrid mess. To put the ekklesia at the disposal of the Crown isn't just inappropriate, it's wrong. But no-one seems to be noticing this massive political and theological issue lurking in the corner of the latest Royal Soap episode.

Though a staunch republican, I wish the Windsors well in their marriage -- even if the means by which events led up to it involved a lot of pain and wrong. But I still can't help concurring with the radical poet Adrian Mitchell, who I recently discovered lives in the same road as me when I'm staying in London. Mistakenly written to by the Daily Telegraph, which was seeking wordsmiths to offer homage to Charles on the anniversary of his investiture as Prince of Wales some years ago, Mitchell wrote back as follows:

For HRH Prince Charles: Monarchy is an illness. Get well soon.

Or words to that effect. (The 'poem' is, as the Dinsdale Brothers might have put it in that Monty Python sketch, "vicious... but fair".)

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[103.2] INTO LENT ... BINDING AND FREEING

Of course I should have noticed much more quickly the link between the previous post, the fact of Shrove Tuesday, and a hidden element in my article for the Bruderhof. For this is the day we celebrate the gifts of life before a period of reflection and discipline involving (in a world where the word seems only to carry a threat at the moment) abstinence.

Bread is, indeed, for sharing, and thus becomes a spiritual matter in material form. A few years ago I wrote some IBRA biblical cameos on precisely this theme. This is the first part. The second part is here.

The other Lent link is in the Does Christianity kill or cure? article. When I first quoted Dennis Potter I remembered what he said incorrectly as "God is the wound, not the bandage." I think that's true in it's own right. But what he actually said in his moving final interview with Melvyn Bragg, as he was dying and swigging morphine to quell the pain of cancer, was "religion is the wound, not the bandage."

That is even more knowing. Potter remembered what many of us forget, which is that the word 'religion' comes from the root religio, meaning "to bind". Of course religion can be, in the colloquial use of that term, "a bind". It can be a source of oppression rather than liberation, slavery rather than salvation. This is why theologians such as Karl Barth have often -- if a little too easily -- tried to distinguish and separate 'religion' and 'Christianity'.

But Lent reminds us of the true meaning of religio. In being freed from things that really do ensnare and bind our lives, like money and possessions, we are freed to be 'bound' to God -- but by the ties of love freely entered into and expressed, not the compulsions of possession or the need to be 'right'. This is St Paul's paradox: his discovery that servanthood turns out to be perfect freedom, as Christ showed.

That isn't something you neatly work out in your head. It is a discovery of the heart and a work of life. And, of course, it is a gift which can be corrupted -- as when people use Christian faith to bind others or themselves to things less glorious than God, but often (ab)using the name of God. This is why religion can be a terrible thing. Lent is a time when we can resolve that it shall be, instead, Good (though not undemanding) News.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[103.1] BREAD AS A PRAYER

Interesting. I was always sure that this quotation was from Leo Tolstoy. But it turns out to be Jacques Maritain. Excellent either way.

Christianity has all too often meant withdrawal and the unwillingness to share the common suffering of humankind. But the world has rightly risen in protest against such piety... The care of another - even material, bodily care - is spiritual in essence. Bread for myself is a material question; bread for my neighbor is a spiritual one.

Thanks to the Bruderhof 'Daily Dig' for this. They have also kindly included my article Does Christianity kill or cure? in their archive.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[102.1] EXTENDING THE TABLE

In the course of my regular searches to update the tsunami prayer pages I maintain on my main site and for Ekklesia, I came across a superb maintained weblog by Rick Lord, World of Your Making, which is certainly worth checking out. He's something of a fan of N T Wright, and I gravitate rather more towards Marcus Borg (they wrote a very useful discussion book together, The Meaning of Jesus), but that's all part of enriching the conversation.

It was also good to hear from an old colleague, Tom Allen, who I haven't seen for years. His enjoyable BigBulkyAnglican log contains "thoughts, ideas, questions and ramblings about music, faith and youth work from Pennine Yorkshire." I think we connected via Dan Walters, by the way, Tom. Amusing to be linked by his post to Pulp (though you won't find them on my NewFrontEars music blog...yet).

Meanwhile, I have done a further overhaul of (and additions to) my general links on this blog. You'll find some new categories - thinkLinks, ecuLinks, and actionLinks - for a start. I continue to resist alphebeticisation (makes searching less lazy and more intuitive, he says didactically) and the "mapping the arena of debate" policy remains.

You'll discover some new campaigns and altChurch offerings, not least St Mark's and St Peter's in the UK and New Zealand. On the 'stimulating theologians' front you'll now find Denys Turner (see also this piece about his stake in the apophatic theology conversation from Peter Kugler), Alan Kreider and Gordon Kaufman (very different kinds of Mennonite voices) side-by-side, and a few others.

Please note that my tendency is to link people from their academic pages. In some cases this means that the resource links aren't as good as they could or should be. In which case Google will do the trick for you. Enjoy.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[101.1] WHOSE ARE WE?

Not a point that contradicts Giles Fraser's valid insight (FinS yesterday) that over-easy identification with the victim can be spiritually dangerous, I think -- but here is Jean Vanier's counterpoint comment about why it is also important. We worship, after all, a God who became tortured (as well as living and risen) flesh.

Vanier wrote: Is not one of our problems today that we have separated ourselves from the wounded and the suffering? We have too much time to discuss and theorize and have lost the yearning for God which comes when we are faced with the sufferings of people.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[100.1] ANTI-SEMITISM, CHRISTIANITY AND TRUTHFULNESS

BBC Radio 4's long running Thought for the Day varies enormously in content and quality. Aside from the battles over the division of air-time between Christians, other faith communities and secular / a-theistic perspectives (which are in my view wrongly excluded at the moment), some see the three-minute reflection as an exercise in cloying piety, while others push the boat out a bit more.

Giles Fraser did the latter this morning. His 'thought' is essential reading in the light of the recent Holocaust memorial events.

"Sixty years after the holocaust, the greatest crime of the twentieth century, the curse of anti-Semitism continues to haunt us.

"Christians often engage with the holocaust by celebrating the courage of other Christians who resisted the Nazis: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemoller, Edith Stein. But the truth is, they were rare exceptions.

"For centuries, many Christians have stoked the fires of anti-Semitism with lies and slander. Jews were blamed for the death of Christ. Some believed that Jews practiced child sacrifice. The 4th century saint and theologian Gregory of Nyssa called the Jews 'companions of the devil, accursed, detested, enemies of all that is beautiful'.

"Martin Luther went even further: 'We are at fault in not slaying them,' he said 'Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying.' He went on to advise Christians to 'set fire to their synagogues and schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn.'

"These days, Christians are ashamed by such words. But it's still terribly important to remember them. " See the full text.

Giles is vicar of Putney, lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford, a Christian convert from a Jewish background, a columnist for the Guardian, the Church Times and Ekklesia, a co-founder of Inclusive Church.Net, author of a very fine book on Nietzsche... and one of the best theologically equipped commentators and writers the Church of England has (but doesn't own).

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[99.1] BECOMING PART OF THE SOLUTION

The apostle Paul starts many of his letters with the phrase 'grace and peace', but most Christians are perhaps more familiar with grace than peace.

One of Ekklesia’s partners, the Anabaptist Network has produced a study guide for churches that explores what it would mean to take peace as seriously as grace - in worship, church life, work, witness and engagement with social issues.

This is not a booklet about pacifism but about the call of Jesus to be people of peace. What would it mean to become 'peace churches?' What resources might such churches offer a violent world that struggles with conflict?

The guide accompanies a booklet Becoming a Peace Church, which the network recently published, and is one of a number of short courses for local churches that have been developed by the Anabaptist Network.

You can view the study guide in a pdf format by clicking here and download or print off your own copy.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[98.2] A CALL TO FAITHFULNESS

This from Margaret Killingray in the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity newsletter:

"Because Auschwitz was liberated 60 years ago [this] week, we are asked to remember how an urbane, civilised, Christian, European nation murdered intentionally, with planned and systematic efficiency, millions upon millions of men women and children. It is a haunting memory that raises many tormenting questions.

"But for Christians one important and significant question has to be why the large and influential churches of 1930s Germany, both protestant and Catholic, did not play a far more dramatic role in opposing the plainly evil programmes that were enacted. In an article in the Church Times in April 1995, Professor John Conway of the University of British Columbia, attempted to answer this question.

"He mentioned the pervasive sense of fear, the over-developed habit of social control that led to a deep reluctance to oppose authority. He showed that the churches were overwhelmingly swept up by the expectation of national renewal and deeply anti-Semitic.

"However, his main contention was that ‘the German churches did not possess the kinds of theology adequate to sustain any critical attack on the actions of their political rulers’. It may be wishful thinking to believe that the churches could have forced Hitler to act differently, but if only they had tried.

"That failure and other 20th century failures that have shamed Christians (Rwanda, racism in the USA, apartheid in South Africa) have made our witness that much more difficult. To ensure that such things are not repeated, we, the church of Christ, have a deep responsibility to make our voice heard and to stand up to inhumanity and racism from any kind of power, including the state.

"Above all, we need a profound understanding of the gospel. At the cross Jesus was crushed for our iniquities and there is no evil that humans can do that cannot be forgiven. However, those who have been forgiven in Christ are called to challenge wickedness in his name, and that can be very costly as those who did challenge Hitler found."

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[98.1] JUSTICE AND MERCY SHALL EMBRACE

Though justice be thy plea, consider this:
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy…

William Shakespeare
from The Merchant of Venice

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[97.2] SANCTITY, SECULARITY AND FREE THOUGHT

One recent correspondent expressed surprise "that a theologian should link to the news reporting of the National Secular Society." I can't think why. It's a rich source of material. Why NSS were even decent enough to plug my Jerry Springer piece a couple of weeks ago. And I'm content to stand with others against "the stifling censors of the religious right", even if their reasons for doing so are differently-shaped to mine.

Of course I know some 'secularists' behave as if they had a vested interest in portraying all religious thought as irrational, and faith as an irretrievable antonym of reason. Frankly I don't think they do themselves any favours when they do this. But it's their call. And I can well sympathise with the anger and frustration that religion can cause, because I've experienced it myself. It's still more productive and honest to challenge each other in our best guises rather than our worst, though I know how easy that is to say and how difficult to do.

But none of our problems in hearing each other as we would like to be heard should be allowed to detract from the fact that a serious, well-tempered conversation between thoughtful Christians and thoughtful humanists can only be enriching, though not easy -- given the politics of religion and public life and the way it encourages us to stack our arguments in 'opposing camps'.

Much the same applies in terms of theology and atheism, it seems to me, where the people keenest to bang on in the God-Notgod 'debate' are usually people in some odd time warp of analytical philosophy and pre-Heideggerian metaphysics. They're either blissfully unaware of how things have moved on in philosophy through phenomenology and narrative/linguistic thinking, or they hate "continental thought" because it doesn't allow them to 'win' in the way they think they ought to.

Meanwhile, free-thinkers on all sides who prefer an exchange-of-difference to a war-of-position can go on thinking freely. And, I’d suggest, working together to take on those who seem to want to take the responsibility of freedom away. But for this we will need something a lot tougher than 'tolerance'. Do we have the courage and willingness to talk about it?

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[97.1] CREATING A COMMUNITY OF LEARNING

People sometimes ask me what criteria I use for including something in my links. Usually the question comes when someone who knows me finds a comment on a page pointed from this site that they think I won't agree with. Well, so be it. Thankfully (if painfully, on occasions) the net is difficult to police for ideological purity.

Mainly I enjoy passing on to readers of FaithInSociety websites, blogs, places and portals that I've found stimulating. Which is anything "worth arguing with", not just stuff that makes me feel cosy... though there's plenty of that, naturally... ;-)

At their best, weblogs reflect and create a micro community of learning -- a zone of commitment, debate and dialogue within which faith can be reasoned, reason can be faithed, and the search for Good News and for a just peace can be continued. I find that neighbours who share this task, this conversation and this quest wear different labels and none.

Generally, I do like to link to people who are generous enough to link to me. Sometimes I forget. Often, in fact. This has been the case until recently with Dan Walters, whose site includes valuable musings on the Gospel and justice, emergent church, post-evangelicalism and more. Also Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Texas. And others you'll discover if you trawl a bit. Incidentally, Dan has a good links section himself.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[96.1] REAPING THE WHIRLWIND

Recently I went to see the English National Opera staged version of Michael Tippett's haunting oratorio, A Child Of Our Time. For those who don't know it, it is based on the events leading up to Kristallnacht during the Nazi terror. In place of the traditional Bachian chorales there sit five Africa-American Spirituals, wonderfully orchestrated into a piece of Western art music that pays more than lipservice to vernacular forms.

Tippett was not a Christian in any conventional sense. He was a Jungian-influenced humanist mystic, you might say; someone of humanity, courage, humour, faith and hope -- politically committed to the dispossessed, a pacifist imprisoned for his concientious objection, and a person of extravagent and intense artistic vision.

From such people we often get far more profound theological remarks than from those of self-regarding piety. An article by Dennis Marks in the ENO programme (see also my music weblog, NewFrontEars) drew my attention to an incredibly powerful comment Tippett made to his friend David Ayerst shortly before the completion of Child.

I have of course not the slightest idea where healing will come [from] because the moment of complete dereliction for the Christian civilization has probably not been reached and so the moment of God's voice from the whirlwind has not come. Though perhaps the whirlwind has come! And that is the only kernel of truth I see - that God will be found in the refuse bin as of old - the stone that has been thrown away.

Goodness. I am considering the possibility of a book on 'God After Christendom'. This will certainly be its opening quotation. Strong echoes of Bonhoeffer, among others.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[95.1] NO-ONE IS AN ISLAND

Via St Matthews-in-the-City in Auckland, New Zealand, I recently discovered Tui Motu magazine, an independent Catholic publication with ecumenical instincts. Its editor is Michael Hill.

It describes itself thus: "Tui Motu is an exciting and challenging journal. We invite readers to question, debate and reflect on spiritual and social issues in the light of gospel values with the aim of creating a more just and peaceful society. 'Tui Motu' is a Maori phrase meaning 'stitching the islands together'... bringing different races, faiths and opinions into relationship."

Unfortunately only the leading article is available on-line at the moment. Perhaps it will in future consider offering back-material to web viewers in order to meet an international audience -- in keeping with its fine ethos.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[94.1] TSUNAMI AND RELIGIOUS BLATHER

As well as news about heroic deeds and passionate pleas, there has been some dreadful material on the tsunami up on the web from many religious quarters. Some tunnel-visioned Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others are eager to portray the tragic events as a divine judgment, or to seek religious capital for some of their more outrageous doctrinal claims.

How sad this is. I've ventured into the field myself, with an article about the theological questions (Is God A Disaster?), a comment on Christ and suffering, a news statement on behalf of CCOM about exploitative proselytism, and, of course the tsunami prayer page - which seeks to pull together a range of the good resources that are out there in cyberspace.

I was much cheered yesterday by a fine, forthright journalistic piece from the pen of E. Allen Campbell, Tsunami theology for dummies. This rightly lacerates the 'theological gobbledygook' that's around on the subject. I hope my stuff doesn't count for that, but I'm happy and willing to stand corrected.

Anyway, Campbell, whose entertaining Wolverton Mountain articles I'm linking under my 'godBlogs' section (hope this isn't too much of a misnomer), says this, inter alia:

"In spite of cutting across all religious beliefs, the truly dumbest theological statement that I heard in the wake of the tsunami was made by a white, American woman in her mid-twenties who avoided being counted with the tens of thousands less fortunate. Upon her return to the States, she ascribed her escaping the fate of so many others to her God saving her.

"While we don't normally make the soundest theological statements having just avoided such a traumatic event, she and her listeners need nonetheless to reexamine her theology. It is way off the mark.

"Think about how that statement sounds. Here is a young, white Christian, affluent, American tourist, who believes that God hovered over the raging tower of cascading water, spotted her amongst the hundreds of thousands facing drowning, and intervened on her behalf to rescue her. What is wrong with that belief? Do you really think that God selected this one gal for rescue? I'd like to know what she did or believed to have this special deus ex machina treatment from God.

"What does that theological picture paint for us? God rescues someone who can afford to vacation in some Asian paradise and allows tens of thousands of others to perish- mothers who couldn't save their children or fathers who couldn't protect their families already on the lowest rung of the poverty ladder. Get real."

Absolutely. See also Giles Fraser on this subject.

Archbishop Rowan Williams' attempts at straightforward communication about things like the tsunami are often said to be 'above the heads' of people in the pews. If that's so it is surely a terrible commentary on the illiteracy that passes for Christian learning in many of our churches, not least those where people who are apparently capable of erudition in their professional fields suddenly turn to intellectual jelly when it comes to their faith.

What a huge challenge this is.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[93.1] CHARTING SOME THEOLOGICAL INSPIRATIONS

From time to time people ask me what theologians I'm inspired by or interested in. I'm tempted to say that it depends on what I'm reading at the time! But there are some voices that reach me regularly and consistently. From the past that has to include Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the much-missed John Howard Yoder, and the revolutionary-philosopher-Christian mystic Simone Weil.

These days it would be voices as diverse as Rowan Williams, Sharon Ringe, John D. Caputo, Walter Brueggemann, Merlod Westphal, Jean-Luc Marion, Stanley Hauerwas, Charles Winquist, Alasdair MacIntyre, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Douglas John Hall and Keith Ward.

This set me thinking. I should include some permanent links to these people. So here they are (see left). I've also included some friends and colleagues - Nick Adams, Chris Rowland, Giles Fraser, Bert Hoedemaker and Peter Selby... but sadly others (like Ruth Page, Martyn Atkins and Ken Leech) don't have a centrifugal web presence yet, in spite of their significance.

Three obvious reflections: First, there's no dominant 'school' in any of this. I'm moved by creative biblical theologians, by unsystematic-systematisers and by writers operating on the borders of theology and continental philosophy. Second, a number of these people would find it difficult to agree on many things if they were in the same room! Third, women and non-Western writers are underepresented: though actually that's not true in my library overall, thankfully.

I've stuck with the discipline of including only writers whose work I've read pretty widely... and who seem to me to have something distinctive and important to say in contemporary debates.

As for the diversity: well, the divine economy is indeed broad, rich, stimulating and challenging. Deo gracia.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety