[207.1] THE WORLD TURNS ON ITS DARK SIDE

Humanitarian and aid organisations, including Christian and Muslim agencies, are responding rapidly to the awful earthquake centred on Islamabad and spreading throughout the region. Donations can be made via Christian Aid, among others. Some of the on-the-ground responses can be read at the Lahore metroblog and via Global Voices online. Comments Robin Greenwood: "South-east Afghanistan is a conflict zone. US forces are fighting Al Qaeda and Kashmir is an area of dispute, tension and military activity between the Pakistani and Indian forces. It is vital in both these areas that relief work takes precedence over conflict." Indeed. And while we are focussing on tragedy, let's not forget Hurricane Stan in Central America and the eruption of the Ilamatepec volcano in El Salvador. Or Malawi's hidden hunger (UNICEF appeal here), the worsening situation is Southern Africa, and the drought in Niger and the northern Sahel region. It all seems too much to bear at times...

My heart is moved by all I cannot save:
so much has been destroyed
I have to caste my lot with those
who age by age, perversely,
with no extraordinary power,
reconstitute the world.

(from 'Natural Resources' by Adrienne Rich)

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[206.1] GEORGE BUSH SAYS GOD TOLD HIM TO GO TO WAR

Not unknown before, but nonetheless alarming to read on the front of today's Guardian. Definitely made me gulp my tea. Ghastly stuff. You'll find a much more detailed version of the story (with background, comment and links) here on Ekklesia. To summarise from the beginning...

US President George W. Bush has been criticised for “making a mockery of Christianity” after it was revealed last night that he directly claimed he was on a 'mission from God’ when he launched the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr Bush, an evangelical Christian since 1985, is alleged to have declared his conviction that the wars were God’s direct will in a meeting with the Palestinian delegation at a summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in 2003. But the UK Christian think-tank Ekklesia says that linking the peacemaking faith of Jesus Christ with policies responsible for death and destruction is “a political abuse of religion” which may further inflame Muslim sentiment and should be renounced by church leaders. [Continued]

I might add, by way of a footnote, that while GW is convinced that God told him to oust Saddam Hussein, God apparently made no mention to him or his president-father that there was anything wrong with arming the dictator to the teeth in the first place. Presumably this is because the Almighty, ever-concurrent with GOP policy swings, was at that stage more worried about Iran (whose bombing may or may not have divine warrant as I write). Such nonsense does, of course, merit some rather more serious theological investigation about what people of faith think they are doing when they talk of God "speaking", or use biblical claims of this kind to bolster their decisions. On that more later.

Meanwhile, by an interesting piece of synchronicity, I was clearing out some boxes the other day and came across a couple of investigative journalistic pieces I wrote for the now defunct City Limits magazine 15+ years ago. They were both about Britain's involvement in arms sales to Baghdad. One mentioned a parliamentary Early Day Motion condemning this. The copy I saved has no mention of a Mr Blair showing much interest... how times change.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[205.2] THE LESS-TRAVELLED CHRISTIAN WAY

Following on from the last post, what kind of perspective might inform a consciously post-Christendom restatement (‘re-emergence’) of Christian commitment in a plural, sceptical, indifferent and consumer-oriented culture? The seven ‘core convictions’ developed by the Anabaptist Network in the UK seem to me a really good starting point for that conversation. (Via Prodigal Kiwi, I have just noticed that they have been re-rendered in handy *.PDF form by the Anabaptist Association of Australia and New Zealand).

There is a danger, of course, that such a stance – which I believe needs also to be nurtured subversively within my own Anglican tradition, through radical Catholicism, and in Reformed perspective – might degenerate into sentimental Jesuolatry, devoid of a broader theological perspective. Incipient WWJD-ism skates too readily over the interpretative distance facing contemporary Christian engagement in its foundational texts and traditions. Seeking the company of the Jesus of the Gospels also involves tension, disruption, interrogation and pain.

But these challenges make ‘followership’ more, not less, worthwhile and necessary, as I tried to suggest not so long ago in my article Does Christianity kill or cure?

“The Christian conviction is that the Word of life has become flesh. This means that the ‘answers’ we seek are not to be found in infallible texts or unassailable propositions, but in and through the vulnerable humanity to which God is committed.

“So the only response that is adequate both to the scale of our human dilemma and to the nature of what is unveiled in the Gospel is (quite against our instincts for tidiness and convenience) the difficult truth of a person.

"In the counter-story and lived reality of Jesus of Nazareth – a narrative about being truly human, but also about a living God who is quite unlike our ideas of 'godness' – we see ‘in the flesh’ the surprising, redemptive potential of diversity in the face of division.

"Put simply, Christ's is the less-travelled Way marked by open tables, acceptance of 'outsiders', refusal of violence, challenge to the rich, forgiveness and repentance, resistance to the powers-that-be, conflict through the cross, the foretaste of risen life, and the shock of the Spirit – the one who surprises us with liberated meaning.

"What we long for in Jesus’ company, therefore, is not mere ‘tolerance’ or illusory power for ourselves. It is the impossible possibility of God’s domination-free kingdom (or ‘kin-dom’, as a South African theologian once beautifully put it).

"The Gospel is about precisely this unimaginable love. It is a love that subjugates power so as to absorb rather than inflict violence, to embrace rather than deny suffering, and to endure in (rather than escape from) death."

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[205.1] SEEKING A CHURCH-TURNED-OUTWARDS

Ah, the delightful ambiguity of the sign.... Anyway, Maggi Dawn commented yesterday: "One of the characteristics of the 'Emerging' mindset is to think of church travelling outwards, rather than expecting people to 'come to us'. I like this idea best when it's accompanied with a Bonhoeffer understanding of the world - not that we 'take God out' to the world, but that we engage with God 'out there' instead of having a retreat mentality."

It's also important to be reminded (as the reference to a mid-twentieth century pastor and theologian tells us) that creative thinking about the church and the vocation it seeks to embody does not automatically derive from, or depend upon, new thinking. There is much that is new and reactionary (by which I mean fearful and defensive) around at the moment, both in the Christian community and elsewhere. By the same token, it is salutary to discover just how long our in vogue diagnoses have actually been around:

"We as individuals, as a congregation of Christian people, and as members together of the Christian church, can neither enjoy faith in God nor be a means of the kindling of faith in others unless we are ready to receive the grace to live faith as an experiment and an experience. Nothing can establish God. We can hope only to be established by God and in God. We are not in a post-Christian era but we are in a post-Christendom era. Civilization and culture do not take God or Christianity for granted. This puts us back into the situation of the people of God for most of their history, certainly into the position of the New Testament church and of the church of the first creative centuries. The world does not help us to believe in God nor do we strengthen our faith through conformity... This does not mean, however, that we are to withdraw into the church and seek somehow to cultivate our faith with our backs to the world. Such church-centredness can only be the death of faith. God is to be found in what [God] makes of the world and of God's people for the world. It is abundantly clear from the Bible that God's people always lost their living faith in the living God when they supposed that they themselves were the focus both of God's activity and of God's reality."
(From David E. Jenkins, on 'Christian Faith in God', written in 1968 - from the collection Still Living With Questions, SCM Press [My emphases].)

That just about sums it up. To be grasped by who and what God might be (beyond our manipulations of 'god') is not a license for retreat, fantasy or the abrogation of reason; rather it is to exercise a traditioned trust which makes adventure, questioning and exploration essential. And it is made possible only by a church-turned-outwards.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[204.2] WHO SPEAKS FOR BRITISH MUSLIMS?

The row between the Muslim Council of Britain and the BBC over John Ware's Panorama documentary 'A Question of Leadership' (on which I commented at the time, and subsequently elaborated) rumbles on. The important new weblog Pickled Politics covers the ins and outs well, with Sunny Hundal developing the thread of his analysis in AiM ("Asians need better leaders and the media is not helping"). The BBC published a detailed response yesterday by Mike Robinson, editor of Panorama. He declares: "I have found there to be no truth in your claims that this programme was dishonestly presented, maliciously motivated or Islamophobic." The MCB is, not surprisingly, dissatisfied. It says it will now go to the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit. Meanwhile a verdict is also due from regulator Ofcom.

But the deeper question is 'who speaks for whom?' and how do progressive and other nonconformist Muslim voices get properly heard as part of a mix which represents the true diversity? Pickled Politics comments: "[B]ecause Muslims ... are too used to biased reporting against themselves, it was easy for the MCB to paint this as another such attack. It may have gotten the government and other organisations to think twice about the MCB (important), but for Muslims themselves it further closed that window of dissent. And unfortunately over the long term that is what is needed." [On a different tack, see also Sunny Hundal's Independent article on British Asians and media stereotyping]

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[204.1] WHY MAMMON MAKES SUCH GOOD COPY

A friend from the USA writes: "Lewis Lapham, my guru du jour, made an interesting observation in his monthly Harper's editorial that the 'media (are) busily minting images of corporate executives like those of the emperor heroes on the coins of ancient Rome.' It got me to thinking that he could have carried the analogy still further, since what they are paid is more on the scale of tribute than earned salary; and in practice they are the unelected leaders of society." More than that, the emperors were (are) also demi-gods, transforming religion from grace into mortgage and founding an economy of beneficiary-oriented obeisance.

All of which calls to mind John M. Hull's sharp and revealing research article, Bargaining with God: Religious development and economic socialization. As Hull, whose fine website I will return to later, says: "[I]t seems likely that in an intense money culture the ultimate reality of God will be confused with, and even displaced by, the ultimate reality of money. Bargaining appears to be a developmental stage in both economic socialisation and in the development of relationships with God, and, therefore, a study of the similarities between economic and religious bargaining offers a starting point for considering the impact of money upon the spiritual development of both children and adults." And at the heart of that mix, lets not forget, is the exchange value of the media.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[203.1] BEING DELUDED BY THE 'WAR ON TERROR'

Those who thought that George W. Bush's administration had, in recent months, been tilted towards seeing 'war on terror' as the rhetoric of a road to ruin will be disappointed by his latest pronouncements, where he compares it uncomplicatedly to the second world war. Never mind the assymetry of modern terrorism, never mind the sacrifice of what is supposedly being defended, and never mind a one-dimensional anti-terror logic colluding with the past arming of Saddam, the state terror waged in the Caucuses, the resurgence of warlordism in Afghanistan, uncritical support for counterproductive Israeli policies, and a blind eye to corruption and cruelty in Saudi Arabia. "We" are justified because "they" are evil.

In the mid-80s I travelled in Central America. At that time, as part of its "national security doctrine", the USA was backing armed cells in Nicaragua and El Salvador. One victim of the terrorists in San Salvador was Archbishop Oscar Romero, from whom the quotation on the mural picture comes. Romero's nonviolent work for social justice involved moving the struggle of the disenfranchised away from insurgency and towards politics. But this was a threat to the vested interests with whom the US allied, and the archbishop was assassinated by death squads trained and backed by the American security operatives. As much as the contemporary context, the predominant lesson of the '80s is that to overcome terror is to struggle with the diffuse roots of political violence and injustice, not to collude with them. (Thanks to Ocavia Duran for the link to this mural by Renato Martin ... and do look at her extraordinary pictures.)

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[202.1] HOLY UNREASONABLE?

Sitting through the tragic performance of Stephen Green (from the mislabelled group 'Christian Voice') on the BBC Question Time TV programme the other evening proved to be, by turns, a painful, sad and inadvertently amusing experience. There's a summary here. (And hat-tip to MediaWatchWatch for the vidcap.) Green, who is also involved in an internecine argument with those who stoked the Jerry Springer furore, littered his well-rehearsed prejudices with biblical quotes and allusions. Somewhat uncharitably, perhaps, but hardly inappropriately, the wise counsel of St Augustine (he himself not being devoid of public failings) came to mind: Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." [1 Timothy 1.7]

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[201.1] OUR DISTINCTLY MODERN SUPERSTITIONS

It is now commonplace for critics of the excesses of modern religion (particularly those forms of Islam, Judaism and Christianity which spout ignorance and hatred and call them 'truth') to talk about these deformations as 'medieval belief' and 'ancient superstition'. There are two major problems with this. First, it fails to recognise that what we call fundamentalism is in fact a distinctly modern thought disease - a kind of hyper-rationalism which feeds on circular logic, modern communications and a misappropriation of sacred texts in ways which are alien to their cultural and literary fabric. Textuality, by it nature, invites engaged interpretation not blind obedience.

Second, it libels our forebears. For while no-one should doubt that intellectual and moral failings afflicted past generations every bit as much as ours, it is simply ill-informed and arrogant to believe that earlier thinkers were uniformly inferior. You don't have to agree with everything the 'medieval' Thomas Aquinas said, for example, to realise that even his most contestable utterances are glorious wisdom compared to the foolish fulminations of a Robertson, a Falwell or a Bin Laden. And as for the current resurgence of 'creationism' (and its intellectually confused cousin, 'intelligent design'), we would surely be endlessly grateful if the exponents of this modern non-sense had attained the capacities of a fourth/fifth century thinker...

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he [sic] holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn." St Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis: An Unfinished Work, tr. J. H. Taylor).

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[200.1] SMALL THOUGHT, HUGE IMPLICATIONS

Reflecting on 'stock-taking' in a clamorous world, I was recently re-reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's After Ten Years: A Reckoning Made at New Year 1943. Inter alia, he declares: "Quantities are competitive, qualities are complementary." A tiny reflection with potentially momentous ramifications for the worlds of economics, politics, personal relations and much more.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[199.1] GOD, POLITICS, PLURALISM, & POST-CHRISTENDOM...

... not to mention the Church of England. Hmmn ... well, that's a bit too much to swallow in one stanza, I'll grant you. But they're among the topics strung together, or implied, by David Aaronovitch's panoramic BBC2 documentary about religion and politics on Wednesday night. He was essentially asking whether the 'faith agenda' isn't in danger of toppling democracy into demagoguery, and "turning voters into acolytes rather than citizens" -- the latter being one of the show's more effective sound bites. What the faith leaders said, especially about religiously-based education was rather revealing, and I expect I will return to this topic.

I've done a fairly detailed comment and response to the Aaronovitch programme for Ekklesia (God and the politicians - where next?), where we are also trying to refocus some of the important issues that this (admittedly rather scatter-gun) docu-commentary raised in relation to post-Christendom, ecclesial participation and power, and the distinction/convergence between civil society and the state as arenas of engagement. The constraints of the general media lean one towards a bit too much of a capital-letter approach, I find. But hopefully we've at least averted some alternate thinking.

Also relevant to 'God and politics' is the tenor and approach of the election briefing Ekklesia did in May 2005, Subverting the manifestos. All this took me back to an article I wrote two years ago called, not uncontroversially, 'Keeping the wrong kind of religion out of politics'. I'm still reasonably happy with my summation there, which ends up as follows:

"My kingdom is not from this world", says Jesus. By which he does not mean that it makes no effective claim against worldly domination systems (it does), but that its authority and ethos come from God. As a Hebrew poet puts it: "Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord."

The main political impact of the Gospel, therefore, is to call into being a company of odd and unlikely people who, wherever possible, refuse to play by the standard political rules (defend, divide, demand) because they owe allegiance to the 'Lamb who was slain' and not to the slayers of lambs.

Nowadays the church is a complex organisation as compromised as any other. But its origins are as ekklesia, a body called out to witness against 'the powers that be'. If Christian institutions have any useful future it is surely as harbingers of values, practices and structures that owe their shape and conviction to Jesus, rather than to other 'lords'?

This implies that the place for Christian politics is primarily in civil society, not ruling over people. It suggests that Christians should be the first to deny religious sanction to policies that fall radically short of the love of God, even when they are inextricably caught up in them. It militates against state religion and 'establishment'. It implies a particular interest in those who are excluded and damaged by the polis. It involves concern for others, not just for our own security.

So while Christians cannot sort out the problems of other religious communities in the public arena, they can certainly deal with their own. By showing how religion might be redeemed from wrongdoing they can also make a vital contribution to the wider political process.

That does not mean quietism, separatism or lack of realism. But it does rule out interventions in existing political systems of the kind that depend primarily on religious power and privilege, which support the manipulativeness of much political culture, which deny the efficacy of God's love to change us, which remain closed to the alternative vision of Jesus, and (perhaps above all) which leave the biblical texts that gave rise to the Gospel counter-story unredeemed by Jesus' categorical refusal of domination.

'Christian politics', if it exists as a particular category, is about Christians opening up a 'space for people to be people' (Jose Miguez Bonino) alongside others. This will be a space for creative resistance, re-valuation and construction: one which refuses to be accountable primarily to the distortions of power. Only a faith that is properly political in this sense can help keep the wrong kind of religion out of politics.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[198.1] GETTING ALL DIALECTICAL

As a footnote to yesterday's piece on the 100 Minute Bible, I noticed this pleasing post about the Kiwi Bible on The fine Prodigal Kiwi(s) weblog. It reminded me of a long-since-lost newspaper cutting (from the late 1970s, I think) about the British Museum's collection of dialect renditions. One of these was a Yorkshire Bible, which begins with the priceless words: First on, there were nobbut God. Then 'e said, "eh up, let's turn t'bloody light on." Great...

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[197.1] BLESSED IS THE BIBLICAL DISSONANT

The 100 Minute Bible, which was launched last week and has sold 100,000 copies in just a few days, is expectedly provoking plenty of reaction - both pro and anti. I did an interview recently with the Christian Science Monitor (syndicated on ABC News), which has presented a reasonable round-up. I loved the bit about "It has some searching for the beatitude 'Blessed are the editors, for they shall make stuff shorter to read.'" (Regarding my own contribution: it's interesting to see how an eight-minute conversation looks when it gets boiled down... and given the subject matter, that seems par for the course!)

Some Christian comment on this topic seems to start with a proprietorial angle: "how dare, you, this is our book, we own it." No you don't, it's in the public domain. And anything that makes people argue about it, wrestle with it and not take it "for granted" or "as read" seems a good thing. Besides, those who complain about hijacking now know how many Jewish communities feel about "the Old Testament". As Walter Brueggemann suggests, the Bible creatively handled involves texts under negotiation - an explosion of destabilising energy, not a bulwark for the status quo. Anyway, this is how my comment came out:

Simon Barrow, co-director of Ekklesia, a London-based theological think tank, says that while new versions may find new markets, there is no substitute for time spent with the original. He says one problem with the "100-Minute Bible," for example, is that it "flattens out the literary variety" of the Bible - its poetry, prophecy, history, law, parables, polemics, and letters - into, simply, prose. "An example of where it can go wrong is in saying, 'God created the world in six days,' as if the whole story of Genesis was some literal statement," he says. "This could merely feed those who see the Bible as an oracle and don't see the poetry and parable there."... "If it gets people to read and think, that's good," he adds, "but we also need to say 'if you are going to understand this thing, you'll have to spend some time with it.' "

Ouch. The first sentence sounds like some kind of KJV promo. What I meant was "summaries" and "full versions", of course. Ah, the perils of punditry... Btw, this is an opportune moment to plug two very good weblogs: PostmodernBible (by NT teacher Pete Philips) and the new Dissonant Bible (Mark Balfour), which intends “to record some of my own reading of the Bible, with especial attention given to the discordant or dissonant parts, not in an attempt to harmonise them or restrain them within the straightjacket of some systematic theology, but as a genuine attempt to say - this book is strange, is alien and has the power, if we allow it, also to render our own world strange and alien to us.” Whatever next, a Bible podcast? Er, thanks, Maggi... ;-)

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[196.1] GOING IN FOR THE SPIRITUAL KILL

Nothing is more dangerous to the advancement of God's kingdom than religion. But this is what Christianity has become. Do you not know that it is possible to kill Christ with such Christianity? After all, what is more important - Christianity or Christ? And I'll say even more: we can kill Christ with the Bible! Which is greater: the Bible or Christ? Yes, we can even kill Christ with our prayers. When we approach God with our prayers full of self-love and self-satisfaction, when the aim of our prayers is to make our world great, our prayers are in vain. (C. F. Blumhardt)

Christoph Friedrich Blumhardt (1842-1919) was a maverick German pastor and religious socialist who influenced, among others, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth. This is from his pungent comments on spiritual complacency.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[195.1] "PEACE, PEACE, WHERE THERE IS NO PEACE"

The anti-war demonstrations across the USA and in Britain over the weekend still leave those of us opposed to the geopolitics of military adventurism in a quandry. While the new Church of England bishops' report is right to call for a major shift in policy and perspective, washing our hands of the bloody quagmire in Iraq cannot be an acceptable alternative. Mere anti-Bushism is smugness not politics; it is the contemporary equivalent of crying "peace, peace!" when there is no peace and no justice (Jeremiah 6.14), but instead the real threat of collapse and civil war. The moral failure of much of the anti-war movement to recognise this is deeply disturbing. Almost as disturbing in its own way as the failure of many in the US and UK governments to see that "carrying on regardless" is digging the policy grave deeper and deeper. For this reason, and though they have beenmocked and vilified by the likes of Melanie Philips for saying it, the bishops are also right to talk of sackcloth and ashes. Admitting the collective mess we are all in is not surrender. It is the beginning of any hope of fresh wisdom. [There is more useful linkage and comment on Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11 on the ever-pertinent Bartholomew's Notes on Religion.]

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[194.1] WHAT FINNS DO WITH ALGORITHMS ON HOLIDAY

Just occasionally, I find, you have to succumb to a bit of well-directed web jollity. Being grown-up doesn't have to be deadly serious, does it? Anyway, who could really fail to be seduced by The Global Stupidity Advisory System? Also rather enjoyable is the Gematriculator service that uses "the infallible methods of Gematria developed by Mr Ivan Panin to determine how good or evil a web site or a text passage is." Bonkers. Oh, I nearly forgot DIY Pope (a new image needed there, guys) and the Automatic IT Company Profiler ("we extrapolate empowerment, immersive know-how and real-time approval"). I fear that the naughty genius behind this deranged site could even invent a religious cult Richard Dawkins would join. And probably has. (Whoops, only a rumour.)

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[193.1] GROWING UP IN AN INFANTILISING SOCIETY

Maybe I've been listening in to too many political interviews, public debates, street "reality rages" and phone-in programmes lately. But something made me return to these words from Rowan Williams on the demands of adulthood, maturity and formation (from a speech originally given earlier this year to the Citizen Organising Foundation at St Mary College, East London):

"… If you are asked what are the characteristics you would regard as marks of maturity, or having grown up as a human being, what would you say? ... The human adult I imagine is someone who is aware of emotion but not enslaved by it. A human adult is someone who believes that change is possible in their own lives and the lives of those around them. A human adult is someone who is aware of fallibility and death, that is who knows they are not right about everything and that they won’t live forever. An adult is someone sensitive to the cost of the choices they make, for themselves and for the people around them. An adult is someone who is not afraid of difference, who is not threatened by difference. And I would add too, an adult is someone aware of being answerable to something more than just a cultural consensus – someone whose values, choices, priorities are shaped by something other than majority votes; which is why I add – in brackets, but you’d expect me to – that I think that an awareness of the holy is an important aspect of being an adult, however you want to phrase that...

"If we start from that kind of list of features of maturity we might come up with a list something like this, identifying the things that stop us growing up. What if we live in a climate where our emotions are indulged but never educated? That is to say where we never take a thoughtful perspective on how we feel, that brings in other people and their needs. What if we live in an environment where apathy and cynicism are the default positions for most people on issues of public concern? What if our environment is short on dialogue and learning and self-questioning? What if it is characterised by a fear and a denial of human limitations, by a fundamentalist belief in the possibility of technology in solving our problems for example? By the constant bracketing or postponing of the recognition that we have limits and that we are going to die. What if our environment is passive to the culture of the global market, simply receiving that constant streams of messages which flows out from producers and marketers? Because one of the things that implies is that the world ought to be one in which difference doesn’t matter very much because we are all flattened out, as you might say, in the role of consumers. What if our environment is characterised by intense boredom and an addiction to novelty? Or characterised by an obsessive romanticising of victim status, and a lack of empathy? What if it is characterised by ... an approach to the world which is tone deaf about the sacred and the mysterious?

"Well I don’t really need to put all those ‘what ifs’ in because I think you will probably recognise that this is not a million miles away from the environment we, in fact, inhabit. But I think we need a sharp-edged diagnosis here, to help us identify that these things are not just ‘problems’ in a vague way, they are actually the things which stop us growing up. When we live in a debased environment of gossip, inflated rhetoric, non-participation, celebrity obsession and vacuous aspiration, it’s not surprising that we have a challenge in the area of formation, human formation."

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[192.1] HOPEFUL REALISM IN A CULTURE OF CONFLICT?

My initial response to the Church of England post-9/11 report (Of bishops, bombs and ballast) is now up on Ekklesia. The House of Bishops document on which I'm commenting (Countering terrorism: power, violence and democracy, *.PDF file) has much to commend it, but is still rather attenuated in its theology. This is partly because the four people who wrote it -- two of whom I have more than a passing acquaintance with -- are coming from rather different angles and are aiming at a workable consensus. But it is also because of the weight of a tradition based on Christendom assumptions about the relation between church and state and reliance on what looks like an insufficiently reconstructed middle axiom methodology. In the midst of all this, and some decent geopolitical analysis, you sense that there is something more radical struggling to get out. But as is often the case in the C of E, it is smothered by Anglicanism's burdensome reasonableness, and also by inhibitions about an alternative account of what constitutes 'realism' in Christian engagement with the political. (At least the outcome is significantly better than the ecumenical report Prosperity With A Purpose, on which see the riposte Is God bankrupt?).

What I think the good bishops might have said to the post-9/11 political process is (for what it's worth) something like this: Look, we fully recognise that politics in a brutal world is often about harm reduction strategies, damage limitation and flawed options, and we want to engage with your rightful desire for 'realistic interventions'. (This is because the pain-bearing God we meet in Jesus Christ won't allow us to wash our hands of this mess by putting a self-interested desire for 'religious purity' above the actual contradictions of a hurting world. ) But at the same time the essential logic of our calling to be a Christ-shaped community is the need to speak up for practices which question and subvert the centrifugal force of 'politics-as-usual' and 'the-powers-that-be'. In doing so we wish to share in human solidarity. We claim no moral superiority or magic solution. But what we say and do as Christians is also rooted in an alternative understanding of security and hope from that circumscribed by 'the political' - one that lies in the promise of a God who refuses the reign of death, and who invites us to experience life as an unretractable gift (rather than simply as the outcome of a series of unavoidable manipulations). We realise there's a big gap here, so we want to offer what practical resources we can from our own tradition: ideas which might help move the larger political agenda in a more positive direction. Plus we know we have our own house to get in order – not a small job. But we're not going to be shy about acknowledging a much bigger vision of what is 'realistic', based on a costly Gospel which says that lowest-common-denominator politics can't be the only show in town - because conversion to a different way of life is always possible for human beings.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[191.1] INTERPRETING GOD'S LAUGHTER

The news that a retired school headmaster has reduced the Bible into a booklet which can be read in around a hundred minutes may be an abridgement too far, according to James Sturcke, summarising blog reaction for the new 'Berliner'-style Guardian. Maggi Dawn has the issues sensibly and briefly weighed up. Even more of a storm greeted As Good as New: A Radical Re-telling of the Scriptures, because of its controversial interpretative stance towards passages concerning sex - always something guaranteed to, er, get Christians' knickers in a twist. Meanwhile the Graun (as it is lovingly known by sub-editors the world over) is encouraging bloggers to summarise other 'great books' in just 100 words.

I don't imagine that we'll be seeing a 100 minute version of the Qur'an too soon, not unless someone really wants to stir the pot. But Giles Fraser, undoubtedly the best theologically-equipped columnist in any UK paper at the moment, has some very sensible things to say about the debate on the reformation of Islam galvanised by Salman Rushdie and others. In Rushdie should swap his crusading for novel writing (a crude headline, which he didn't write and doesn't do justice to the piece) Fraser follows his earlier article on The idolatry of Holy Books by reflecting on the role of fiction in helping narrative traditions to meet, exchange and find a better way of engaging both themselves and 'the enemy' - whatever and whoever that is perceived to be.

He says: In these pages I had a go at Rushdie's appeal to the Reformation as simplistic, arguing that reforming zeal often leads to the sort of bad religion of which he rightly complains. Taking the point, he has now changed tack: "Not so much a reformation, as several people said in response to my first piece, as an Enlightenment. Very well then: let there be light." But this won't do either. Certainly Enlightenment thought offers a challenge to the moral poison that often oozes from superstition. Even so, secular rationality is no fail-safe prophylactic against murderous ideology. The 20th century offered up enough genocidal "isms" to make that point. Hatred has the capacity to nestle within the most enlightened breast. So far, so obvious. But what's apparently not so obvious to Rushdie is that the most effective answer to bad religion is under his very nose: the novel itself...

Picking up an old Jewish proverb, "Man thinks, God laughs", [Milan] Kundera proposes that the novel was born out of the laughter of God. What's God laughing at? At the hubris of human attempts to deliver a single knockdown answer to the problems of the world. The novel can never be a cheerleader for Islam or Christianity or Modernist or Enlightenment. Those who believe that the exclusive truth of any of these is obvious and self-evident can never have heard the laughter of God. [My emphases]

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[190.1] THE TRAGIC, NEEDLESS DEATH OF MANUEL BRAVO

Britain's asylum and refugee policies are shameful. Policy debate is trapped by the scare-mongering, selective information and xenophobia peddled by the tabloid press and reinforced by the likes of 'Asylum Watch' (so effectively taken on in a recent Westminster Forum debate). But the real scandal of the situation is highlighted by the tragic story of Manuel Bravo, 35, who hanged himself last Thursday after he and his 13-year-old son, Antonio, were arrested at their home in Leeds and taken to Yarl's Wood detention centre in Bedford. They were due to be sent back to war-torn Angola. Mr Bravo's wife Lydia and their other son Mellyu returned to the country earlier this year. The International Red Cross later informed him that she had been arrested on their arrival and that both had disappeared. It seems that Mr Bravo hanged himself so that the government could not deport Antonio, as it is illegal to send back an unaccompanied minor.

The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, John Packer, the vicar of Mr Bravo's local church, MP John Battle and local campaigners of all faiths and none are calling for an enquiry into the death - and into the arrest, which was probably illegal. Quite right, too. This is one policy area where churches are united against injustice, I'm delighted to say. The National Coalition of Anti-Seportation Campaigns, Bail for Immigration Detainees, the Churches' Commission for Racial Justice and the Bail Circle are among those who you can contact for action ideas and opportunities. See also the sanctuary intitiative.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety