[373.1] WHEN TRUTH HAS A HUMAN FACE

A rabbi once asked his disciples how one decided at what hour the night was over and the day had begun.
‘It is perhaps when, from a distance, one can recognise the difference between a cow and a pig?’ asked one of the disciples.
‘No,’ came the answer.
‘It is perhaps when, from a distance, one can recognise the difference between a black and a white dog?’
‘No,’ the rabbi replied.
‘But how can one decide?’ asked one impatient disciple.
The rabbi responded: ‘It is when one looks into another person’s face and one can see one’s brother or sister. Until then, the night is still with us and it is still dark.’

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[15.51 GMT] An Advent thought (from a presentation in Bath & Wells Diocese on Consuming Passion): "Sanctity is the giving of what is God in and through what is not-God. Holiness is not life lived in the absence of the world or in rejection of worldly things; it is the world lived in the presence of God, that is as pure gift."

[14.19 GMT] Faith leaders' appeal to US government over Israel-Palestine conflict - a joint bipartisan statement by Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders issued this weekend.

[372.2] AND THE MYSTERY BECAME FLESH

In an earlier post I was thinking about how to respond in some thoughtful but not-too-technical manner to basic questions such as "what is Christian faith?" and "What does it mean to be a Christian?” I had a go a the first one. Here is my stab at the second, which - in the way that I view things - needs to incorporate the shape of the first in a coherent way. What I've attempted is a personal answer which tries to show some awareness of the formal categories involved. For some it will be too sinewy, for others too clinical. But we have to go on risking inadequacy in the way that we live and the way we speak. That's what opening ourselves to God means.

A Christian is someone who (through neighbourly commitment, the ritual recollection of narrative hope, deep scriptural reasoning, self-dispossessing prayer and continuous rational exploration-in-community) looks without flinching at the unreserved humanity of Jesus and recognises in it the unlimited commitment of God to that which is not-God. The God who is available in vulnerable, tortured, transformed flesh remains, however, utter creative mystery which cannot, in principle, be reduced to a metaphysical proposition or an epistemological limit. This mystery of God that enables us to reconceive the world and each other as pure gift is at the same time experienced, though never captured, in attention to the connected distance between things (the otherness) that we call love. It is this mutual coinhering of the unknowable God, disclosed by unrestricted humanity and expressed through uncontainable inter-subjectivity, which gets called Trinity in the odd grammar by which Christianity tries to make sense of the divine mystery and its impact on us.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[372.1] SUBSTANCE AND SHADOWS

"Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of them. " ...

"Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but is also their means of communication. It is the same with us and God. Every separation is a link."

"A hurtful act is the transference to others of the degradation which we bear in ourselves."

Reflections from Simone Weil.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[371.1] LIFE DOWN ON MAGGI'S FARM

Ooh, this one's dangerous. I know my blog is supposed to be terribly serious, waxing about the waning of the world, gibbering about God - that sort of thing. But how could anyone resist such a charming invitation as this? - especially when it's from Maggi Dawn, who's in the midst of writing a book right now. Not that I'm implying blogospheric procrastination or anything like that. (Though that's what would be going on if it was me.) Anyway, here are my Five Things You Probably Didn't Know About Me, a questionable idea inspired by (the) Roger von Oech. They're not as deep as Ruth Gledhill's. But then the task wasn't five useful things, was it, he asks in feeble self defence?

1. When I was two I was monstered on a park bench by three German Shepherds (of the canine variety). I don’t recall my grandmother being too effective at shooing them away. Life has turned out pretty well for me since then. Considering.

2. In 1969 I abandoned Manchester United and started supporting Dumbarton, who now languish in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League. It’s a long story involving dubious ancestry and a knack for lost causes. But we’ve just drawn Celtic away in the next round of the Scottish Cup, so glory is only 90 minutes away. Honest.

3. When I was thirteen I wanted to be a park keeper. No, I haven’t got a clue why, either. But I still have an instinct to pick up litter. Then again, I never bother to mow the lawn until reminded. It wouldn't have made a day job, that’s for sure. Back then, I never even considered Ekklesia, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, theology, journalism or the like. Unfathomable, huh?

4. I used to work with Alexei Sayle before he became an alternative comedy headliner. He was a part-time filing clerk while I was an editorial assistant at a now defunct London publishing company. One Christmas he got the booze and I got the crisps for the office party. Didn’t stop it being a bit rubbish, but that’s what office parties are for. Graham & Trotman finally sent him off the rails, and the rest is history.

5. I have this thing with deadlines. And I don’t just mean those ones. F’rinstance… I inexplicably declined a ticket for what turned out to be The Smiths’ final gig before they split, and then for what turned out to be Miles Davis’ last ever concert in Britain. I also missed Sir Michael Tippett’s final Proms appearance because of a major train delay. I am determined not to miss the end of Yes, shameful though it is to admit in polite circles. Carpe diem.

Right, it's the season of goodwill, so I tag Jonathan Bartley, Johan Maurer (or Dima), The Weary Pilgrim and Tom Allen. Er, how come the bloggers I know are mostly men? Hmmnnn...

[Picture: Alexei Sayle on an average day or Maggi Dawn on an indescribable day, (c) BBC]

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[370.1] AN AMBRIDGE TOO FAR? NAH...

Middle England stirred minimally today, as that quintessentially medium-blend radio soap opera, The Archers, saw its longest-running gay love affair joyously confirmed in a civil partnership - which also managed to dent the walls of suburban prejudice, and cleverly culminate in a heterosexual marriage proposal at the after-ceremony reception. So much for lesbian and gay partnerships threatening the age old institution of matrimony. Anyway, Ekklesia got in on the act (Christians welcome civil partnership in Ambridge) courtesy of a tip-off from Pink News. The story was also covered in different ways by The Stage (A very Ambridge wedding) and The Guardian (A walk on the wild side). There's a lurking irony in me being quoted wishing the happy couple all the best, which is that I have a long-term aversion to The Archers. I am known to grumble loudly when it comes on, usually because I have just turned BBC Radio 4 on in the hope of some news, some comedy, some dramatic relief, or a depressing documentary about the exploitation of yak farmers in Mongolia. Still, Ambridge came up trumps this evening. And I know quite a few clergy listeners who would be more than willing to bless the newly-hitcheds. I just hope someone remembers to send Christian Voice's Stephen Green some tablets for his queazy stomach. He has been described as suffering from homophobia, but the pedants among us are apt to point out that it is actually more properly labelled heterophobia - fear of 'the other'. [Picture: Andy and Ian get hitched, courtesy of the Beeb]

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[369.1] THE BEST NAME FOR GOD

The best name for God is the power of love
Transformative power
Love that makes a difference
That breaks down boundaries,
crosses borders that keep outsiders out and insiders in.
It is the power of love that seeks to end poverty,
To thwart and overthrow the structures which perpetuate it,
And anger the elites that benefit from it.
In Jesus, that contentious Jew, the power of this love was strong
Is it any wonder they wanted to kill him?
If people had taken him seriously the economics of greed could have been disrupted.
The rich might have lost some riches
The poor might have gained some power.
He was dangerous, and so he had to be nailed.
The Romans did the job.
What his killers didn't understand was the power of love.
No grave can keep it in.
No border can keep it out.
No religion can control it.
No amount of money can buy it off.
It is wild, wonderful, and free.

By Glynn Cardy, St Matthew-in-the-City, Auckland, New Zealand

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[368.1] DISARMING CHRISTIAN SOLDIERISM

On 3 December 2006, Observer columnist Nick Cohen wrote an article about the often aggressive defence, or re-assertion of, Christianity in British public life. As a critic of 'establishment faith' I sympathise with many of his concerns, but he seems to write all but the most controlling kinds of religion out of the script and therefore produces an account which is in danger of veering into caricature and offers no way beyond "a plague on them all" or a war of counter-assertion. Before his piece was filed, Jonathan Bartley had briefed Cohen, at his own instigation, on the post-Christendom argument and some alternative takes on 'Christmas wars' et al. He chose not to pursue these angles, but the reference in his subsequent article portrayed Ekklesia as 'the left wing' in an intra-Anglican row. Which misses the point at more levels than one. This week The Observer published my response (below). Incidently, they entitled it 'Cohen's phoney war'. I had, of course, referred to the phoney war described by Nick Cohen. Which is different. And consciously so:

Nick Cohen ('Let's not sleepwalk with the Christian soldiers', last week) portrays my organisation, Ekklesia, as part of an 'internal conflict' within the Church of England. On the contrary, Ekklesia is an independent think-tank with no denominational affiliation.

Our argument is that when establishment Christianity puts civic self-interest before equality and justice, it betrays its own radical origins, as well as making the world a nastier place. Many religious and non-religious people are recognising this to be true in their traditions, too.

Voices for change are, however, lost in the phoney war Nick Cohen describes. That's why we need a conversation of civilisations, not the kind of clashing that only encourages sectarianism.
Simon Barrow, co-director, Ekklesia London EC1

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[367.1] CONCEIVING SECULARITY AS AN ECUMENICAL VIRTUE

Two unhelpful approaches are dominating debates about the role of faith in public life right now. One is the increasingly assertive voice of organised religion defending its privileges and questioning cultural freedom – everything from what plays we should watch to who ‘owns’ Christmas. The other resides in the anxious criticism of many ‘cultured despisers’, who see public religious expression only as a problem to be contained.

Ironically, these opposing approaches do not cancel each other out, they egg each other on. The more religious communities try to assert themselves in controlling ways, the more strident secularist voices become. Likewise, when non-religious advocates say that faith should be abolished from the public square, it only increases the sense of grievance and anger among some religious people.

This is a deeply unproductive antagonism. Rather than enriching public life with a range of perspectives, we are in danger of retrenching further into “competitive grievances”, a war of position between vested interests trying to assert themselves through a narrow interpretation of their own self-understanding.

But there is another way. Ekklesia has been arguing for some time that it is possible for both the religiously committed and for advocates of a plural, secular society to find a place of mutual accommodation. We don’t have to choose one ‘camp’ over the other. We can be in both. Continued. [Graphic courtesy of LICC's secular-sacred divide debate page]

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[00.31 GMT] Making a meal of moderation - Colin M. Morris shows why radical religion does not have to be a bad thing.

[13.31 GMT] Christianity is a radical call to peacemaking - by Norman Kember.

[366.1] FITTING THE FACTS AROUND THE NEWS

It's been an absolute pleasure and privilege to work with former Iraq hostages Norman Kember, Jim Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden over the past 72 hours. Jim and Harmeet came to London to meet up with Norman, and to make a media statement that clarified why they feel that forgiveness and restorative justice are the way forward in relation to the men who captured them and held them prisoner for 118 days. Ekklesia was honoured to be asked to coordinate the media bids and yesterday's press conference, and the resulting coverage has mainly been pretty positive so far - recognising the integrity of the men's position and the challenge their action poses to the terrible cycles of violence which have been ripping Iraq apart - as Jim said, during the years of Saddam's brutal dictatorship, and then in the context of US-led war and occupation and the horrific aftermath - 3,000 deaths a month, and some thousand people fleeing every day.

Still, it is salutary to be reminded that some sections of the media not only don't get it (comment is, rightly, free) but appear rather more interested in what will make 'a good story' than what is actually the case (fact is rarely determinative of journalistic construction these days). For example, here is Norman Kember - writing in today's Daily Telegraph, and re-iterating what the three Christian Peacemakers have been saying again and again for much of the past two days: "Although we are all absolutely opposed to the death penalty, we do not have, at present, enough information about the working of the Iraqi court system to discover if we can best help these men by refusing to testify, and asking for clemency outside the court system, or by agreeing to take part in the trial and ask[ing] for clemency within the court process." And here's how that was translated in The Guardian (surprisingly) Former Iraq hostages refuse to give evidence against captors in trial and (more predictably) in The Times Kember: I will not testify at trial of my kidnappers. Also: Hostages explain refusal to testify (ABC Online, Australia). As they say, "spot the difference". The Guardian, to its credit, ran additional stories: Kember pleads clemency for his kidnappers and Former hostage forgives captors. Mostly, the emphasis of coverage has been on forgiveness and restoration - but as Jim Loney has been at pains to point out, that doesn't necessarily mean unwillingness to testify, and it certainly doesn't mean a simple 'bang them up or let them free' choice - it is about seeking the middle round where rehabilitation and change remains possible.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[00.54 GMT] Forgiveness not revenge for Iraq, say former peace hostages (Ekklesia).

[00.15 GMT] LATEST ON IRAQ: The Iraq Study Group has still not understood what people in Iraq well know, says Sami Ramadani: that it is the United States military occupation of Iraq itself that is fuelling the violence there (OpenDemocracy). Christians welcome new dynamic of Iraq Study Group report (Ekklesia).

[18.17 GMT] Press Conference by former Iraq hostages Former Iraq hostages Norman Kember, Harmeet Singh Sooden and Jim Loney are to issue a statement on Friday 8 December 2006 (in the morning), as their alleged captors face a trial which could end in the death penalty. The event will take place at St Ethelburga's Peace Centre in the City of London, and is being coordinated by Ekklesia. The three men went to Iraq as part of a Christian Peacemaker Teams' delegation in November 2005, and ended up being held for four months. Prior to their release in March 2006, one of their number, Quaker Tom Fox, was murdered by the kidnap group. The others were released in a non-violent operation coordinated by intelligence and army officials. Loney is from Canada, Sooden from New Zealand and Kember from Britain. Fox was a US citizen.

[01.31 GMT] Not being enslaved by 'life as advertised' - Simon Barrow explores the way that the Gospel message turns servants into free agents. (Ekklesia column)

[365.1] SOMETHING TO CELEBRATE?

There's an excellent article in yesterday's Guardian, by Stephen Tomkins, on why he is giving up Christmas for Advent. As he rightly points out, it is a bit rich for Christians to complain that their festival is being nicked by 'pagans', when they stole it from honest hedonists in the first place. Rather than whining about his image (or its absence) on seasonal postage stamps, it might be better for the churches to start taking the narrative of Jesus seriously as a shaping factor in their own identity - you know: hospitality to the outsider, peacemaking, celebration, justice-doing, enemy-loving. That kind of thing. For the more Christianity is turned into a civic vehicle for 'culture wars', the more commitment to genuine discipleship is obscured and compromised. And the more it feeds the fear of those who believe that religion is nothing but a malevolent fanstasy aimed at lording-it over others. [On another tack... Fair Trade Christmas ideas here]

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety

[00.06 GMT] Inter-textuality given a new twist: Learning to reason scripturally - Nick Adams from the University of Edinburgh explains why deep reasoning and careful friendship are key to the fruitful reading of texts, both within and across traditions. This is an edited excerpt from his superb book, Habermas and Theology (Cambridge, 2006). See also the work of Peter Ochs and the website for The Society of Scriptural Reasoning.

[364.1] CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT BE NICE

You can't win, really. So it's best not to try. Winning is for losers. And here's why: Christians and other "religious people" are routinely accused of being intolerant, impatient, ignorant and unpleasant - not without reason sometimes, sadly. But according to a piece in the latest Sunday Times (a profile of John Sentamu, though it wanders a bit) the problem with Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, is that he is none of these things. Instead he's pleasant, thoughtful and commends careful listening ahead of hasty action. This, apparently, is even worse. How dare he refuse to adopt the commandeering manner we expect of our "real leaders". String him up! Oh, hang on, they did that to someone else, didn't they? Maybe this Christian lark isn't supposed to be brutal and simple after all....

[Dr] Williams, hailed as a new broom on his appointment in 2002, is now perceived as an unworldly academic who ties himself in rhetorical knots while his church tears itself apart over the ordination of women and gay priests. He sounded too clever by half in John Humphrys’s recent radio series, Humphrys in Search of God, when he spoke mystically of “silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark”.

“For God’s sake, man . . . why are you so nice?” one newspaper demanded recently. Last week the tone became harsher, when a Daily Telegraph comment piece announced, “The archbishop’s days are numbered.” It suggested that Williams, undermined by a feud with Lord Carey, his predecessor, will step down early to make way for Sentamu.

Comment on this post: FaithInSociety