Wikio - Top Blogs - Religion and belief
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts

Wednesday, 2 October 2024

A real relationship and conversation with God

Here's the sermon I shared at St Andrew’s Wickford this morning:

Although he doesn’t deserve it, Job is a man on whom all the troubles of the world have come (Job 9.1-12, 14-16). In rapid succession he loses all his livestock, servants and children. Then sores break out all over his body and his wife tells him to curse God and die. If we think life is hard for us, we might want to look at the story of Job and think again.

The book of Job is told as a series of conversations. It begins with a conversation between God and Satan about Job, continues with a conversation between Job and his friends about God and his response to suffering and ends with a conversation between Job and God himself. 

Job asks in 9.14-16:

“How then can I answer him,
choosing my words with him?
… If I summoned him and he answered me,
I do not believe that he would listen to my voice.”

However, Job’s experience, as the story progresses, is that it is possible for him to discuss and debate with God and what changes Job in this story is not the arguments and words of other human beings but the experience of genuinely meeting and speaking with God himself. Job asks why good people suffer and his friends reply that people suffer because of their wickedness, because they have not helped others and that we are punished in order to repent and be healed. Job knows in his heart and in his conscience that he has helped others and has not done wrong. Job’s friends are only able to tell Job what they think about God what they aren’t able to do is to help him encounter God himself. The story is told as a series of conversation because Job entering in to a conversation with God himself is what the book is all about.

Job’s friends - and, to begin with, Job, himself - think that being in relationship with God is primarily to do with our keeping a set of rules and regulations. If we do the right things then we will have God’s favour. The problem with this view is that we can look around the world and see wicked people who seem to prosper and good people who experience tragedy. This problem is acute for Job because he is one of those good people who experience tragedy. This view is still apparent in many churches today despite our knowledge of God’s grace and forgiveness in Jesus. Yet, when we act like that we are, like Job’s friends, setting up a series of standards which we believe come from God, and saying that if you don’t meet those standards or don’t repent, then you are outside of God’s will and no longer a follower of God.

But at the end of this story, it is Job’s friends with whom God is angry, not Job. In fact, Job himself has to pray for his friends so that they are not disgraced by God. The problem God has with Job’s friends is that they have not spoken the truth about God, as Job did. And yet much of what they had to say about God is standard theology about God. So, what is the difference between Job’s friends and Job? The difference is that Job wants to speak with God while his friends want to speak about God.

Job’s friends have a black and white view of God with no shades of grey and this is actually a way of avoiding encounter with God. In this way of thinking if life is going well then you know you must be keeping the rules because you have God’s favour and if life is not going well then you know you must have done something wrong and need to repent. Life is very simple and when you understand life like that you can keep God at arms length and don’t need to talk with him because you know what you have to do and all that matters is doing it right.

Job, however, knows that life is not as simple as that and, as a result, he wants to ask God about it direct. And when he starts talking to God, God starts talking to him. And what God has to say isn’t about giving Job rules and regulations to follow; it isn’t even about answering Job’s questions. It is simply about allowing Job to experience the magnitude of being in a real relationship and conversation with God. May it be so for each one of us. Amen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Midnight Oil - World That I See.

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

Towards a Politics for the Common Good

Towards a Politics for the Common Good was a Pre-Election Debate at St Martin-in-the-Fields tonight.

In the run-up to the General Election a panel of eminent parliamentarians from different political parties and denominations discussed their approaches to key election issues in the light of Christian social and ethical teaching. They explored how we can, as we exercise our democratic right to vote, best serve the Christian principles we believe in. Is it possible to see the issues of our time through a different lens? Can we work together to cultivate a politics for the common good?

Rather than a hustings, the guest parliamentarians responded to questions posed by theologians Dr Sam Wells (St Martin-in-the-Fields) and Dr Anna Rowlands (Durham University), and audience members from all political persuasions. The event was organised by St Martin-in-the-Fields in partnership with Together for the Common Good:

"We need the associations and collaborations of civil society" Sam Wells

"Local churches are witnesses on the ground in every local community" Anna Rowlands

"The common good in a human fallible society faces the challenge of agreeing on what that is and how to achieve it." Dominic Grieve

"How do we cope with choice when we can't always decide what the common good is?" Alistair Burt

"We are hooked on home ownership in this country - makes solving housing problem harder." Alistair Burt

"The biggest challenge to common good is hyper individualism and Christians should care passionately about this." David Lammy

"It's hard to achieve common good in a culture of bad faith and there is lots of bad faith at the moment." David Lammy

"If we assume bad faith - common ground, is hard to achieve." David Lammy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Fay - Order Of The Day.

Sunday, 16 November 2014

No significant inroads to arresting Church decline

There is an interesting online debate currently underway about the tone of debate between conservative and liberal Christians and the extent to which either is having significant impact. The main articles in this debate can be read here, here and here.

Martin Saunders argues that:

"A 'compelling' voice isn't just wise, radical and intellectually or emotionally stimulating. It's also kind and compassionate. It comes from a place of love, and is characterised by that. Those who argue from a more 'liberal' theological perspective (again, sorry to create 'sides', but it's impossible not to) tend to be good at this. Big ideas, expressed with kindness, have real currency in the modern world.

However, when we turn to the more conservative voices, there's often a very different tone. The big ideas are still there, but the kindness has evaporated, to be replaced with anything from over-confident condescension to discourteous rudeness. John Piper's infamous tweet is one example. David Robertson's article attacking Steve Chalke on this website is, I'm afraid, another. This isn't how you win arguments – it's just how you help both 'sides' become more entrenched in their positions."

David Robertson counters that:

"Biblical Christianity is winning the war because as Jesus says "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" (Matthew 24:35). That is why all over the UK there are churches that are growing and developing as the Word of God is proclaimed in the love, joy, power and assurance of the Spirit. Not 'conservative' churches. But radical, Bible-believing, contemporary, Spirit-filled churches of whatever denomination. The battle belongs to the Lord and so victory is his. My call is not to compromise with Christ's enemies, but to win them for Him."

The reality, however, is, as the latest set of Statistics for Mission from the Church of England illustrate, that overall the Church in the UK is consistently declining in numbers. None of the positive developments in either the conservative or liberal, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, traditional, emerging or alternative strands of the Church that I have seen over my lifetime have actually made significant inroads to arresting that decline, and this remains the case despite the above debates and assertions. There is much that is of God and of great value in the UK's churches as a whole but it is foolish to kid ourselves that those initiatives and movements of God are currently making a significant impact in terms of Church growth. For that to occur at present something altogether different from what we are doing now seems to be required.

For an alternative view on the significance of the latest set of Statistics for Mission, see Giles Fraser's latest column for The Guardian.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barry McGuire - Eve Of Destruction.

Sunday, 28 September 2014

Disagreements in love

There are two issues explored in Romans 14 which were divisive in the Early Church. The first was whether or not Christians should eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols, and the second whether or not Christians should worship God on certain required Jewish holy days. Both were linked to the Mosaic Law which made it clear that meat sacrificed to idols was unclean and which required worship on Jewish holy days. So, the broader background to these issues is the extent to which Christians are bound by the Mosaic Law or set free from its requirements by Christ.

Some believed that there was nothing wrong with eating meat that had been offered to an idol because they knew that the idols were worthless. Others carefully checked the source of their meat or gave up eating meat altogether. The problem was especially serious for Christians who had once been involved in idol worship. For them, being reminded of their former days was too much temptation. It weakened their newfound faith. Likewise, for some Christians who had once worshiped God on the required Jewish holy days, it caused them to feel empty and unfaithful if they didn't dedicate those days to God.’

Paul’s approach to these issues gave the Early Church, and by extension ourselves, several principles, which if applied seriously and conscientiously, help to enable debate and discussion of difficult issues in ways that prevent situations from becoming explosive.

The first principle is that each person ‘should firmly make up our own minds.’ He encouraged everyone to think about the issues and to decide in their own mind what it was right for them to think and do. Paul didn’t appeal for people to sit on the fence on these issues. He wanted people to take time to think them through and arrive at an opinion.

However, by itself, this principle extends the sense of division by encouraging people on both sides of argument to clarify their positions. So, by itself, it is not a solution to the issue. By itself, it leaves the discussion and debate as being about taking sides and producing winners and losers, which is not where Paul wanted to go.

His second principle is that, whichever side of the debate you are on, you should not judge or despise the views of those on the other side of the debate. They are fellow Christians and they have in conscience arrived at their understanding of the issue on the basis of their faith. So he writes, speaking equally to those of both sides of the debate, ‘You then, who eat only vegetables—why do you pass judgment on others? And you who eat anything—why do you despise other believers?’

He is saying it is vital to recognise the validity and legitimacy of a brother or sister in Christ holding a view that is different from yours. Particularly, when they have in conscience arrived at that view before God. So, that is his second principle; do not judge or despise those who think differently from you.

Finally, he moves beyond respect for each other to the place of love in debate and disagreement. So he writes, ‘you should decide never to do anything that would make others stumble or fall into sin’ and ‘we must always aim at those things that bring peace and that help strengthen one another.’

Paul is clear about his position on these debates. He writes that ‘All foods may be eaten,’ so he is on the side of the debate which argues that Christians are set free from the requirements of the Mosaic Law by Christ but he also says that ‘it is wrong to eat anything that will cause someone else to fall into sin.’ The right thing to do, he suggests, is ‘to keep from eating meat, drinking wine, or doing anything else’ if that ‘will make other believers fall.’ So, out of love for his brothers and sisters on the other side of the debate, he will not fully exercise the freedom which he believes he has in Christ until such a time as using that freedom will not hurt a fellow Christian.

Why does he take that position? It is because he believes it is the loving thing to do. Care of others takes priority in his thinking over the exercise of personal conscience: ‘If you hurt others because of something you eat, then you are no longer acting from love ...Do not let what you regard as good get a bad name.’

Paul is, therefore, putting into practice what Jesus taught his disciples at the Last Supper. In John 13, we read, ‘I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. If you have love for one another, then everyone will know that you are my disciples.’

Jesus says that it is love for each other which will be our witness to the world: ‘If you have love for one another, then everyone will know that you are my disciples.’ That applies just as much when we discuss, debate and disagree, as when we are united and harmonious. Paul knows that the issues he is giving guidance on are public issues. That the way in which the Christian community deals with these issues would have been seen by those who attended the pagan temples where food was sacrificed to idols and by those who attended the synagogue where the Jewish hold days were observed.

The witness to Christ that Paul is calling for in this situation is not a church where everyone things the same way on these issues. Instead he is pleading for a church where everyone examines the issues conscientiously in order to make up their own mind on the issue, respects and honours those who think differently from them on those issues and constrains their actions in order to show love to those who think differently. He is calling for a church that can discuss and debate and disagree in love, as doing so shows the wider community that we are indeed Christ’s disciples and that the message of Christ is real love which changes our behaviour even when we disagree.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson Browne - Doctor My Eyes.

Thursday, 26 December 2013

A very Tory Christmas: Trouble came looking

Martin Rowson's cartoon, from Monday's Guardian, on a very Tory Christmas accurately sums up this quote from Ricky Ross in the liner notes to Trouble Came Looking:

"I realised there was a malevolence around which sought to punish ordinary people for the mistakes of a few. In older days it also seemed as if there would be a great debate across the country but this time there was little or no sympathy for people who couldn't keep up."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ricky Ross - Trouble Came Looking.

Sunday, 22 December 2013

Debate about foodbanks and food poverty

A few weeks ago Jack Monroe started a petition to get Parliament to debate hunger in the UK and why there's been a rise in the use of foodbanks. She thought she'd work steadily towards 100,000 signers over a few months and aim for a debate by Spring. She was wrong about that, and explains here how the story developed: 
 
"Within a day more than 60,000 people had signed and the campaign made the frontpage of the Independent. Within two weeks you helped the campaign reach 142,000 signers and on Wednesday we secured our goal of a debate in Parliament.
 
People going hungry in the UK has been a quiet secret for too long now, often only seen by the volunteers dealing with an increasing number of families turning to foodbanks. This petition changed that: #Foodbanks was trending on Twitter, the campaign reached the newspaper frontpages -- and most importantly MPs sat for three hours and heard story after story of what it is like to struggle in modern Britain. 
 
Over 60 Labour MPs requested to speak at the debate and they took turns to tell the stories of their constituents. We heard about the ex-serviceman who turned to a foodbank while waiting for four weeks for Atos to deal with his appeal. The story of two hungry young boys who came to ask for one packet of cereal and one packet of drinking chocolate as a treat. And we heard of the man whose benefits were sanctioned when he couldn't attend an assessment interview because he was in hospital with his wife who was seriously ill with cancer. 
 
Unfortunately Government ministers held their party line. Esther McVey said: "it is right to say that more people are visiting foodbanks, as we would expect.” And while Iain Duncan Smith turned up for the debate -- a victory in itself -- he chose not to stick around and snuck out half way through. 
We should be proud of what we achieved through this petition. MPs were reminded of the people that they are there to represent. And while some of them might try to drown out the stories with jeers and laughter -- these stories are now out in the open for all to see. They are on the official Hansard record and can't be ignored any longer. 
 
This debate is just the start - we'll be back in the New Year fighting food poverty - because hunger isn't going to go away. If your MP is one of the shameful 296 who voted against the motion to investigate foodbank use - why not invite them to go along with you to visit a Trussell Trust foodbank in the new year.  
 
There are lots of other ways you can get involved to help foodbanks in your area -- check out The Mirror who have been backing this campaign for more details."
 
The Observer reports today that "Iain Duncan Smith, the embattled work and pensions secretary, is refusing to meet leaders of the rapidly expanding Christian charity that has set up more than 400 food banks across the UK, claiming it is "scaremongering" and has a clear political agenda.
 
The news will fuel a growing row over food poverty, as church leaders and the Labour party accuse ministers of failing to recognise the growing crisis hitting hundreds of thousands of families whose incomes are being squeezed, while food prices soar."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thea Gilmore - Midwinter Toast.

Tuesday, 27 August 2013

The heart and spirit of the Law

Jewish law identifies 39 categories of activity prohibited on the Sabbath. Work is understood from scripture to be creative activity which includes activities like: building, cooking, gathering, igniting a fire, kneading, laundering, planting, sewing, sorting, tearing, tying and writing, among others. It is likely that the synagogue official has these or similar categories in mind when he said to the people in this story, “There are six days in which we should work; so come during those days and be healed, but not on the Sabbath!” (Luke 13. 10 - 17) 

Although there is considerable debate within the Jewish community about what is and is not permissible on the Sabbath, these categories are used by many Jews today and are an attempt to define how the fourth commandment in the Ten Commandments can be met.

In the view of the synagogue official, Jesus has clearly broken the Sabbath requirements and presents a dangerous precedent to the people. So we could say that what Jesus does here shows that the Jewish law is wrong or obsolete and that, as Christians, we don’t need to pay attention to it. But that would be to misunderstand some of the Jewish background to this story as well as some of the Gospel background.

If we start with the Gospel background, it is helpful to remember that Jesus said, as we can read in Matthew 5. 17 – 18: “Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true. Remember that as long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with – not until the end of all things.”

Now if Jesus is not doing away with the Law of Moses by healing on the Sabbath, then what he would seem to be doing is challenging the way in which this part of the Law is understood. That brings us on to another aspect of the Jewish background to this story, which is that, in the event that human life is in danger, any Shabbat law can be disregarded if it stands in the way of saving that person.

So, what Jesus and the synagogue official are actually doing is debating whether the life of this woman was in danger or not. Both want to practice the requirements of the Law but, as continues to be the case within the Jewish community, they have differing or opposed views on how to do that. The synagogue official is saying that healing is a form of work and that, although she is unwell, the woman is not about to die, therefore she can and should be healed on a day other than the Sabbath. Jesus is saying her illness is something which endangers her life and therefore he is justified in healing on the Sabbath.

These kinds of debates between rabbis have been recorded and collected in Judaism and form part of the Oral Law which is interpretation of the Written Law. Judaism is therefore clear that interpretation and debate are part of the way in which we understand God’s words and Jesus too took part in just this kind of debate and interpretation.

However, what Jesus has to say regarding the Law goes further and deeper than just this alone. By healing on the Sabbath even when there is no immediate threat to life, Jesus is highlighting the compassion which is at the heart the Law and which is the spirit of the Law.

Love, he is saying, is what the Law ultimately aims at. Firstly, because it seeks to limit the harm we are able to do towards others. So, in the Ten Commandments, we are told not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to covet because all these things cause harm to others. Secondly, because the opposite of a negative is a positive; so, the opposite of wanting to murder others is to offer help; the opposite of committing adultery is to be faithful and the opposite of coveting is to give.

So what the Law seeks to do is to constrain the harm we do in order to create space in which we can learn to act lovingly toward others. The 39 categories of work constrain what is done on the Sabbath but simply to abide by these constraints is not actually what the Law is about. The Sabbath is not primarily about the things that aren’t done on it. Instead, those things are done in order to create space to focus on God and love him more deeply.          

Jesus commended the teacher of the Law who knew that love is the heart, the soul and spirit of the Law: “‘Love the Lord your God will all your heart, will all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind’; and ‘Love your neighbour as you love yourself’” (Luke 10. 27). That is the summary of the Law. It is what the Law is all about and, if some of the detail of the Law is preventing people from practising the purpose of the Law then, Jesus says, our interpretation of the Law has gone wrong.

And that is what is at the very heart of his debate with the synagogue official. For the synagogue official keeping the Sabbath constraints overrides compassion for the woman who is unwell. Jesus is saying that the spirit of the Law means that we have to put things the other way and override the constraints in order to show compassion. This is not because we are anarchists opposed to all Law or because the constraints are wrong. Instead, it is about fulfilling the purpose of the constraints. They are there in order that we have space in which to learn to love. So, when we do act out of love then we are fulfilling their purpose even though we might override them.

A final illustration of this might help as we close. When we are young children, our parents place severe constraints on us when we are crossing a road. We are told we must stay with our parents at all times, hold their hands and only cross at the designated crossing places. Our parents do this firstly to keep us safe when we are too young to make appropriate decisions ourselves and secondly to help learn how to cross the road safely. We learn when and where we can cross the road safely, so that in future we can do it for ourselves without our parents there and can do it wherever it is safe to do so and not just at the designated crossing places.

The purpose of the constraints is that we cross the road safely and when we know how to do that we don’t need to abide by all the constraints we once did. In a similar way, Jesus is saying here that the Sabbath constraints are about learning to love God and others and that, if those constraints need to be overridden in order to show compassion to others, then that is actually to fulfil their purpose.      

After being commended by Jesus for giving the summary of the Law, the teacher of the Law asks Jesus who is my neighbour. Jesus answers by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan. He then asks which man acted like a neighbour towards the man attacked by robbers? The one who was kind to him, the teacher of the Law replied. “You go, then,” says Jesus, “and do likewise.”   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U2 - Angels Too Tied To The Ground.

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Debate: Has fiction lost its faith? (2)

Cosmos the in Lost has been engaging with the debate initiated by Paul Elie’s New York Times Op-Ed piece, “Has Fiction Lost Its Faith?”

He begins by summarising Elie's argument and even supplements it with the following quote from Czesław Miłosz:

 “The fact of Europe’s dechristianization is indubitable and depressing. It can also be translated into numbers of victims. If a half-Christian Europe could not prevent the First World War and its massacres in the trenches, then two totalitarianisms, which exterminated millions in concentration camps, were the product of leaders who were entirely godless. However, the ties between religion and society are too complicated to draw up a clear boundary between Christian and post-Christian countries. A fish rots from the head down, and what we call the erosion of the religious imagination began with the philosophers of the 18th century, only to progress through the whole of the next century, receiving its lasting expression, above all, in literature and art…”

His response, however, is to compile some Top 10 lists of contemporary poets and novelists who write from within a theological imagination and he suggests that this task won't be as tough as tough as Elie makes it out to be. Rather, "the toughest task will be keeping the lists down to only ten authors each!"

His first list can be found here and the next will follow tomorrow. You can then make up your own as to the extent to which he is right or wrong about Elie's argument. My initial response to the debate can be found here and a recent article by Michael Arditti, summarised here, is also relevant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extreme - Stop The World.

Monday, 5 August 2013

'Beauty will save the world' - or will it?

The phrase "beauty will save the world" is at the heart of a current and fascinating online debate:

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn borrowed it from Fyodor Dostoevsky to set the theme of his Nobel Lecture in 1970. British conservative writer Roger Scruton has written extensively about how aesthetics—and beauty in particular—enlarges our vision of humanity, helps us find meaning in our lives, and provides knowledge of our world’s intrinsic values. And Gregory Wolfe used the phrase for the title of his recent book, Beauty Will Save the World: Recovering the Human in an Ideological Age, the theme of which is the importance of an aesthetic understanding for sustaining a civilized culture.’

Wolfe writes that:

‘Whereas I once believed that the decadence of the West could only be turned around through politics and intellectual dialectics, I am now convinced that authentic renewal can only emerge out of the imaginative visions of the artist and the mystic. This does not mean that I have withdrawn into some anti-intellectual Palace of Art. Rather, it involves the conviction that politics and rhetoric are not autonomous forces, but are shaped by the pre-political roots of culture: myth, metaphor, and spiritual experience as recorded by the artist and the saint.

My own vocation, as I have come to understand it, is to explore the relationship between religion, art, and culture in order to discover how the imagination may "redeem the time."’

Yet the proverb 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' suggests a problem with our understandings of not only beauty but also of the other two transcendentals i.e. that our understanding of them is entirely subjective. This is perhaps most obvious in terms of perceptions of truth, where different cultures, political movements, religions and scientific theories clash over their differing ideas of truth. In terms of beauty, clearly collective ideas of beauty can be formed, yet these can also be iniquitous, as with ’size zero’ in the fashion industry and the way in which that perception of beauty pressurises people into anorexia and bulimia.

Many theologians and philosophers of art have used their idea of beauty in order to critique modern or contemporary art. Cecilia González-Andrieu in Bridge to Wonder: Art as a Gospel of Beauty is:

'critical of much contemporary art, seeing it as undertaking tasks inimical to that of revelatory symbolism, generally as supplementing the artist’s ego or bank balance. This direction of her thinking leads her to make some judgements which would seem to be contradicted by other evidence, such as her suggestion that the modern idea of art is unproductively narrow. This seems strange given that, since Marcel Duchamp’s use of ready-mades, the modern idea of art has been uniquely diverse with artworks being made of any and every material and taking any form.'

Similarly, Adrienne Chaplin in It was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God begins her essay with some art historical reflections in order to argue that the concept of beauty has been absent from and even inimical to modern art. Beauty has been associated with the sentimental and shallow while the purpose of modern art was to subvert and to shock. She quotes Barnett Newman as saying, "The impulse of modern art is the desire to destroy beauty."

Nevertheless González-Andrieu and Chaplin do highlight the confusion which exists regarding definitions of beauty. Chaplin states that entering this debate means entering "a complex interdisciplinary web of theories and views" while González-Andrieu notes that beauty is indefinable. W. David O. Taylor has posted 9.5 Theses about beauty which derive from conversations with friends over a series of texts - ranging from Aquinas to Milbank while taking in a lot of Von Balthasar along the way - that focused their attention on questions surrounding art, aesthetics and beauty. His provisional conclusion was that the centuries-long discussion about art and beauty, specifically about art's relationship to beauty, is a dizzying mess.

My sense too is that unarticulated assumptions about beauty often drive critiques of contemporary art from a Christian perspective and this without sufficient acknowledgement of the indefinable nature of beauty and its consistent capacity to be seen in the most unlikely of forms. On this basis, how can beauty - or the other transcendentals, for that matter - save the world!

One of the fascinating things about modern and contemporary art is the way in which it often finds beauty in the throw-away, the ready-made, the hidden or disregarded e.g. Martin Creed’s Work No. 88 - a crumpled ball of paper - or João Maria Gusmão and Pedro Paiva’s Fried Egg - a film where three superimposed slow motion images of an egg frying in a pan coalesce gradually into one combined image. In a culture of detritus, American Beauty screenwriter Alan Ball uncovers heartbreaking beauty in garbage with a scene in which a crummy old plastic bag floats in the wind above a dirty sidewalk.

My friend, Alan Stewart, in his ‘Icons or Eyesores’ presentation on spirituality in contemporary art shows people a photo of a sepia-tinged crucifix. Most people quite like it until they are told that it is ‘Piss Christ’ by Andres Serrano and that the crucifix is submerged in the artist’s urine. Serrano has said that the image is about the commercialisation of religious iconography (a critique of Christian kitsch!) but Alan sees it as a depiction of the incarnation, with God coming into the detritus and waste of human life, and that, it seems to me, is profoundly beautiful.

One of Corinne Bailey Rae's favourite songs on 'The Sea' is the jazz-flavoured lament 'I Would Like To Call It Beauty'. She loves playing it live, loves the almost telepathic interplay she and her drummer enjoy. "I guess that song is about my experiences of late. It's about grief and what it does and the things it makes you aware of."

The title comes from a late-night conversation she had with her late husband Jason Rae's younger brother comparing their views of the world. Corinne was speaking about God and Jason's brother said he believed in a force that binds everything, holds everything. He said, "I would like to call it... beauty". She was flabbergasted. "What a thing to say! Really we were talking about the same thing..." So powerful was the sentiment that she took it for the song title, and duly credits her late husband's brother as its co-writer.

"I have experienced a lot of beauty in the loss," is her remarkable admission, "in the way that I've been able to survive. The way I feel like I'm being held - held up. I guess the song is about the amount of beauty that is in grief because of the way that people hold you up, and forces and nature, how they hold you up."

The incarnation then is particularly relevant to this debate because, while in no sense a conventionally beautiful act (see Philippians 2. 6-8), it is the ultimate affirmative act based on the understanding that nothing is lost and everything can be redeemed. For this reason, I think that affirmation is a more helpful concept to us than beauty as, rather than separating out the beautiful from the ugly as in conceptions of beauty, affirmation seeks to see the image of God in all things.

This is the approach of Charles Williams who, in The Descent of the Dove, writes this:

"... the Incarnation ... produces a phrase which is the very maxim of the Affirmative Way: "Not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God." And not only of the particular religious Way, but of all progress of all affirmations: it is the actual manhood which is to be carried on, and not the height which is to be brought down. All images are, in their degree to be carried on; mind is never to put off matter; all experience is to be gathered in."

Christine Mary Hearn notes that the Way of Affirmation holds that "God is manifest in many things and can be known through these things" as in Psalm 19. 1: 'the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament his handiwork.' She notes too that it is the way of poets as was the case with Anne Ridler whose "devoted Anglicanism" was inspired by this philosophy found in her friend Charles Williams and the 17th-century poet Thomas Traherne The Way of Affirmation should have particular resonance for Anglicans as the Genius of Anglicanism (greatly under strain in its present divisions) is its affirmation of both Catholicism and Protestantism.

Philippians 4.8 - "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things" - encourages us to follow the Affirmative Way. No criteria is outlined for these categories, leaving us to interpret them for ourselves, but the assumption is made that if we seek such things we will find them.

Simone Weil set out a methodology for the Affirmative Way when she wrote that in order "to receive in its naked truth" the object which is to penetrate our mind, "our thought should be empty, waiting, not seeking anything" and that such "absolute unmixed attention is prayer."

Simon Small in 'From the Bottom of the Pond' writes:

'Contemplative prayer is the art of paying attention to what is.

To pay profound attention to reality is prayer, because to enter the depths of this moment is to encounter God. There is always only now. It is the only place that God can be found.

Our minds find paying full attention to now very difficult. This is because our minds live in time. Our thoughts are preoccupied with past and future, and the present moment is missed. We live in a dream; contemplation is waking up.

There are many forms of contemplative prayer ['Repeating a word or phrase in the mind, slowly and rhythmically; holding a visualization of an image; watching the breath; or bringing awareness to different parts of the body are some of the methods used'], but they all involve bringing the mind into the present moment. It is the only goal, but not the only fruit. In the practice of contemplative prayer we wait attentively for the Now to express itself. The form this takes will always be unique and sometimes hidden. The moment when the depths of now are revealed is when contemplative prayer becomes contemplation.'

This is what Jean Pierre de Caussade called 'The Sacrament of the Present Moment' by which he meant, as Elizabeth Ruth Obbard explains in Life in God's NOW:

‘God's coming to us at each moment, as really and truly as God is present in the Sacraments of the Church ... In other words, in each moment of our lives God is present under the signs of what is ordinary and mundane. Only those who are spiritually aware and alert discover God's presence in what can seem like nothing at all. This keeps us from thinking and behaving as if only grand deeds and high flown sentiments are 'Godly'. Rather, God is equally present in the small things of life as in the great. God is there in life's daily routine, in dull moments, in dry prayers ... There is nothing that happens to us in which God cannot be found. What we need are the eyes of faith to discern God as God comes at each moment - truly present, truly living, truly attentive to the needs of each one.’

This is also what George Herbert memorably termed, ‘heaven in ordinarie’ and such a way of praying underpins much of the contemporary spirituality which draws on perceptions of Celtic Christianity. David Adam, for example, writes in Power Lines: Celtic Prayers about Work that:

"Much of Celtic prayer spoke naturally to God in the working place of life. There was no false division into sacred and secular. God pervaded all and was to be met in their daily work and travels. If our God is to be found only in our churches and our private prayers, we are denuding the world of His reality and our faith of credibility. We need to reveal that our God is in all the world and waits to be discovered there – or, to be more exact, the world is in Him, all is in the heart of God. Our work, our travels, our joys and our sorrows are enfolded in His loving care. We cannot for a moment fall out of the hands of God. Typing pool and workshop, office and factory are all as sacred as the church. The presence of God pervades the work place as much as He does a church sanctuary."

Other examples of similar styles of prayer include, Alexander Carmichael’s Carmina Gadelica, a collection of Gaelic prayers and poems collected in the late 19th century, which "abounds with prayers invoking God’s blessing on such routine daily tasks as lighting the fire, milking the cow and preparing for bed." Many of George Herbert’s poems use everyday imagery (mainly church-based as he was also a priest) and are based on the idea that God is found everywhere within his world. Ray Simpson and Ruth Burgess have provided series of contemporary blessings for everyday life covering computers, exams, parties, pets, cars, meetings, lunchtimes, days off and all sorts of life situations from leaving school and a girl’s first period to divorce, redundancy and mid-life crises.

Martin Wallace sums up this sense of paying prayerful attention to the everyday in order to affirm God's presence in the everyday when he writes in City Prayers: "Just as God walked with Adam in the garden of Eden, so he now walks with us in the streets of the city chatting about the events of the day and the images we see" He encourage us to "chat with God in the city, bouncing ideas together with him, between the truths of the Bible and the truths of urban life" and, "as you walk down your street, wait for the lift, or fumble for change at the cash-till … to construct your own prayers of urban imagery."

Viewed in this way, Work No. 88, Fried Egg and the plastic bag scene from American Beauty are examples of the kind of prayerful attention which characterises the Way of Affirmation and this thinking is fundamental to much contemporary as Eamonn McCabe explains, in Photography: a Guardian masterclass:

'Rather than travel the world in search of perfection and prettiness, simply step out of your front door and start looking. Some days are diamonds and you'll come across something special – something that also resonates with other people.'

'The photographer Raymond Moore knew all about this ... Moore used to wander around Britain and Ireland, leaning over people's fences and photographing the most mundane things, from caravans to telephone lines. He once published a book called Every So Often, because every so often you turn a corner and find something beautiful.

No matter where you are, there's something to photograph if you work at it. People sometimes tell me,: "Oh, I live in Croydon (or wherever) – there's nothing around here." But even in Croydon you can go round the old factories, the football pitches, or the tram lines and find an odd sort of beauty.'

To underpin the Way of Affirmation from a Christian perspective requires a different approach to understanding and applying transcendentals from that with which we have traditionally worked i.e. beauty, goodness and truth.

In The One, the Three and the Many Colin Gunton used his theology of creation to identify three concepts that he called (drawing on the thinking of Samuel Taylor Coleridge) ‘open transcendentals’. That is, "possibilities for thought which are universal in scope yet open in their application." Gunton’s three open transcendentals are: relationality ("all things are what they are by being particulars constituted by many and various forms of relation"); perichoresis ("all things are what they are in relations of mutual constitutiveness with all other things"); and substantiality (all things are "substantial beings, having their own distinct and particular existence, by virtue of and not in the face of their relationality to the other").

Gunton argues that the transcendentals "qualify people and things, too, in a way appropriate to what they are." In sum, he suggests, "the transcendentals are functions of the finitely free relations of persons and of the contingent relations of things." These are, therefore, notions which are "predicated of all being by virtue of the fact that God is creator and the world is creation." As such "they dynamically open up new possibilities for thought" enabling Christian theology to make "a genuine contribution ... to the understanding and shaping of the modern world." If this is so, then art criticism would be one arena in which the concept of open transcendentals could be explored.

Exploring the substantiality of an artwork would involve describing and assessing its distinct and particular existence; what it is as, for example, pure paint and a flat picture plane. We could talk, for example, in terms of ‘truth to materials’, a phrase that emerged from the Arts and Crafts Movement  through its rejection of design work (often Victorian) which disguised by ornamentation the natural properties of the materials used. The phrase has been associated particularly with sculptors and architects, as both are able to reveal, in their way of working and in the finished article, the quality and personality of their materials; wood showing its grain, metal its tensile strength, and stone its texture.

Henry Moore, for example, wrote in Unit One that, "each material has its own individual qualities … Stone, for example, is hard and concentrated and should not be falsified to look like soft flesh … It should keep its hard tense stoniness." Juginder Lamba is one example of a contemporary sculptor for whom ‘truth to materials’ is significant. Many of his works began with the artist searching through piles of joists and rafters looking for salvaged timber that would speak to him of its creative potentialities. His sculptures retain the personality and characteristics of the salvaged wood even at the same time as they are transformed into characters and forms of myth and metaphor.

Exploring the substantiality of an artwork is to recognise that an artwork is an object in its own right once created and, as such, has a life beyond that which its maker consciously intended. Artists sometimes express this sense themselves when they talk about seeing more in the work as they live with it than they were aware of intending during its creation. For some, this is an indication of some sort of spiritual dimension or dynamic at play in the work.

Exploring the relationality of an artwork would involve describing and assessing the many and various forms of relation by which the work was constituted. Among these could be the relationship of the artwork to: the artist who created it; other artworks formed of similar materials or with similar content; the space in which it is being exhibited (both the physical and social space); and those who come to view it.

Artists have their own intentions when creating and are aware of and use (play with) the associations and emotions evoked by the materials and images used in the making. These associations and emotions are as much a part of the work of art as the materials and images (this is particularly so in conceptual and symbolist art, as both begin with the idea or concept) and are present whether the viewer or critic responds to them or not; in the same way that Biblical allusions exist in Shakespeare's plays whether contemporary students recognise them or not. Just as Andrew Motion  has argued regarding Shakespeare that our understanding and appreciation of the plays is reduced if we don't recognise the allusions, so our understanding of visual art that uses or plays with associations, emotions and ideas is diminished if we fail to respond.

The reality of the art work as an object in its own right once created and, as such, with a life beyond that which its maker consciously intended also hands a creative role to those who view it.

Accordingly, Alan Stewart has written:

"An artist will of course set out to say something particular, but once their work becomes public, it assumes its own life. Therefore each fresh encounter will produce a new conversation between the art and the viewer, resulting in a whole host of possible interpretations, none less valid than the other. Appropriating our own personal meaning from another person’s work doesn’t diminish it, if anything it enlarges it. We might even want to say that in re-imagining and re-investing something with new meaning, we may in fact in some cases redeem it or re-birth it."

Interpretation, to have validity however, has to fit with and follow the shape, texture, feel, colour, images, content, associations and emotions of the work itself. Richard Davey has a marvellous phrase for the network of relationships which form around any artwork; "respect for the work of art as an object itself made by an embodied human being for embodied human beings."

Exploring the perichoresis of an artwork is to recognise what the artwork is in its relations of mutual constitutiveness with all other things. Nicolas Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics is particularly helpful here in suggesting that "Art is a state of encounter" and that the role of artworks is that we learn "to inhabit the world in a better way" through participating in "arenas of encounter", created by the artworks themselves, in which momentary micro-communities are formed:

"Today’s art, and I’m thinking of [artists such as Gonzalez-Torres, ... Angela Bulloch, Carsten Höller, Gabriel Orozco and Pierre Huyghe] as well as Lincoln Tobier, Ben Kinmont, and Andrea Zittel, to name just three more, encompasses in the working process the presence of the micro-community which will accommodate it. A work thus creates, within its method of production and then at the moment of its exhibition, a momentary grouping of participating viewers."

What such artists produce, Bourriaud argues, "are relational space-time elements, inter-human experiences ... of the places where alternative forms of sociability, critical models and moments of constructed conviviality are worked out." In other words, such artworks create "relations outside the field of art": "relations between individuals and groups, between the artist and the world, and, by way of transitivity, between the beholder and the world."

In this way substantiality, relationality and perichoresis form a distinctively Trinitarian underpinning to the Way of Affirmation which can, as Wolfe puts it, "redeem the time."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corinne Bailey Rae - I Would Like To Call It Beauty.

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

Debate: Has fiction lost its faith?

There is a very interesting debate currently under way about how and if belief figures into contemporary fiction. The debate to date has been summarised well by David Griffith who explains how the debate began with Paul Elie’s New York Times Op-Ed piece, “Has Fiction Lost Its Faith?”:

"Elie reveals something I had never known about Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange, one of the first works of literature I read on my own: In a 1973 lecture (over a decade after the book’s publication), Burgess “describes his best seller as a work about free will written from a Catholic perspective.” Elie goes on to write:

This, in short, is how Christian belief figures into literary fiction in our place and time: as something between a dead language and a hangover. Forgive me if I exaggerate. But if any patch of our culture can be said to be post-Christian, it is literature.

Less than a month later, Image’s Gregory Wolfe, writing in the Wall Street Journal, rebuts Elie’s exaggeration. Citing over two decades of experience publishing a who’s who of what he calls “believing writers” (Annie Dillard, Marilynne Robinson, Elie Wiesel, Mark Helprin, and Mary Karr (a Catholic convert), Wolfe asserts:

The myth of secularism triumphant in the literary arts is just that—a myth. Yet making lists of counterexamples does not get at a deeper matter. It has to do with the way that faith takes on different tones and dimensions depending on the culture surrounding it.

I see it both ways.

I agree with Elie that these days, when writers reference scripture and theology, or evoke explicitly religious imagery and symbols, it often falls on deaf ears and blind eyes. I also agree that we’ll never again see a confluence of writers like O’Connor, Merton, and Percy having such a broad cultural impact.

I’ve found sustenance in the community of writers and readers of Image and enjoy acceptance among a group of writers my age who are not religious.

That renaissance of Catholic writing I once hoped for may not have happened, but however secularized our culture has become, issues surrounding faith have not been, and will never be banished from literature.

Karen Swallow Prior, Professor of English at Liberty University, writing in response to Elie’s article, is excellent on this point. Prior, whose scholarly work centers on the novel, reminds us that as a form, the novel has always been about unbelief.

She writes that the novel “was the outgrowth of the passing of the age of belief into the age of unbelief…. It is the form of an unbelieving epoch, even if it took a few centuries for that latent feature to surface.”

In other words, the kind of search for meaning that the novel offers has, over time, naturally and understandably drifted away from religious ways of understanding who were are and why we are here, just as the culture has.

Perhaps this is why I, a writer with an MFA in fiction, have turned almost exclusively to the personal essay and memoir. My first publication appeared in the “Confessions” section of Image, a section that is set apart from the “Essays” section. While I never asked about that distinction, it seems clear to me that it is a nod to spiritual autobiography, the genre started by St. Augustine.

My sense is that confessional nonfiction helps the writer (and the reader) to examine his conscience."

One thing to note about the limitations of this debate to date is that it is primarily US-centric; where is the mention of writers such as Rhidian BrookP.D. JamesDavid LodgeSara MaitlandNicholas MosleyJames RobertsonSalley VickersNiall Williams and Tim Winton, for example? This same focus is found in the 'golden age' of Flannery O'Connor and Walker Percy to which some of this debate looks back without much by way of reference to the European Modern Catholic Novelists, the InklingsShusaku Endo and William Golding, among others. 

Second, its focus is predominantly about 'literary' fiction and therefore it also misses much that is viewed as 'popular' fiction e.g. John GrishamSusan HowatchMary Doria RussellPiers Paul Read, Ann Rice and Morris West, among others.

Third, there is limited mention of the extent to which theological themes and practices of faith continue to be explored in contemporary fiction. The work of Douglas Coupland or novels such as Patrick Gale's A Perfectly Good Man and Rachel Joyce's The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry being a few examples.

Fourth, there is the extent to which novelists have been re-examining the life of Christ and his followers through novels such as: Jim Crace's QuarantineNorman Mailer's The Gospel According to the Son, Philip Pullman's The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, Ann Rice's Christ the Lord seriesColm Tóibín's The Testament of Mary, and Niall Williams' John, among others. Jesus remains a figure of fascination for many contemporary novelists.

I would also want to add that in my view some of these novelists - such as Nicholas Mosley, Marilynne Robinson and Tim Winton - stand shoulder to shoulder with past greats such as O'Connor, Greene, Endo, Golding and others. We are not therefore entirely bereft of great novelists dealing consistently with issues of faith.

As a result, I line up with Greg Wolfe in this debate when he states that "the myth of secularism triumphant in the literary arts is just that — a myth."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael McDermott - Great American Novel.

Thursday, 22 November 2012

The Secret Chord: You might have an epiphany!

There is some interesting debate about 'The Secret Chord' underway on After The Fire's Forum including this great quote: 

"For someone who treats music as art, as something to be understood as an art form within a particular context etc etc, or someone who is themselves creatively active, then it's certainly interesting and worthwhile reading. You might have an epiphany!"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After The Fire - Der Kommissar.

Thursday, 26 April 2012

Spiritual Life column

Here is my latest 'Spiritual Life' column in today's Ilford Recorder:

In a memorable phrase Desmond Tutu spoke of post-apartheid South Africa as being “the rainbow people of God.” That phrase can and should be applied also to the Christian Church in the diversity of those who come together within it to form the Body of Christ.

For the Church to be seen as a rainbow people of God, the full range of its diversity of views and voices need to be heard. Specifically, in the current debate over the definition of marriage, it essential that the Church, as well as hearing the views and voices of those opposed to the Government’s current legislative proposals, also hear the views and voices of Christians in favour.

I am thinking of those who see a strong Biblical case for arguing that definitions of marriage are socially determined and not divinely ordained. Those who see Jesus as being the ultimate scapegoat signalling, by his death, the folly and fallacy of all scapegoating of those different from ourselves. Those who see a key aspect of Jesus’ ministry as being to include in the kingdom of God those excluded from the religious structures of his day, with inclusion and equality then being a central facet of Christianity. The voices and views of those who see the institution of marriage being broadened and strengthened by its expansion to include people who value the institution and wish to marry but are currently excluded from doing so.

The Biblical picture of God’s people is of difference and diversity united by our common commitment to Christ. We are not and will not be united by our particular theologies, traditions, or views on particular topics. In this current debate, as in all such debates, we need to hear and respect different perspectives while recognising that our particular views will only divide if they are prioritised. It is only when, acknowledging our differences, we recognise that, despite our differences, we are united by Christ that the Christian Church holds together as the rainbow people of God who, therefore, become the Body of Christ in the world today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gungor - Let There Be.

Saturday, 8 November 2008

Not cherry-picking, but 'Open'

I'm currently reading The Fidelity of Betrayal by Peter Rollins, which I am finding a very stimulating read, and have been comparing and contrasting what Rollins writes with an address given by John Richardson to the Annual Meeting of the Lincoln branch of Forward in Faith (and posted on his blog) in which he asks whether Conservative Evangelicals and Traditional Anglo-Catholics can work together.

In his address Richardson is critical of Open Evangelicals. He states that there is a "growing gap between Conservative Evangelicals and those now calling themselves Open Evangelicals" shown in that, "in many cases, Open Evangelicals have also been quite hostile to GAFCON, and could certainly not be said to have wished this coalition well." In his view, "Open Evangelicals are willing to entertain, and often to side with, doctrinal and practical positions quite opposed to what was once the agreed Evangelical heritage" because "for the Open Evangelical the final arbiter in spiritual matters is private judgement" and this leads Open Evangelicals to "the view that every tradition may offer something which I can cherry-pick as seems fit."

Although written as though it is Open Evangelicals that are hostile to Conservative Evangelicals, one can sense from this summary the strength of Conservative Evangelical distaste and disappointment with Open Evangelicals. I am certainly aware of people within the Reform stable who think of non-Reform evangelicals as in some sense 'the enemy' because they are betraying evangelicalism (or even the gospel)! It is certainly not the case that hostility, where it exists, is only on one side (that of the Open Evangelicals) and the case for mutual understanding is not well served by caricaturing the Open Evangelical approach as one of cherry-picking what seems fit.

Richardson's argument that Open Evangelicals use private judgement as the final arbiter in spiritual matters and therefore cherry-pick what seems fit is another way of stating the Conservative Evangelical mantra that others are not serious about scripture or part of Bible believing Churches because a Conservative Evangelical interpretation of scripture is not followed. I am sure that Peter Rollins would not want to be labelled as an Open Evangelical, yet his theology would be well described as being 'open' in the sense used by Richardson i.e. open to the insights of other traditions (both Church and faiths/beliefs) and open to new approaches to scripture. By contrasting elements of Rollins' approach to scripture with that advocated by Richardson, I think we can see important differences between 'Open' and 'Conservative' approaches to scripture at the same time as seeing that the 'Open' approach is no less serious about scripture than the 'Conservative'.

Richardson begins by stating that "the idea that the Bible may be understood equally by everyone is not only demonstrably untrue but unscriptural." He then suggests that "Scripture teaches us there is a tradition to be handed on by the faithful and, just as importantly, received by the disciple — the mathētēs, or learner, of Christ." He equates this tradition with systematic theology and gives as an example the resolution of the Arian controversy by the power of Trinitarian theology. "Why ... do the Trinitarian Creeds retain their central place within the Church?" he asks. "The answer is surely because, after centuries of debate, discussion and even division, this doctrine retains its explanatory power in the face of other, competing, approaches to the wide and varied witness of revelation." He suggests, therefore, "that the solution to mere private judgement lies in bringing interpretation to the bar of systematic theology and that the perspicuity of Scripture will only truly be experienced when we apply the insights of systematic theology to our reading."

Richardson seems then to be suggesting that traditionally accepted doctrines of the Church form a systematic theology against which all new developments can then be judged (and presumably disproved). He argues that systematic theology does not have to imply a rigid system but the implication of what he writes seems to be more in favour of supporting established views than exploring new understandings. Finally, he suggests an "analogy between systematic theology and the scientific method", in that: "The scientist does not require a complete explanation of everything to accept a theory as well-established. Rather, the aim is to produce an increasingly better fit between the evidence and the theory." Again, the bias of this statement is in favour of justifying the existing theory rather than questioning it or exploring alternatives.

Rollins sees all this as part of the problem rather than the solution. He argues that the present popular debates concerning Christianity, with "individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris arguing that the truth claims of Christianity are not valid, while on the other side there is an army of religious apologists publishing books in an attempt to prove them wrong," reveals "that, at a very basic level, both sides implicitly affirm the idea that the truth claims of Christianity take the form of assertions about reality that can be reflected upon, considered, and judged according to reason and empirical research."

So, in terms of their understanding of 'truth' many atheists and Christians are on the same side but the biblical text, Rollins argues, "seems to be hinting at a different understanding of truth, one which questions the ubiqituous interpretation that we take for granted today."

His way into this different understanding is firstly by looking at "how parts of the Judeo-Christian narrative are marked by a wrestling with God" and "how the reader is regularly confronted with rather chaotic and contradictory expressions of God that are often in conflict both with our own expectations and with the wider biblical context." The result "is an unnerving sense that biblical narrative is marked by a series of fissures and conflicts that render it fractured, fragmented, and incomplete." The narrative itself seems to be "inviting us to wrestle with it, disagree with it, contend with it, and contest it - not as an end in itself, but as a means of approaching its life-transforming truth, a truth that dwells within and yet beyond the words." This is then an approach that is seeking to take seriously the form as well as the content of scripture. It is an 'open' approach because in order to accept the Bible we need to "reject any interpretation as final, being ready to engage in an ongoing, open-ended dialogue and discussion with it."

Second, through consideration of the name of God as revealed in Moses' encounter at the burning bush and that of Jacob wrestling with God, Rollins suggests that the biblical narrative reveals God as a happening or event. This "means that the truth affirmed by Christianity is not primarily related to some external facts such as the age of certain Gospels or the particular facts contained in them ... Rather, it refers to a happening testified to within the Bible that cannot be reduced to words, confined in concepts, or divulged by definitions." God is, therefore, "not a problem to be solved but rather a mystery to participate in." Again, this is 'open' theology "for the God who brings us into new life is never the God we grasp, but always in excess of that God."
Richardson and Rollins are at opposite poles of the theological spectrum with Richardson accepting scientific methodology and Enlightenment rationalism in his attempt to gather all the strands of scripture and tradition together in one coherent and systematic theology and Rollins accepting the post-modern suspicion of meta-narratives in order to experience God in an ongoing dialogue fired by specific encounters. Richardson's approach is 'closed' in that it attempts to find an over-arching system that explains everything while Rollins' approach is 'open' in that it engages in an ongoing dialogue with a God who is always more than we can grasp.

The point that I ultimately want to make in this post however is that by being 'open' Rollins' approach is not less serious about scripture than that of Richardson or more open to the accusation of cherry-picking from tradition as seems fit. Both positions can and should be critiqued, rigorously and fairly, but it would, it seems to me, be unfair to characterise Rollins' engagement with the diversity of form and content in the Bible as somehow less serious than that of Richardson. In fact, it could be argued that Richardson's approach seeks to tame or neuter the diversity of form and content in scripture in favour of overall coherence and may therefore be engaging less seriously with that real diversity which Rollins' approach seeks to maintain, use and interpret.

The debate between those with 'Conservative' and 'Open' theologies is not well served by stereotyping of the position held by either and, in my view, that is what Richardson's address does to the position of Open Evangelicals. It is therefore unsurprising that he finds a growing gap between Conservative and Open Evangelicals when the 'open' approach to scripture is caricatured instead of engaged with as a different but still serious approach to scripture.

Anyone interested in my other musings on Rollins' writing could look here, here, here and here.

A final, more frivolous thought, is that when I wrote my first post of Rollins, I suggested that Jim White is the bard of the emerging conversation out of which Rollins writes. Now I think that White may have been joined by Noah and the Whale to judge by these lines from Shape Of My Heart:

"For your heart is like a forest, it grows,
and its the rain not just the sun that lets it bloom,
and you don’t know how it feels to be alive,
until you know how it feels to die.

If there’s any love in me, don’t let it show,
oh and if there’s any love in me, don’t let it grow.
If there’s any love in me, don’t let it show,
oh and if there’s any love in me, don’t let it grow."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noah and the Whale - Shape Of My Heart.