Church Times - Art review: Hockney and Piero: A Longer Look (National Gallery)

 My latest review for Church Times is on “Hockney and Piero: A Longer Look” at the National Gallery:

'ROUGHLY one third of the paintings in the National Gallery’s collection of Western European art are of religious subjects and nearly all of these are Christian. These images, originally made for churches or domestic settings, are now displayed in an entirely different context in the Gallery, which has the task of both exploring what they might have meant to their original viewers and discovering what they might mean to beholders today.

The National Gallery does an excellent job of exploring both aspects of these works, often bringing them into dialogue with other works of art in ways that are engaging and challenging. This small but fascinating exhibition aims to explore what one of the most famous Christian images from the collection means to an artist who isn’t interested in its Christian content. As a result, this is an exhibition offering ways in to the art of Christendom for those who are not believers.'

Other of my pieces for Church Times can be found here. My writing for ArtWay can be found here. My pieces for Artlyst are here, those for Seen & Unseen are here, and those for Art+Christianity are here.

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

The Moody Blues - Eyes Of A Child I.

A Fire In My Belly

Once again Christians are shooting themselves in the foot by seeking to get art which they don't like banned. This time it is the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights who are the culprits having successfully pressurised the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC into removing a video by David Wojnarowicz from their current HIDE/SEEK exhibition.

"A Fire in My Belly," Wojnarowicz's 1987 video, is, in the words of a New York Times editorial, "a moving, anguished reflection on the artist’s impending death from AIDS." The video "shows very quick glimpses of challenging and, at times, disturbing images, including masks, a meatpacking plant, various objects on fire and the artist undressing himself." One of these images features ants crawling over a crucifix and it is this that has drawn "an outraged denunciation from the Catholic League."

There are multiple issues with the action taken by the Catholic League in this instance. First, there is no attempt on their part to engage with the work itself. Their action has been taken in relation to 11 seconds of a four minute video which is intended as a response to the reality of Aids. As such, the theme of the video is not Christ or Christianity and the imagery of the ants and crucifix needs to be understood firstly within the context of the video and its flow of imagery instead of being taken out of context in order to be misinterpreted as an attack on Christianity. Wojnarowicz said that the ants were a metaphor for society. In context, therefore, it would seem that Aids victims are being associated with Christ and experience additional suffering as society swarms all over those who already suffer (something which could be said to be happening all over again as a result of the Catholic League's intervention).

This has been an unfortunate aspect of many Christian protests against works of art. For instance, many Christians tried to prevent the film The Last Temptation of Christ from being made and protested against it once it was made. Central to these protests was the content of the last temptation dream sequence with Jesus marrying and sleeping with Mary Magdalene and later fathering children by Mary and Martha. Yet the whole point of this scene in the film is that it is a temptation which Jesus rejects and that the visible rejection of the temptation makes the necessity of the Jesus’ death all the clearer.

Second, the Catholic League exaggerate and misinterpret for effect in claiming in two of their press notices that the crucifix was being eaten by the ants, which is not the case. A similar case was that of the invective used against Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Rabbi Abraham Hecht, president of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, declared, "Never have we come across such a foul, disgusting, blasphemous film before." Robert E.A. Lee of the Lutheran Council, spoke about "crude and rude mockery, colossal bad taste, profane parody.” Malcolm Muggeridge, without having seen the film, claimed it was “morally without merit and undeniably reprehensible.” While, on the same discussion programme, Mervyn Stockwood, then Bishop of Southwark, declared that the Python’s would get their thirty pieces of silver. But it is difficult now to establish exactly what is was that people were up in arms about as the film patently makes no attempt to satirise Christ.

Third, the Catholic League are claiming that they have a right in US culture for Christianity to be respected and not mocked but, in this instance, the exercise of their right can only be at the expense of the artist's right to self-expression and the right of other US citizens to see the artist's work. In other words the League are calling for their rights to trump those of others. They want rights but only for themselves. A more consistent position is that of gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell who criticised a Scottish court for fining an American Baptist evangelist touring Britain, for telling passers-by in Glasgow city centre: "Homosexuals are deserving of the wrath of God – and so are all other sinners – and they are going to a place called hell."

Tatchell argued: "Shawn Holes is obviously homophobic and should not be insulting people with his anti-gay tirades. He should be challenged and people should protest against his intolerance. However, in a democratic, free society it is wrong to prosecute him. Criminalisation is not appropriate. The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive. Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality. Only incitements to violence should be illegal."

Fourth, this third point reveals that the Catholic League are yearning for a return to a Christendom model where Christianity had power and could both decide and enforce what was acceptable and what was not instead of engaging with the reality and opportunities of a Post-Christendom world. As Simon Barrow has written: "That Christians do not rule others in the way they once did, in the fading Christendom era, does not amount to "persecution". Rather, it is an invitation, in the midst of some pain and adjustment no doubt, to rediscover patterns of church life in a plural society which show the heart of the Christian message to be about embracing others, not isolating ourselves; multiplying hope, not spreading fear; developing peaceableness, not resorting to aggression; and advancing compassion, rather than retreating into defensiveness."

Fifth, to call for an offending item to be banned is to avoid or rule out debate which suggests that the arguments being made do not actually stand up. If the arguments of the Catholic League had substance they should be keen for them to be heard and debated instead of simply trying to close down all debate through censorship of the offending item. The approach of seeking to have an offending item banned actually always has the opposite effect to that intended by making people more interest in seeing the item itself. This is so in this case too, where the co-owner of the PPOW Gallery which represents Wojnarowicz’ estate, Wendy Olsoff told ARTINFO: "The controversy is exposing a lot of new people to the work … It's a lot of young people who are involved with this, new people who don't have experience with activism, but are outraged."

Finally, the League are playing up to the stereotype of Christians as kill-joys forever seeking to prevent others from self-expression. Again, the same was the case in relation to protests against Life of Brian. Eric Idle said that it became clear to the Pythons early on in writing the script that they couldn't make fun of Christ since what he says is very fine but the people around him were hilarious and still are. John Cleese agrees. "What we are is quite clearly making fun of the way people follow religion, but not religion itself.” This was, perhaps, the real reason for those religious protests; it was us being satirised in the film and we weren’t able to laugh at ourselves or to deal with the accusation of unthinking gullibility. Protest and invective as the Church’s response to Life of Brian just seemed to reinforce in many people’s minds those depictions of unthinking gullibility that run throughout the film.

None of this means that Christians cannot protest against depictions of Christ or Christianity which may be offensive to us. What it does mean is that we need to think carefully about when and how we do so. A positive example is the response of much of the Church in the UK to The Da Vinci Code book and film.

Dan Brown uses the same storyline in The Da Vinci Code as appears in the dream sequence in Last Temptation; the idea that Jesus did not die but married and fathered a bloodline which continues to this day. When The Last Temptation of Christ was released this storyline, although it was clearly depicted as false, led to major protests but when The Da Vinci Code was released, although the book (and by implication the film) claim that this storyline is historical fact, similar protests did not occur.

Like Life of Brian, The Da Vinci Code also criticises the behaviour of Christians. Life of Brian portrays the followers of religions as unthinking and gullible and the response of Christians to that film reinforced this stereotype. The Da Vinci Code portrays Christians as scheming hypocrites knowing the truth but covering it up in order to sustain organised religion. But the reaction of Christians to this film did not reinforce that stereotype.

Finally, it seemed that the Church had learnt that the way to counter criticism is not to try to ban or censor it but to engage with it, understand it and accurately counter it. The Da Vinci Code events, bible studies, websites etc. that the Church has used to counter the claims made in The Da Vinci Code have been reasoned arguments based on a real understanding of the issues raised and making use of genuine historical findings and opinion to counter those claims.

Unfortunately, the Catholic League has done the reverse in responding to A Fire in My Belly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The Source Featuring Candi Staton - You Got The Love.

Not persecuted and not ashamed

Nick Baines, the Bishop of Croydon, has taken some flack in the last day for his 4thought.tv interview on whether Christians are being persecuted in Britain today, prompted by the launch by Christian Concern of their Not Ashamed campaign.

In his post on the topic Nick makes it clear that "being marginalised, misrepresented or misquoted is not the same as being persecuted." This isn’t just a matter of semantics:

"Christians are being persecuted in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, parts of Africa and the Middle East. Being ridiculed a bit or misrepresented by the religiously illiterate in Britain is a pain and poses challenges – but it is not persecution. My point in the broadcast was to encourage Christians to stop seeing themselves as pathetic victims, recognise the amazing freedom we have in (and massive contribution we make to) British society both locally and nationally… and get out there more confidently with the unique gift of Christian faith, service and apologetics."

Others commenting on the Not Ashamed campaign, rightly in my view, link the issues about which Christian Concern campaign to a refusal to accept the end of Christendom and a hankering after the privileges for Christianity which Christendom provided. The end of Christendom, as these quotes from Symon Hill and Simon Barrow indicate, actually opens up the opportunity for a radical review of the way in which we think and act as the Church, not seeking privilege and instead seeking to serve:

"Anyone wanting a level playing-field should recognise that the UK is a country in which over 99 per cent of faith schools are Christian and in which bishops get to vote on legislation in Parliament (a situation almost unique in the world). These are the vestiges of Christendom, the situation that prevailed for centuries in which Christianity was closely allied to political and cultural power. The gradual passing of Christendom gives us a great opportunity to look again at the real nature of Jesus' message."

"That Christians do not rule others in the way they once did, in the fading Christendom era, does not amount to "persecution". Rather, it is an invitation, in the midst of some pain and adjustment no doubt, to rediscover patterns of church life in a plural society which show the heart of the Christian message to be about embracing others, not isolating ourselves; multiplying hope, not spreading fear; developing peaceableness, not resorting to aggression; and advancing compassion, rather than retreating into defensiveness."

It's also worth noting that the implication of the way the Not Ashamed campaign is set up seems to mean that those who don't support it can be accused of being ashamed of their faith (presumably Nick Baines has endured some of this) while those that do support can be claimed as supporters of Christian Concern's wider agenda.

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

Mark Heard - Rise From The Ruins.

Political debate & the place of Christianity in the UK

A colleague in the Redbridge Deanery, Reverend Robert Hampson, vicar of Holy Trinity Church South Woodford (Ilford North Constituency), will be standing for Parliament in the forthcoming General Election. He will be standing as the Christian Peoples Alliance (CPA) official candidate and his intention in standing is to campaign for a robust Christian British identity, free of racism and inclusive of all.

Robert’s decision has stirred up quite a bit of initial reaction. I support Robert’s decision to stand as a candidate in the election as I also support the work that the Diocese of Chelmsford is currently doing to encourage vocations to political life. However, I do not support the platform on which Robert is standing.

A lot of cynicism currently (and to some extent, rightly) exists about politics in the UK but we do have the fundamental human right of a democratic vote, something that people in other parts of the world risk their lives to gain or use, and we should not waste the opportunity we have to contribute to the democratic process.

Christians have much to contribute and share because Christianity engages with and has something to say on all the major issues facing our society and world - environmental degradation; international poverty; health and the NHS; education and schools; defence, foreign affairs and terrorism; crime, law and order; race, asylum and immigration; Europe and the EU; the economy; pensions; and transport.

However, the Bible and Church tradition does not provide a set of political policies that we can simply adopt, instead Biblical and Church approaches to issues over the centuries can help us formulate a series of principles against which we might evaluate party manifestos and promises. We need to think and pray through the issues, ask questions that matter to us, and reflect on our own priorities and what we understand to be the priorities emerging from the Bible and Church tradition, both for ourselves and for the society in which we live.

We don’t all agree however (which is why Christians can be found in all the main political parties) and this is one issue with parties, such as the CPA, that through their name and stance seek to present ‘the’ Christian voice on political issues. Their name and approach suggest that there is agreement among Christians on key issues and policies on those issues. Such agreement simply does not exist and to suggest that it does is misleading to the electorate and dismissive of Christians who think and vote differently from those in parties such as the CPA, the Christian Party, etc.

In addition I think that their analysis of our culture and politics currently is incorrect. Robert has been quoted as arguing that the increasing secularisation of the UK is “taking away the fundamental platform on which Britain has been built” and has stated that he will be focussing on making Christianity “centre stage” in Britain again. I am concerned that that is too simplistic a response to the current position of Christianity in the UK.

First, we are in a Post-Christendom period where the privileged position that Christianity once had in the UK is gradually being eroded. For Christianity to have had a privileged position in UK society was not an unmitigated blessing and the change in its position has pros as well as cons (and arguably brings us closer to the position of the Early Church in relation to political powers). However, our awareness of this erosion process as a series of losses gives the impression that Christianity is being treated unfairly.

Second, there has been and still is a secularist agenda that seeks to marginalise religion (and Christianity, in particular). Secularism combined with Post-Christendom was a potent mix initially seemed to threaten the survival of Christianity as a factor in the public square in the UK. In much of the 70s and 80s this secularist agenda essentially excluded faith-based organisations from involvement in the delivery of public services but that situation has changed radically as a result of ...

Third, the multi-faith nature of the UK and its inclusion in the diversity agenda which has been a counter-balance to this secularist agenda. Equalities and human rights legislation is resulting from the diversity rather than the secularist agenda so that, instead of religions (including Christianity) being excluded from the public square, we are in a place where discriminating against people in the workplace on the basis of religion or belief is illegal. One result has been the increasing reversal of the exclusion of faith-based organisations from involvement in delivery of public services (as example, see Lifeline Projects and the FaithAction network within which they are one of the key partners).

In a turn-of-the-year sermon, which I posted as http://joninbetween.blogspot.com/2010/01/post-christendom-church.html, I touched on some of these issues and argued that our current context is an appropriate reduction in the privileged position Christianity has occupied in the UK in the past combined with a secularist argument that seeks to remove religion (and Christianity, in particular) from the public square but that the secularising agenda has been halted and the position of religions (including the Christianity) regularised and equalised by the diversity agenda. Instead of berating these changes, I think the Church needs to become actively involved in the opportunities which they open up.

Finally, in a more than one London borough, a vote for the CPA or the Christian Party risks dividing the vote in such a way that it may open the door for the British National Party (BNP) to make gains which otherwise might not be possible for them. Any further electoral success for the BNP and similar racist parties, could seriously undermine the patient, strategic work of healthy race relations which has been developing in the UK over many years. Britain can be proud of its status as a world leader in multi-culturalism, a status which is expressed in churches and communities across the country and which is to be further celebrated in coming years, not least with the Olympics coming to London in 2012.

In Redbridge, the BNP is actively seeking the Christian vote by issuing leaflets from supporters which argue that the BNP, although a secular party, supports Christian values because its policies fit with the concerns of some Christians. These policies are mainly about being opposed to particular groups and legislation; being anti equality, anti immigration, anti-Muslim and anti homosexual. Do we, as Christians want to be known as the 'anti people' associated in the minds of others with bigotry, fundamentalism, and narrow moral agendas or do we want to be known as “good news” people associated with positive action and agendas?

Jesus broke down barriers. He treated all people with respect. As a Jew he talked to the shunned Samaritans. Through the cross he reconciled people to God and to each other. “There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3. 28). Christians assert that all human beings are created equally in the image of God. The Christian vision of society is one where each person is treated with dignity and respect, whatever their ethnic group or religion. It is a postive vision of hope not a negative agenda of hate.

The BNP, however it presents itself, is rooted in racist and fascist thinking; its message is one of hate. The BNP believes that white people are genetically superior to black people. The BNP believes that black and Asian people can never be British, even if they were born here. The BNP is a racist party and as such does not share the true Christian values. Therefore I endorse the following statement:

” … we call upon all people of goodwill to reject racist politics in the forthcoming General Election and local elections.

We encourage people to vote in the forthcoming elections to prevent racist political parties making any more electoral gains, indeed to out-vote such parties where they have already been elected.

In particular, we urge people to reject the BNP, English Defence League (EDL), National Front (NF) and similar political organisations for the reason that there is no place in mainstream British politics for dividing people on the grounds of ethnicity. The racist ideology of parties like the BNP, who speak of a "traditional British genotype", is not only inaccurate and misguided but is also contrary to the Christian belief that "all people are created as one race, the human race".

As church leaders we do not endorse any particular political party and recognise that there are many social issues today which require much closer attention from elected politicians, not least those of housing, immigration, unemployment and the sheer speed of social change in some of our communities. But we call on everyone to reject the BNP and like-parties as providing solutions to these issues. We all have a responsibility to work for a more just society. This will never be achieved by those who seek to divide our society based on a racist politics.”

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

Bruce Cockburn - Justice.

Post-Christendom Church revised

Paul Trathen has used my 'Post-Christendom Church' post as the basis for his Annual Parochial Church Meeting address. To see how Paul has made use of the original post, click here.

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

Gordon Gano & The Ryans - Under the Sun.

Wardman on the NSS

The Wardman Wire has kicked off a fascinating series of posts about the approach of the National Secular Society (NSS) towards faith communities.

In his post beginning the series, Matt Wardman criticises the NSS for presenting itself in the media as “representing” the “non-religious” when it is an organisation with a tiny membership that then constantly criticises religions with committed memberships of millions for being insignificant minorities. He outlines their approaches of: achieving influence via a network of “Honorary Associates” in the media and politics; having individual members act as local activists; and using campaigning tactics where the “office” backs up campaigns by local members by leveraging targeted media coverage, and sometimes legal threats.

He ends by arguing that the case for a secular state could be put far more strongly if the NSS was sidelined, as there’d be far fewer insults thrown around, and far more use of accurate information in the debate.

To demonstrate that he is open to genuine debate on these issues, the second post in the series is a response from Carl Gardner, an NSS supporter. Gardner argues that the secular viewpoint is much needed in our public debate about competing rights and religion – more needed now than ever when new, assertively countercultural forms of religion are becoming increasingly strident and that, while the NSS may not get everything right, it’s a vital organisation doing a good job of fighting for important principles.

This series should run and run and looks as though it will be well worth checking out. My recent sermon, which I posted as http://joninbetween.blogspot.com/2010/01/post-christendom-church.html, touched on some of these issues.

Expanding on that post, many Christians seem to feel that, as the first comment to a post by Adam Higgitt on the pressures being brought to bear on Christianity says, "Religion (especially Christianity) is extremely marginalised in British public life." My argument, though, is that that is too simplistic a response to the current position of Christianity in the UK. First, we are in a Post-Christendom period where the privileged position that Christianity once had in the UK is gradually being eroded. For Christianity to have had a privileged position in UK society was not an unmitigated blessing and the change in its position has pros as well as cons (and arguably brings us closer to the position of the Early Church in relation to political powers). However, our awareness of this erosion process as a series of losses gives the impression that Christianity is being treated unfairly.

Second, there has been and still is a secularist agenda that seeks to marginalise religion (and Christianity, in particular). It is this agenda on which Higgitt focuses in his post. Secularism combined with Post-Christendom was a potent mix initially seemed to threaten the survival of Christianity as a factor in the public square in the UK. In much of the 70s and 80s this secularist agenda essentially excluded faith-based organisations from involvement in the delivery of public services but that situation has changed radically as a result of ...

Third, the multi-faith nature of the UK and its inclusion in the diversity agenda which has been a counter-balance to this secularist agenda. Equalities and human rights legislation is resulting from the diversity rather than the secularist agenda so that, instead of religions (including Christianity) being excluded from the public square, we are in a place where discriminating against people on the basis of religion or belief is illegal. One result has been the increasing reversal of the exclusion of faith-based organisations from involvement in delivery of public services (as example, see Lifeline Projects and the FaithAction network within which they are one of the key partners).

So, I was arguing in my sermon that our current context is an appropriate reduction in the privileged position Christianity has occupied in the UK in the past combined with a secularist argument that seeks to remove religion (and Christianity, in particular) from the public square but that the secularising agenda has been halted and the position of religions (including the Christianity) regularised and equalised by the diversity agenda.

Christians though regularly conflate the secularist and diversity agendas arguing that multi-faith UK threatens Christianity when the major threat actually comes from the secularist agenda. Many in other faith communities actively support the Church having a voice and role in the public square and would prefer Christians to be more outspoken in our comment on public affairs (albeit, generally from a conservative perspective); essentially they would prefer to be live in Christendom rather than in Post-Christendom. To conflate the two is to 'bite the hand that feeds you'; multi-faith UK has essentially strengthened the position of Christianity vis a vis the secularist agenda and is a stablising factor reducing the advance of secularism. As a result, the diversity agenda needs to be supported and utilised intelligently by the Church.

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

Extreme - There Is No God.

Post-Christendom Church

Visitors from the East came looking for Jesus in a palace but found him in a manger. They looked for him at the heart of privileges won through personal power but found him in a place of poverty and dispossession. The visitors from the East looked for a King according to their understanding of kingship but only found Jesus when they left that understanding of political power and rule behind to encounter a King whose every breath is service of his subjects.

The slogan of the Early Church was that Christ is Lord. This was a direct political challenge to the Roman Emperor, to the Caesars who were worshipped as gods and whose personal and political power extended across the known world. However, by saying that Christ was Lord, the Early Church was not seeking to set up Christ as an alternative Emperor instead they were seeking to say that there is a different conception of power, of kingship and of rule, exemplified in the loving service and sacrifice of Christ and standing in stark contrast to the selfish exercise of personal power exemplified in human rulers and empires. By living out the statement that Christ is Lord they were living in the truth of Jesus’ words when he stood in front of Pilate and said that his kingdom is not the kingdom of top-down power and control that Pilate exemplified.

Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, puts it like this:

“… the whole point of the Gospels is that the coming of God's kingdom on earth as in heaven is precisely not the imposition of an alien and dehumanizing tyranny, but rather the confrontation of alien and dehumanizing tyrannies with the news of a God — the God recognized in Jesus — who is radically different from them all, and whose inbreaking justice aims at rescuing and restoring genuine humanness.”

This is an understanding of politics, power and kingship that was lost, in part, for a large period of the history of the Church beginning with the adoption, by the Emperor Constantine, of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire. There were long periods of the history of the Church where Patriarchs and Popes held political power over large parts of the then known world and periods where alliances between Church and State gave Christianity huge power and influence within society. These periods of Church history are known as Christendom and we now live in a period after Christendom while often still remembering the final days of Christendom through which many of us have lived. Days when legislation was generally rooted in the Christian scriptures, the Church was the dominant and determining voice within our society, the nation was generally considered a “Christian” country, and levels of churchgoing were higher than now.

These changes have had increasingly significant implications for churches in this Deanery and more widely as we struggle with changing patterns of churchgoing, multi-faith parishes, less people with free time for volunteering, and the financial demands of maintaining large, old building through the generous giving of local congregations. These are all issues that we have grappled with at St John’s Seven Kings over the past few years; with the past year seeing us making significant changes to the way that we respond to these challenges.

Initially these changes were driven by a secular agenda which sought to drive Christianity to the margins of public life by arguing that religion was entirely a matter of private faith, but that drive has been counter-balanced by recognition of the diversity of faiths that now exist within the UK. We still see the secularising agenda in the militant atheism of people like Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee but what has been enshrined in law is an equality of religions and beliefs, not the eradication of religion for which the militant atheists have argued. So, in the Post-Christendom world, Christianity is losing most of the privileges that it previously possessed in order that it receives equal treatment from the State to that of other religions and beliefs.

Many still yearn for the Christendom period to return but the reality of today is that we are in a Post-Christendom period and we have to deal with the reality of where we are, not yearn for the supposed ‘Golden Age’ of the past. The reality of being in a Post-Christendom period also means that we are actually much closer to the situation of the Early Church than was the case when the Church had political power and influence.

Our text for 2010 - “Be alert, stand firm in the faith, be brave, be strong. Do all your work in love” is taken from 1 Corinthians 16. 13 & 14 and is how St Paul ends his first letter to the church in Corinth. Our pew bibles tell us that, “Corinth was a great cosmopolitan Greek city, the capital of the Roman province of Achaia. It was noted for its thriving commerce, proud culture, widespread immorality, and variety of religions.” Not so different from our own culture and city then!

Being church in that kind of city and culture was no easy task and so Paul’s letter shows how the Good News speaks to the questions and issues faced by that church. By doing so, Paul was declaring the lordship of Christ over those issues and the culture and city in which the Corinthians lived. Once he had addressed those issues that were contemporary for the Corinthian church, he ended with the exhortation which is our text for 2010, “Be alert, stand firm in the faith, be brave, be strong. Do all your work in love.”

This is why, I believe, these verses to be a relevant message for us at St John’s, and also for Christians more widely, in 2010. At our Annual Parochial Church Meeting in 2009 we spoke about the challenges of the changing culture around us and over the course of 2009 we have faced up to financial pressures, made key changes to our use of the Parish Centre, and have discussed ways of dealing with disagreements. Not only that but we have increased our involvement in our local community – something which has always been strong at St John’s through our involvements in Redbridge Voluntary Care and the Redbridge Night Shelter, among others – through involvement in community campaigns to improve facilities in the area.

Tom Wright writes of the Church “doing to the rulers of the world what Jesus did to Pilate ... confronting him with the news of the kingdom and of truth, deeply unwelcome and indeed incomprehensible though both of them were.” Part of the way, he writes, “in which the church will do this is by getting on with, and setting forward, those works of justice and mercy, of beauty and relationship, that the rulers know ought to be flourishing but which they seem powerless to bring about.”

When we argue publicly for improved community facilities in the parish and provide through our Parish Centre a place within which our local community can come together then, we are doing what Jesus did when he stood before Pilate demonstrating a different kind of kingship and what the Early Church did when they declared Jesus Christ to be Lord rather than Caesar. By “doing God in public” we declare the Lordship of Christ over our community and create signs of the kingdom of Christ that we know in part but which is still to come in full.

Again, Tom Wright puts it well when he writes:

“… it is vital that the church learn to critique the present workings of democracy itself … we should take seriously the fact that our present glorification of democracy emerged precisely from Enlightenment dualism — the banishing of God from the public square and the elevation of vox populi [‘voice of the people’] to fill the vacuum, which we have seen to be profoundly inadequate when faced with the publicness of the kingdom of God.”

None of this is easy but these verses from 1 Corinthians exhort us to stand firm. Dealing with the challenges faced by the 21st Century Church in a Post-Christendom period requires the alertness, bravery and strength about which Paul writes. As we take forward in 2010 the decisions and changes we have made in 2009, we will need the same alertness, bravery and strength.

Alertness involves being aware of the real issues that we face, bravery is needed to face them fully, and strength is needed to persevere with the direction we have taken.

We can be encouraged with new members, increased giving, increased hall income, an increased community profile, new stewardship responses, and funding for our community garden project. These, and other aspects of St John’s, are positive signs which indicate that, although we haven’t resolved all of the issues we face, we are on the right lines and need to take St Paul’s words to heart in 2010.

Most of all, we need to continue living out St Paul’s final exhortation to do all our work in love. It is love that needs to underpin all we do and which will continue to hold us together. Love for each other needs to characterise every action, interaction and decision. Love needs to be at the forefront of our vision, our relationships and our mission. Love is how we stand firm in our faith. Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians that love is the best of God’s gifts to his people. God is love and when we live in love we live in God.

So, as we move forward in 2010, let us be alert, stand firm in the faith, be brave, be strong, and do all our work in love.

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

M. Ward - Vincent O'Brien.