Do you like this?

Place your hope in God alone. If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain that the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.
The Rule of Benedict http://www.eriebenedictines.org/benedict (only there 1 day in 4 months) http://www.osb.org/rb/

I like this quote from Benedict, but I have a friend who dislikes it - we haven't gone into why - but I think that it is an example of the religious paradox that I was writing about yesterday.  It isn't necessarily that I think that it is "true", but that it gives insight into ways of thinking which help me come to God.

What do you think?

Faith - Pragmatist v Rationalist

The debate between we of faith and an atheist rationalist has been going on in the comments of a number of blog posts (here, here, here and here for example).

As a pragmatist I am finding it frustrating as we appear to have little common ground to debate on; for example we agree that there is no scientific data to base our thinking on, but that is all that is allowed as proof by our atheist friend.  When it comes to circumstantial evidence, for example the behaviour of Christians, then it is responded that this could come from another source (which of course it could).  The one argument that I don't think has been answered is that Christians behave in counter intuitive ways (see long quote below fold), but ways which when they are lived lead to life in all its fullness (John 10:10, GNB), but again subjective experience is not allowed.

Fowler's theory of Faith Development defines faith thus:

Think if you will, of faith as `universal’, as a feature of living, acting, and self-understanding of all human beings whether they claim to be `believers’ or religious or not (Fowler & Keen, 1985:17).

As teachers of the faith one of the things that we have to deal with is that there are people at all faith stages in our congregations, and things which may be helpful to those at one stage might well be harmful to those at another.  Somehow we have to find a way of speaking to all, of encouraging all, without frightening some away.  That is why I believe that clergy will say things in private that they will not say in public or on a blog - in private one to one conversation it is much easier to work with where that person is!

Whilst taking on board Fowler's comment:

that the stages should never be used for the nefarious comparison or the devaluing of persons (Fowler, 1987:80)

I do believe that those in the higher numbered stages are less likely to behave in ways which militant atheists object to.

The challenge to those of us of faith is perhaps how to move people through the faith journey, and perhaps as a real challenge how to evangelise directly into the later stages, for if the stages apply to whatever "faith" we have then it should in theory be possible to do this - although most programs, such as Alpha,  appear to introduce people to the early stages.

Ubuntu - Think Corporate not individual

Descartes was in a pub having a drink, and the barman came up to him to ask him if he would like another drink. He refused. The barman pressed him, and Descartes paused and then said, “I think not”. . . at which point he disappeared.

 Great quote from an article in the Church Times by Paula Gooder on how first century people wouldn't have understood the current focus on individual identity, linking it to Desmond Tutu's use of Ubuntu:

I am because you are

 I have also heard Ossie Schwartz preach on this and it seems to come from South African society where people could not survive without each other.  In the modern first world we seem to have this illusion that we are in control and can survive as individuals.

When I was in Marlow we had the choir from our link church St James, Galeshewe to visit, and when they were asked how they were going to get home from the airport one of them said he had a credit card - there was no sense that each should pay their own way - they were in this together.


Joan Chittister comments in "Insights for the Ages" (which you all know is a commentary on the Rule of Benedict that I love):

Common ownership and personal dependence are the foundations of mutual respect. If I know that I literally cannot exist without you, without your work, without your support, without your efforts in our behalf, without your help, as is true in any community life, then I can not bury myself away where you and your life are unimportant to me. I cannot fail to meet your needs, as you have met my needs, when the dearth in you appeals for the gifts in me.

Paula Gooder says:

I am not arguing that we should give up individualism and attempt to embrace corporate identity again; I am not sure that that would be either possible or desirable. What I am suggesting is that there are insights from the corporate way of viewing the world which are vital for our comprehension of some pieces of the New Testament, and resurrection is one of them.

 and I would add that I think that it is not just comprehension of NT texts that would benefit from viewing things corporately!

Challenges to Faith

I was challenged on Facebook with what happens if you answer Brian McLaren with B:

Quiz:
When I am presented with a new idea or proposal, my first question is more likely to be ...
___A. Is it acceptable to my religious/ideological community or belief system?
___B. Is it possibly true, valuable, and worth exploring?

 This was as a result of my previous blog.

The short answer is that life carries on as normal!  I suspect that behind it is the question of how you can have faith if you are prepared to evaluate ideas which are contrary to it.  I would argue that if you are not willing to do so then you have certainty, not faith (I know that sounds a little trite).  When training we were talking about dialogue with Muslims, and one of the criteria for a good dialogue is that you are prepared to change your mind, even if you are confident that you won't!

My faith is open to new insight - I believe in faith as a journey, so how could it not be - and it is conceivable that something will come along that will change it - perhaps even to the extent of moving me outside the church.  But then Jesus didn't come to found a church, he came to bring in the Kingdom of God.

As my faith is founded on the two great commandments, rather than a large number of rules, then I believe that it is perhaps more resilient to challenge from outside.  And I think that Jesus had some things to say about those overly concerned with rules!

Finally, I believe that God helps us find God.  Joan Chittister, in her commentary on the Rule of Benedict writes:

It is the goodness of God, not any virtue that we have developed on our own, that brings us to the heart of God. And it is with God's help we seek to go there.

Benedictine Humility

The third step of humility is that we submit to the prioress or abbot in all obedience for the love of God, imitating Jesus Christ of whom the apostle says: "Christ became obedient even to death (Phil 2:8)."
Benedict argues that the third rung on the ladder of humility is the ability to submit ourselves to the wisdom of another.
Rung three brings us face to face with our struggle for power. It makes us face an authority outside of ourselves. But once I am able to do that, then there is no end to how high I might rise, how deep I might grow.   Insights for the Ages - Joan Chittister (Changes daily).

How true - it is the people who will not let me get away with the simple explanation, who challenge me to go behind my mask and rip it off (and the next, and the next...), who love me enough to not mind the real me that emerges (which of course isn't as bad as I fear - though one day...).

I have been lucky enough to find a number of such people who have done this for me in my life, and all of them have been priests - though I am not saying that all priests would be one of them!  I do not think that that is an accident (good you might say - that is what I want from my priest), I think that the training I received encouraged me to go down that route, but I recognise that not everyone took it.  It wasn't easy, and it meant facing up to lots of "stuff" that had been buried for more years than I care to remember - but it was worth it!

So often the reason for the masks is a wish to control what is going on around us (which I blogged recently) - when in fact we can't anyway - letting go means becoming vulnerable - we need a safe place to learn this.

Living Faith

Living Faith is the current "vision for the Diocese of Oxford" and has 5 points (I am not going to repeat them here, if you want to know more follow the link).  This year the focus is on "Sustaining the Sacred Centre".  Today's reading from the Rule of Benedict (which won't be there tomorrow) contains the following commentary from Joan Chittister :

In monastic spirituality, then, leadership is not intent on making things right; leadership is intent on making life right. The number of families who have succumbed to the notion that giving their children everything that money can buy assures their happiness need this insight from of monastic spirituality. The number of business people who have put their entire lives into developing their businesses instead of their quality of life, need this insight from monastic spirituality. The number of young people who have learned to believe that success depends on having it all, may need this monastic lesson in life. The Rule of Benedict teaches us that nothing, not even a monastery, is worth the loss of the development of the important things in life, the spiritual things in life.

 And perhaps I would add the number of churches that depend on programs...  This is as much a criticism of myself as of others, as when our church were discussing this I was all geared up to institute lots of programs - I have worked with several management consultants and could see how the programme would fit together.  Luckily Bishop John was quoted as saying that this was about asking people to "deepen their enjoyment of God, and to recognize God's presence in everyday life" and we (and I) recognised that without first sustaining the sacred centre nothing else of worth would happen.

Shame after reading the Rule of Benedict for about 8 years that I hadn't noticed the above quote sooner!

Organisations & Structures

I've been following the stories about clergy bullying and found my Bishops blog on this thought provoking.  During my career in industry I have seen a lot of change and an increase in bureaucracy, and I know a lot of teachers and have heard about it in teaching too.  My observation on this is that bureaucracy raises the standard of the worst, but hampers the best - it standardises the experience.

My question - to anyone out there! - is how, as the Church of England moves to common tenure, we can avoid the worst aspects of appraisals.  When the system works well it is brilliant, but when it works badly it is dire.  For it to work well there needs to be an understanding of what it is and isn't supposed to be about - in both appraiser and appraisee - as well as a good practical understanding of the process.  Comments I have heard from clergy involved in the nascent process suggest that this is not yet the case.

At one level I don't want to argue against greater competence, but at another the following spoke to me:

Once chosen, it is their weakness itself that becomes the anchor, the insight, the humility and the gift of an abbot or prioress, a pope or a priest, a parent or a director. But only if they themselves embrace it. It is a lesson for leaders everywhere who either fear to lead because they know their own weaknesses or who lead defensively because they fear that others know their weaknesses.

(from Joan Chittister's commentary on the Rule of Benedict - changes daily - so won't be there for another 4 months!).

If we get into a process of appraisal will we find ourselves wanting to hide our weaknesses?

This perhaps also links to the Naked Pastor's post today, and particularly the comment from a person whose church has someone reading their clergy blogs for comments which are "theologically naughty or somehow subversive to the organisation".

By adopting management processes from an environment where consistency is valued are we in danger of becoming consistent?  (For clarity I think this is a bad thing - and don't get me started on the Anglican Covenant!!!!!).

What have these people got in common?

People I admire - Read on!


Following on from my post on what education is for, and a number of blogs I read on priesthood (which I can't now find!) I started mulling over what being a priest is about.  Right now my working definition is to become the kind of person that I described in my education post, and to help and
encourage others to do the same.  This might seem a long way from the Gospel, but I believe that that is what Jesus was doing  (as a long aside I was interested to read that the originator of WWJD was using it to stimulate social action, and the book which told me that suggests that it should only be used for yourself - not others - see left).

This then set me thinking about the "Undefended Leader" (also for sale from here) a book that was highly recommended during some training.  This in turn set me thinking about politicians I have admired, not necessarily for their politics, but for their approach.  Interestingly they are all from the extremes: Enoch Powell, Michael Foot, and Tony Benn.  I think that what I admired about all of them is that they were prepared to speak their mind - regardless of who it upset.  They also showed some ability to change their mind, with at least two of them showing changes in political views over the life.  This ability to speak your mind seems to be something that today's politicians have lost, and I suspect that this prevents those who would speak their mind from entering politics - a great shame to my mind.

This is also a quality that I think is shown by some of the other people I admire: Nelson Mandela, Gandhi,  Martin Luther King and Muhammad Ali, all of whom stood for what they believed and suffered in one way or another.

As I was mulling all this over I read todays excerpt from "Insights for the Ages" (it changes daily, so won't be there later): "Adulthood is a matter of being completely open to the insights that come to us from our superiors and our spouses, our children and our friends, so that we can become more than we can even begin to imagine for ourselves."

I can't remember where I found it, but there is a quote along the lines that if Jesus were us he would be the best us we could be - not someone else.  I think that for all of us our calling is to be the best us we can be. And I can think of no higher calling that to do that and to try to help others to do the same.

Last Week of Radcliffe

The final two chapters! Or at least one chapter and a conclusion.

This week it is about the need for Sabbath - but as usual Radcliffe wanders a little wider than the chapter heading.

His first suggestion is that we see Sabbath as a gift, not an imposition (if indeed we don't already see it that way). Using the analogy of attending our mother's birthday party! This perhaps leads into his thoughts on the changing nature of work. The Greek and Latin words for work are literally "not leisure" which suggests a turnaround in emphasis - we perhaps see leisure as what we do when we are not working! He also writes of the difficulty of work as identity now that jobs for life are almost extinct. Finally he talks about work as a branch of entertainment.

He moves on to talk about religion as consumption, choosing which church we go to on the basis of the "services" on offer. Joan Chittister has something to say on the risks of this: "They know how to shop for a parish but they do little to build one. They live off a community but they are never available when the work of maintaining it is necessary. They are committed to morality in the curriculum of grade schools but completely unmoved by the lack of morality in government ethics."

Finally in the last chapter he suggests that with today's entertainment we become passive spectators - not participants. He also suggests that we should live as a community where we "let ourselves be seen in our complexity and our contradictions". I for one see a contradiction here - how can we manage that if we do not participate?


In the conclusion he encourages us to live as a community of "love, freedom and hope" - including everyone, not just the like minded. Some challenge if you are currently a community of the like minded - how do you start the process of change? He also suggests that we should speak out and not be afraid - seeing the church as a place where it should be safe to discuss ideas. And yet so many would disagree - at confirmation groups I have seen regular churchgoers afraid to say what they think until the know what the vicar thinks - whereas those from outside the church are very happy to do so. What is it that they have learnt in the church that stops them?

And finally! He encourages us to accept the goodness of corporeal existence and to accept our own bodies whatever shape or condition they are in. I think I have already done corporeal existence in the chapter which covered it - but how many would believe that of he church - not many I suspect.

Overall this has been a wonderful book. The highlight for me was the chapter on hope, and comparing hope and optimism, but there were so many good bits - including sharing it with a great bunch of people!

Radcliffe Again!

The study of the book continues. This week it is Chapters 7 & 8 which he links together as being about the relationshipsbetween our identities as individuals, of members of communities and citizens of the Kingdom.

He defines the Kingdom as "the unity of all human beings in Christ" and quotes Monica Furlong quoting Thomas Merton defining God as "that centre Who is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere".

Radcliffe suggests that we need to move from a self cetredness to a more communal outlook. He quotes the parable of the Good Samaritan - pointing out that the "lawyer askes Jesus who is his neighbour" and in the response Jesus asks who "proved neighbour to the one who fell among thieves?"

He also tells the story of Archbishop Ullathorne who when asked if "there were any good books on humility" replied "Only one, and I wrote it".

In addition he write a lot about humility - about which much can currently be found here http://www.eriebenedictines.org/Pages/INSPIRATION/insights.html it repeats in late Jan/May/Sept and earlyFeb/Jun/Oct or can be found in the book on the rule of Benedict.

When looking at the Kingdom Radcliffe looks at the community of the Church and suggests that it should be more. He looks at "solidarity" as used by the 19th century French, when it defined "us" against "them" and suggests that in Kindom terms there should be no "them". He then questions whether it makes sense to have a community from which no one is excluded - a little like if we are all disabled then no one is disabled. Can a community be defined in a way that does not exclude anyone?

His solution to this is to define the community as opposing anything which attacks that community. It is from this definition of a community in which all are included that he then goes on to look at how we should treat poverty, taking quite a communitarian take on private property.

More thoughts on the Point of being a Christian

When we discussed it last night people were taken with the quote "God is already present in the lives of all human beings, even if unnamed and unrecognised." Then this morning the reading from Insights for the Ages included this quote (warning the content changes by date so the quote may not appear when you click through).

Clearly, for Benedict, God is not something to be achieved; God is a presence to be responded to but to whom without that presence, we cannot respond. God isn't something for which spiritual athletes compete or someone that secret spiritual formulas expose. God is the breath we breathe. It is thanks to God that we have any idea of God at all. God is not a mathematical formula that we discover by dint of our superior intelligence or our moral valor. God is the reason that we can reach God. It is to this ever-present Presence that the Rule of Benedict directs us. It is to God already in our lives that Benedict turns our minds. The Hasidim tell the story of the preacher who preached over and over, "Put God into your life; put God into your life." But the holy rabbi of the village said, "Our task is not to put God into our lives. God is already there. Our task is simply to realize that."