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.

Do we all have a special gift?

A couple of days ago I met up with some old colleagues.  One of them mentioned that he had heard Clive Woodward saying that early in life you should find what you can excel at and nurture it.  None of us knew what our gift in this area was (and we are all of an age when too much time is spent talking about pensions J) and it set me wondering whether that something exists - and if it does what it might be.

This also takes us into the nature v nurture debate and that is also informed by Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers". In it he talks about how the vast majority of Ice Hockey players have birthdays in January, February and March - the reason for this being that if they start playing at a young age their greater development gives them and advantage which is magnified by the further opportunities that they get.  OK, so perhaps if your birthday is later in the year then Ice Hockey should not be your sport - but that to me questions whether you have a specific gift, or whether you have a number of aptitudes which can be developed in a number of different ways.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted Clive Woodward and what he was doing was to encourage everyone to find something which they enjoy and then to do it to the very best of their ability for its own sake - but sadly I doubt it.

Faith in God encourages us to see everyone (including ourselves) as loved by God for who we are and not what we do.  Our current society seems to be trying very hard to persuade us that this isn't true.

Is the Pope Catholic?

"Williams finds Pullman novel unpersuasive"

Is this one of the most ridiculous headlines going?  It would surely have made a much bigger headline if Rowan had found it persuasive!

The actual article is about the book "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ" and Rowan's review of it. The full review can be found here, with others by Bishop Alan Wilson here, and the Church Times here.

The question that I want to explore is whether this might become one of those cultural events that Christians "have" to partake in so that we have a view!  So far this has happened to me with The Passion Of The Christ and The Da Vinci Code.  Neither were films that I particularly wanted to see, but in both cases I felt that I "ought" to see them.  I was nearly tempted by the same logic into getting a copy of this book, but the reviews that I read led me to believe that I would learn little more of use and so I have decided not to.

Would I do the same again with the films?  I actually found The Passion of the Christ particularly moving, and with hindsight would see it for my own sake - but the Da Vinci code?  No chance!

Diary of a City Priest

I bought this book off the back of reading about it in John D Caputo's  What Would Jesus Deconstruct? (story here) and it has been a delight.  It is the diary of a Catholic Priest who works in the dodgy end of Philadelphia and is a record of his reflections as he ministers in a parish with very few Catholics, but significant social need.  He questions how he spends his time, what the hierarchy of the church are about, why he has such a bad temper, why some of his fellow priests have left the priesthood and he hasn't.  I felt that it was a warts and all view of what being a Catholic priest in that place was like, but it also gave an insight about the internal ponderings and worries of priest any time any place anywhere.

Whilst not every priest will have the issues to deal with that he does, I believe that the internal dialogues that he has are worth reading for those training for the priesthood, and for those who don't want to maintain the fiction that priests are perfect christians!  And at the time I posted it can be got very cheaply!

Letter to the Hebrews

I have always been wary of Hebrews.  A vicar I know (doesn't narrow it down very far!) told me that it barely made it into the New Testament and they refused to read from it because it was so confusing!

At the time that I first heard this I interpreted that as meaning that it was of dubious value.  Having been reading it again through morning prayer recently I have come to see what that vicar meant in a different light.  If you understand ancient Jewish practice then you can understand Hebrews as a masterful piece of inculturation, taking those ancient practices and explaining the importance and meaning of Jesus in terms of them.  Or to "proclaim afresh in each generation" His truth.

However I have two concerns about how we might use it today.  I recently saw a poster which said something like "We are saved by Jesus blood" - the train was travelling too fast to read it - the problem is that to anyone outside the church this is a meaningless statement unless they know about Jewish sacrifice and the comparison being made - it doesn't scratch where people are itching.  My second concern is that as a piece of inculturated writing the only way it is helpful is if we have the context explained to us first - but for me the beauty of metaphor is that it doesn't have to be explained.  And if we have to have the context explained there is less opportunity for people to own it for themselves rather than to adopt someone else's interpretation.

As a result I won't be terribly keen on public readings of it - without a sermon explaining the context - but my reasoning is very different from my previous understanding.  I have even been tempted to study it a bit more - any recommendations for a good guide?

Our Sound is Our Wound - Part 2

"In the beginning was the Word" - and I would imagine... a big man with a grey beard  and a booming voice ...shouting WORD to kick-start creation.  p11

The above are Lucy's childhood memories.  In this chapter (1) what caught my eye was the reminder that for hundreds of years people heard the Bible in community rather than reading it in isolation.  Yesterday I posted on the value of community, and in this idea of hearing scripture in community there is a difference not only in what is read, but in how it is interpreted.  There will be a community interpretation (assuming that the vicar doesn't encourage everyone to play "guess what is in my head") and a community living out of what is there.  People will often talk about the Holy Spirit inspiring new understandings - I think that the Holy Spirit works best in groups, rather than just individuals.

The score only becomes music when the players or singers take it up and give it life by playing it.  So it is with scripture. p18

Our Sound is Our Wound - Part 1

"their sound itself becomes a wound - a sacrifice that they willingly make, fashioning a beauty that needs neither explanation or excuse." p2 (talking about a string quartet)

I don't get it!  At least, not yet.  I am reading this as part of my lenten study (see here).  This post will record my thoughts on the introduction and there will no doubt be others.

Lucy Winkett is using sound as a metaphor and as a tone deaf non musician I am not finding this easy.  That said, in the introduction she also writes a lot of things that I do understand and which do resonate, and for which the sound metaphor adds not one jot (for me).

There is no normative experience against which everything everything should be measured, and, when we recognise this, our relationship with God and our understanding of human beings will be only expanded and enriched. (Sparked by the idea of the deaf musician - especially Evelyn Glennie) p5

Emotional or psychological wounds are harder to see and therefore easier to hide.  But part of maturing as people, whatever our circumstances, is that we learn to live with the wounds from our past.  It can be precisely from contemplating and accepting those wounds that we begin to mend, and that we learn that it is never to late to start again.  p6

Christians offer modern society the conviction that wounds, which are a part of the human condition, are given meaning by meditating on them in the light of the wounds of God, seen in Jesus. p7

All language that we use about God is metaphor... p8 

I found all of these quote immensely powerful, but so far I am finding the attempt to force them into a "sound" straitjacket unhelpful.  That said I am looking forwards to the rest of the book!

Lent starts here!

http://www.cartoonchurch.com/content/cc/lent/

No, I'm not going to give up blogging for lent (shame I hear you cry!).  Instead I am going to continue, but with added Christian Aid!  As for the past few years Christian Aid are running "Count Your Blessings" which is a scheme to help you reflect on other parts of the world and raise money at the same time.  Today's challenge:

883 million people worldwide often don’t know where their next meal is coming from.  Give 10p for each hour between your last meal and your next.

Well, lets say that is 5 hours, as I am writing in the afternoon and had a late lunch, so that's 50p.

I read a good blog on lenten discipline, so using the Vernacular Curate's pattern ...

There goes the chocolate until after Easter - which might also have beneficial effect on the waistline.  Lets just hope I don't forget like I did one year and have a choccy biscuit without even realising L.  Still I remember reading someone somewhere saying that it is good to fail at your lenten discipline because it reminds you that you can achieve nothing alone!

I too will be blogging and I have bought the Archbishops Lent book by Lucy Winkett - so that can join my pile of unread books (hope not).

As I am in the same Archdeaconry as my Vernacular mate I too have been offered an extra day off a week during lent.  There has been much talk among the clergy about how this isn't helpful, life is even busier in lent - so please can we have the time off at another  time.  With little experience of a clerical lent I think that our Area Bishop had it spot on - if it is not possible to find an extra day off in lent then we are doing too much and need to stop doing some things - if you do what you've always done you'll get what you've always got.  I have put these days in my diary, but to do so meant having to take some other things out - perhaps easier as a curate than an incumbent, but the principle holds.  As for taking on something new... not sure about that one for me, though I am planning to attend the Churches Together for Chesham Lent lectures which has an excellent set of speakers.

And finally... time - that old chestnut - well, not looking good on this front - but with the extra time off I think I will be less stressed and am planning to make time to read a new book!

And with people out there watching in there might just be the odd extra incentive to keep things going.

The Cats Done Good!

I have blogged elsewhere on how I blamed the cats for buying a couple of books on a friends Amazon account, but now I have read the books I thought I would blog on the contents.  The two books in question are also reviewed here and here (which is where I got the idea that I might like to read them!) by Jonny Baker.6MACS98SBPWA
Both books follow a similar structure, they start by explaining their subject in reference to something else (perhaps not that surprising as Caputo states that Derrida presents his views by reflecting on a previous text).  Caputo uses the book "In His Steps" (which introduced "What Would Jesus Do" to the language) as a way of discussing Derrida whereas Smith uses The Matrix, Memento, O Brother, Where Art Thou and One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest to discuss the general topic of Post Modernism, Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault respectively.  So far so good, and as a non expert in these topics I found these explanations enlightening and exciting.  They then go on to explore the implications for their analysis in the wider church, and at this point I started finding myself unconvinced.  Smith believes that Post Modernism leads to Radical Orthodoxy and I have to say that I did not follow the link.  Caputo retells the story of two books as examples of Post Modernism.  The first "Diary of a City Priest" tells the story of a seemingly "normal" Catholic Priest in inner city Philadelphia, the other, "How (Not) to Speak of God", by Peter Rollins (who has starred on this page before) tells of an innovative worship collective in Belfast.  Again I am not convinced that the preceding explanation leads to the examples - but of course one of the critiques of Post Modernism is that it can be used to justify anything!  Not that I have a problem with that - after all, I have blogged on giving up certainty and control!

Below the fold a bit more in depth stuff!

The Orthodox Heretic

Peter Rollins is a philosopher by profession, and founder and co-ordinator of IKON, an emergent church community in Belfast. In this book he explains by way of parables some of the ideas he has written about in his other books. He is much taken by paradox and many of the parables are paradoxical in nature. Not all of the parables stand up by themselves, but in the book they are all followed by an explanation (which does sadly undermine the power of parable). However, the parables and the following explanations provide serious food for thought about what it means to be a Christian and the nature of what belief is. He is clear that we are to think for ourselves (this was evidenced in a talk at Greenbelt where he said "I'm not sure that I believe some of what I'm saying") and in this book provides enough challenging parables to make us do just that. You may not agree with his answers, but thinking about what he is proposing will challenge what you do think and believe.

The Great Emergence - and Anglican issues!

I have recently been reading Phyllis Tickle on the Great Emergence. Two things struck me. The first was that she says that about every 500 years there is a shift in Christianity, and that one of the first signs of this is a breakdown in authority. Just prior to the reformation there were 3 Popes, so from a situation where people knew who was in charge now there was a choice. What struck me forcibly was the analogy with the current times in Anglicanism, where cetainly among some there is a desire for a strong authority, when in fact Anglicanism could almost be defined as not having an authority.

The other strand that I noted was a restatement of the old believe- behave- belong or belong-behave-believe. What was added to this was an explanation of the accompanying approach to people who want to join. In the old style there were lots of rules, and if you kept the rules you could belong. In the new approach there is a centre towards which people are drawn - but to which they don't have to sign up before belonging.

This is not perhaps quite the problem in Anglicanism at present but I can see many similarities. If we take the battle over homosexuality in Anglicanism then it is largely between those who think it is wrong and those who think it is right. What doesn't get much publicity is the approach that says that it doesn't matter! To be fair, if you are going to have an authorised ministry then it does matter, but this might explain why, although there are many to whom this does matter, there are a large number of people to whom it doesn't matter at all. Of course in some sense the "it doesn't matter"s are by default on the side of change, as they cannot see what the problem is in the first place!

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!

2 more chapters

The next two chapters are about division within the church. Radcliffe doesn't tackle division between churches, and focuses on division within the Catholic Church, but much of what he says speaks into the situation of Anglicanism! It perhaps speaks less to other denominations because Protestantism has a tendency to split when differences become too great - each part of the split believing that they have the truth - and that truth is more important than unity. This is typified by the number one joke in the Ship of Fools religious joke poll.

Radcliffe sees the problem as the internal disagreements within a church "What young people are going to find their home in a community that is so angry?" - and what old people come to that. He does not like the exisitng terminology used to separate the different attitudes and instead suggests that the two main approaches are those of Kingdom and Communion.

Kingdom
See the church as "the People of God on pilgrimmage towards the Kingdom". The central doctrine is the Incarnation: "In Jesus Christ, God had embraced the whole of humanity." Liberation is the rallying call and Christ is seen as overthrowing boundaries.

Communion
See the people as "members of the institution of the Church, the communion of believers". The central doctrine is the cross: "We must dare to stand by the scandal of the crucified Lord." Truth is the rallying call, and Christ is the one who "gathers into community".

What Radcliffe doesn't articulate, but I see as implicit in what he is writing is that Communion is about modernity (although he presents them as being against it!) and Kingdom is more post modern - although he sees Post modernity (again not described as such) as the solution, the way of reconciling the two approaches.

Using the metaphor of "Root Shock" where people uprooted from their environment retreat into "communities of the likeminded" he suggests that both Kingdom and Communion are reacting against an exile, but that each feel it in a different way. Communion saw the local environment being torn up both within the church and within society and wanted that sense of familiarity back. Kingdom felt an optimism during Vatican II which they felt was disappearing and in a similar way the "utopian dreams of the 60s were not being realised".

Radcliffe asks how the Last Supper is a "sign of a home in which everyone, regardless of his or her sympathies or allegiance, may be at ease?" He answers his own question by pointing out that "the bread is given just tothe disciples" but the wine whilst also given to them is also "poured out for the many". In the Eucharist the tension between the in group and everybody is there visible and reconciled. He points out that this tension has been there from the beginnings of the church - that the disciples would have stayed, but that Paul first dispersed them through persecution and then took the gospel to the Gentiles. "If we today try to retreat inwards into any little walled Fortress Church, then we can be sure that God will demolish it".

Having determined that the solution is some form of synthesis between the two approaches Radcliffe then looks at how this may be achieved. He says that the main problem is that we are no longer free to explore faith in a way that was possible before the Thirty Years War; keeping silent and defending our doctrine, and developing questions like Mrs Thatchers "is he one of us".

He proposes that we should not build "communities of the like-minded", but listen to the stories of each others lives, trying to understand how the other has arrived where they are. And when I hear someone saying something that I believe to be wrong "my first reaction must be to see what truth they are trying to say rather than immediately condemn their error." He says that we need places where "we can speak without fear and prejudice" - wouldn't we all like a church like that?

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.

Yet More Timothy Radcliffe!

This week we are studying chapters 4, 5 and 6. Tuesday 19th May 2009, 7.45 in the Lady Chapel at St Michael's.

Chapter 4
This is really a companion piece to the chapter on freedom as the suggestion is that it is fear which prevents us from being free. "Courage is a virtue that is universally attractive".


Radcliffe quotes Anil's Ghost "I wanted to find one law to cover all of living. I found fear."

The Church should be a community where "we dare to speak the truth to each other, to hear each other, to be vulnerable to each other, to be unafraid of each other." This of course is something which is incredibly hard to do. How many of us dare to do it with those closest to us, let alone in a Church with those we know less well?

As someone who was told that "the Church would be better off without people like you" after doing just that I am aware that it is a big ask - but it is the kind of risk that leads to resurrection - but only after a crucifixion.

In the Church we are often afraid of anger, and yet "according to St Thomas, courage teaches one how to be angry in ways that are fruitful." It is also "characteristic of friendship that it can cope with anger, and even grow through it".

Chapter 5
This chapter is about bodiliness and the rejection of dualism.

"Christian teaching is founded upon our belief in the goodness of the body." I bet not many people are aware of that!

"the Church's sexual ethics differs from that of society ... it is about living relationships of gift rather than property exchange". This is not just about the "ownership" of women by men from times gone by, but also the idea of ownership of our own bodies - if I own my body I can do what I like with it - if instead we see sexuality as a gift we become vulnerable and relationship becomes a risk of "self exposure and intimate contact".

There is no point to the next quote - I just enjoyed it and wanted to share it!
A priest went "to say Mass at a convent. The sister who opened the door looked at him and said, 'Oh, it's you Father. I was expecting a man.' At a conference in Dublin, there were three sets of lavatories, 'Men', 'Women' and 'Priests'."

Eroticism is good, but can be transformed into the unhealthy extremes of " infatuation and lust". With infatuation we "are worshipping our own creation" and have put them "in the place of God". Lust makes "the other person a mere object, ... Lust closes our eyes to the personhood of the other".

Another great quote: "God is always the one who loves more than he is loved."

Chapter 6
And so to truth.


"Meister Eckhart maintained that no one can attain the truth without a hundred errors on the way." And yet making errors is something that is often disallowed in Churches - we are a community which preaches forgiveness - and yet often we fail to forgive our own. "Finding the most bizarre [interpretation of the Bible] has been compared with identifying the most ugly statue of Queen Victoria: the competition is hot."

Rather a lot to digest on Tuesday!

Chapters 2 & 3

Having already written about hope in the previous chapter Timothy Radcliffe now writes about Freedom and Happiness as by products of faith. "We should have a freedom and happiness that would make no sense if God does not exist".

Chapter 2 - Freedom
One of the things which I think many people misunderstand is that faith is about freedom. It can sometimes appear to be about rules and regulations controlling all aspects of our lives, stopping us doing the things we want to do, which doesn't seem very free! However, over the years I have come to see the various rules and regulations not as rules and regulations, but as guidance on how to live a fulfilling life. When we say to a child do not put your finger in the socket or you will get electrocuted we aren't threatening to electrocute them for doing it - we are warning them that doing it has dire effects. In the same way what appear to be rules and regulations with penalties attached I now see as similar warnings - for example forgiveness is good because the impact of not forgiving is felt most keenly by the person who is not forgiving.

Timothy Radcliffe tells a story about Wojciech Giertych : "He went to the blackboard and drew a small square in a corner. 'In that square are the commandments. Is that what morality is about?' And everyone cried 'Of course.' 'No,' he said, 'God is not much interested in commandments.' Then he drew a square which covered all the rest of the board and he said, 'That is freedom. That is what interests God. Your task is to teach your children to be free. That is the teaching of the Gospels, and of St Thomas Aquinas.'

In the same way that what appear to be rules and regulations are actually advice on how to remove pressures from ourselves, so too faith can give us the ability to free ourselves from the fear of living. Many of us live our lives worried about what others will think of us, rather than what we want. But this doesn't just apply to individuals - it can also apply to churches. If we are to preach freedom we too need to be free.

Timothy Radcliffe again: "One day a mother brought her child to see Mahatma Gandhi. She was worried that her child was deeply addicted to sweets and asked the wise man to persuade her to learn moderation. Gandhi asked the mother to take the child away and to return in three weeks, which she did. Gandhi then talked to the child and persuaded her to cut down. At the end the mother asked him, 'But why, Gandhiji did you not say this to the girl three weeks ago'. He replied, 'Because three weeks ago I too was addicted to sweets.'"

But unfortunately there are churches which are not only not free - but will insist on persecuting those who have escaped to freedom. "The church must stand beside people who suffer victimization of any kind. Even more, the Church must recognize who are the people whom she victimizes. Like St Paul on the road to Damascus, we must open our ears to the Lord who says to us too, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'"

"But the Church will only be a cradle of gospel freedom if we are seen to stand beside people, support­ing them as they make moral decisions within the range of what is possible, rather than making decisions for them.
People will not be drawn to the Church if moral teaching is seen as just telling people what they must do."

Chapter 3 - Happiness
Happiness is perhaps a strange by product to suggest for Christianity, and there are certainly many who would disagree: "Hilary Armstrong, Labour Chief Whip and a convinced Christian, asserts that 'we weren't put on earth to enjoy ourselves'", and "H. L. Mencken, the American newspaper editor, defined Puritanism as 'the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy'". However, Radcliffe suggests that "Christianity is the good news that God created us for happiness, and ultimately for the happiness that is God being God. But we cannot be convincing witnesses to this if Christians are seen as miserable and inhibited."

Perhaps this suspicion of happiness comes from our Britishness! Radcliffe quotes Herbert McCabe OP: "we express our joy in bodily signs, by dancing, singing, or laughing. We shout for joy, or hug each other, or turn cart-wheels. Just how we express our happiness will of course depend on what country we live in and the local customs and traditions. In parts of Africa you would express it in highly sophisticated and formalized dance. In parts of the British suburbia, I believe they manage it with a slight twitch of the upper lip."

And yet the kind of happiness that is being discussed is not the kind which is fulfilled in the worldly ways that so many people grasp after. It is a happiness of being, and being known by God. "The Church has nothing to say about morality until our listeners have glimpsed God's delight in their existence".

At the end of the chapter Radcliffe describes how he sees this happiness: "So Christian joy is not a determined jollity, a resolution to look on the bright side. It is not optimisitically insisting that he glass is half full rather than half empty, or any of the other empty platitudes with which we may try to shield ourselves from dread and hollowness. It is an Easter joy, which means that we can only fully enter it by passing through suffering, death and resurrection."

Even more thoughts

I forgot to add this link too http://www.thevine.co.nz/word/archive/2009/05/04 which contains a great story illustrating the idea that it is how we live our lives that makes an impact on others.

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."

What's the Point of Being a Christian?

No, I'm not despairing - this is the title of the book we are about to start studying! We will be doing this over 6 weeks at St Michael's, Amersham on the Hill, 7.45 for 8.00 until 9.15. All are welcome as we share our understanding of what Timothy Radcliffe has to say.

May 5 Introduction and Chapter 1
May 12 Chapters 2 and 3
May 19 Chapters 4, 5 and 6
May 26 Chapters 7, 8
June 2 Chapters 9, 10
June 9 Chapter 11 and Conclusion

As I starter for 10 I thought I would summarise week ones chapters - after all the Bishop recommends that if we blog we reuse work we are doing for other reasons!

Introduction

There is no point in being a Christian! Religions are the "ultimate goal and purpose of our lives" - and if they have a point other than this then why take them seriously?

Religions must also have consequences in our lives - they must make a difference. Pete Rollins has something to say about that:



Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris in the 1940s expresses it as: "It means to live in such a way that ones life would make no sense if God did not exist".

If we are trying to convey our faith to people, and particularly the younger generation who have an interest in spirituality, why do we seem unconvincing and even boring? If we talk about love, freedom and happiness but our churches are not places where people love each other in freedom and happiness why would anyone believe us?

It is also important to be clear that the church is not a place for the perfect! It is "a home for everyone, especially those whose lives are a mess". As my old incumbent used to say - we should have a banner over the door - "Sinners only"!

The rest of the Introduction is a summary of the chapters to come

Chapter 1
This chapter is about hope.
"We will have nothing to say to young people about our faith unless we are prepared to journey with them, literally sometimes, but also mentally".

"We must walk with people, as Jesus walked with the disciples to Emmaus, even if, like those disciples, they sometimes seem to start by walking in the wrong direction."
"If we are able to find ways to live and share our Christian hope, then we shall offer something for which the world is thirsting."
"Do we offer an alternative story of the future?" We believe in the triumph of good over evil, the coming of the Kingdom and the end to all death and suffering - but we cannot tell how this will happen.

The fundamental paradox of Christianity is that "As Christians we gather to remember the story of that Last Supper. It is our foundational story, the one in which we find the meaning of our lives. And yet it is a story which tells of the moment when there was no story to tell, when the future disappeared."
The night on which the Eucharist was instituted is the night in which the hopes of the disciples and their community disintegrated.
There was then a second failure of hope - the disciples expected the second coming, and it did not happen. And yet " intimacy with the Lord grew as those early Christians lost their certainty". "Crises are our specialite de la maison. They rejuvenate us"

Vaclav Havel defines hope thus "Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out".
"Our hope .... is the ultimate and unimaginable victory of meaning". Something that Victor Frankl wrote about.
We are becoming a society which understands signs, symbols and images - you only have to look at all the marketing that goes on - and yet Christianity has had them all along.
"To hope is not just to bet on goodness being stronger than evil." Jesus transformed his handing over into a moment of gift. "So there is nothing in human history that cannot somehow...be embraced and bear its fruit."
"As Christians, we hope for eternity. But eternity is not what happens at the end of time, when we are dead. It begins now, whenever we share God's life. It breaks in whenever we overcome hatred with love".