Having posted here most recently on the Lifeshapes Discipleship Square, today I noted with interest that Steven Croft, who heads up Fresh Expressions, has written a piece summarising the square in response to questions arising from the current Hard Questions tour. The piece, entitled ‘Conscious Incompetence,’ is published in the 04/05/07 edition of The Record, a supplement of The Church of England Newspaper, which can be downloaded free from here. I’m delighted to see Mission Order principles being advocated by such a strategically key leader within the Church of England.
missional church leadership , Lifeshapes , Fresh Expressions , Steven Croft , Mission Shaped Church
SLOW : andrew dowsett : collected musings
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Making Disciples | L4/D4
I’m thinking of a community my wife and I led at one time. We’d done a good job of L1, L2 and L3 leadership, and all kinds of good fruit had flourished in people’s lives. We’d demonstrated our character and growing ability, and been invited to take on another leadership role. And, that first time of visiting, we made a mess of L4…
We made the mistake of assuming that competent team members could simply step up to being competent team leaders. In fact, becoming a leader brings you, as a disciple yourself, to another D1: a competent team member starts out as an unconsciously incompetent leader, and needs to be taken round a whole new discipleship square.
On the night of his arrest, Jesus has a lot to say to his disciples. John’s Gospel gives us a window into that. And he has even more to tell them over the forty days between his resurrection and ascension. Between the end of his Gospel and the start of his sequel, The Acts of the Apostles, Luke gives us an opaque window into that. Jesus is about to move on to a new role – interceding for us at the right hand of the Father – but before he does, he has to finish the current role – disciple-maker of those who will carry his message – well.
Followers at D4 need leaders operating at L4: and this requires not only that we release them, but that we make a good job of reviewing what they have learnt from us – and of putting in place the structures for an ongoing but different relationship. These structures are of both a practical and a relational re-positioning nature. Practically, the disciples won’t see Jesus face-to-face, but will have access to him through his spirit in them. Relationally, they are no longer servants but friends – a very different dynamic. Now they are vision-bearers in their own right, in continuity with the vision Jesus called them to.
Returning to our past mistakes, what would we do different now? What have we done differently since? Principally, I think we gave those who followed us too much rope at once, and then got frustrated when they hanged themselves with it. The lesson we learnt the hard way was to prioritise occasional but regular reviews, continuing the relationship not as leader-follower but as mentor-leader: not telling them what to do, but reminding them how to do well. In practice, and for example, this means that we currently get together every two months with a group of leaders we used to get together with every two weeks when they were our followers; while being mentored ourselves by those who used to lead us.
One day it will be time to move on to something new; if you are a pioneer, such days will happen frequently. That makes it even more important that we invest in our exit strategy…
missional church leadership , making disciples , emerging missional church , Discipleship Square
We made the mistake of assuming that competent team members could simply step up to being competent team leaders. In fact, becoming a leader brings you, as a disciple yourself, to another D1: a competent team member starts out as an unconsciously incompetent leader, and needs to be taken round a whole new discipleship square.
On the night of his arrest, Jesus has a lot to say to his disciples. John’s Gospel gives us a window into that. And he has even more to tell them over the forty days between his resurrection and ascension. Between the end of his Gospel and the start of his sequel, The Acts of the Apostles, Luke gives us an opaque window into that. Jesus is about to move on to a new role – interceding for us at the right hand of the Father – but before he does, he has to finish the current role – disciple-maker of those who will carry his message – well.
Followers at D4 need leaders operating at L4: and this requires not only that we release them, but that we make a good job of reviewing what they have learnt from us – and of putting in place the structures for an ongoing but different relationship. These structures are of both a practical and a relational re-positioning nature. Practically, the disciples won’t see Jesus face-to-face, but will have access to him through his spirit in them. Relationally, they are no longer servants but friends – a very different dynamic. Now they are vision-bearers in their own right, in continuity with the vision Jesus called them to.
Returning to our past mistakes, what would we do different now? What have we done differently since? Principally, I think we gave those who followed us too much rope at once, and then got frustrated when they hanged themselves with it. The lesson we learnt the hard way was to prioritise occasional but regular reviews, continuing the relationship not as leader-follower but as mentor-leader: not telling them what to do, but reminding them how to do well. In practice, and for example, this means that we currently get together every two months with a group of leaders we used to get together with every two weeks when they were our followers; while being mentored ourselves by those who used to lead us.
One day it will be time to move on to something new; if you are a pioneer, such days will happen frequently. That makes it even more important that we invest in our exit strategy…
missional church leadership , making disciples , emerging missional church , Discipleship Square
Making Disciples | L3/D3
One of the biggest problems with inherited-mode church is that we employ the vicar to do for us – vicariously – the work of mission and evangelism. In other words, we take our responsibility to make disciples seriously, by delegating it to the professional. The emerging missional church – both within and out-with institutional structures – has the opportunity to address this. But let’s not pretend it is an easy gravitational pull to break out of.
As his disciples emerge from D2, Jesus shifts gear from L2 to L3. He still takes responsibility for defining the parameters of the vision, and the strategy; but delegates responsibility for implementing them:
“We’re going to move on from Galilee and start making our way towards Jerusalem. I want you to go ahead of me; between you, to cover all the settlements on our route. Find Bed & Breakfast with whoever welcomes you in; and heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, and explain your actions as evidence of God’s kingdom breaking-into the lives of ordinary men, women and children. How you decide who goes where, and who you connect with there, is up to you. Oh, and don’t get hung up on not finding a welcome; move on until you do.”
Jesus takes a step back, gives them space to have a go, to take risks, to experience knock-backs, to see signs of encouragement, to learn from things not turning out as they expected, to grow. But he’s not far behind, available to help them process their experience. This is the season of, “Okay, we’re getting used to telling demons to go and seeing them do so; so, how come this one won’t?” “Try building-in a discipline of prayer and fasting. God uses these things to work away at the resistance to him in you, and as resistance decreases, so his power is able to flow through you more fully.”
Followers at D3 need leaders operating at L3: and that requires of us the humility to let others do what we do – to let them do things perhaps not the way we would have done it ourselves; and even, at least initially, not as well as we would have done it…It requires of us that we are generous enough to endorse another, in these circumstances; and (because we’re not Jesus) to be big enough to apologise and ask for forgiveness of the other when we fail to do so. And it may require that we have to go to a community and apologise where those we are responsible for sending do something spectacularly wrong (it happens; I’ve known it from the D side and the L side) and have caused unintentional hurt. And to help them learn from their mistake, and give them another go…
missional church leadership , making disciples , emerging missional church , Discipleship Square
As his disciples emerge from D2, Jesus shifts gear from L2 to L3. He still takes responsibility for defining the parameters of the vision, and the strategy; but delegates responsibility for implementing them:
“We’re going to move on from Galilee and start making our way towards Jerusalem. I want you to go ahead of me; between you, to cover all the settlements on our route. Find Bed & Breakfast with whoever welcomes you in; and heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, and explain your actions as evidence of God’s kingdom breaking-into the lives of ordinary men, women and children. How you decide who goes where, and who you connect with there, is up to you. Oh, and don’t get hung up on not finding a welcome; move on until you do.”
Jesus takes a step back, gives them space to have a go, to take risks, to experience knock-backs, to see signs of encouragement, to learn from things not turning out as they expected, to grow. But he’s not far behind, available to help them process their experience. This is the season of, “Okay, we’re getting used to telling demons to go and seeing them do so; so, how come this one won’t?” “Try building-in a discipline of prayer and fasting. God uses these things to work away at the resistance to him in you, and as resistance decreases, so his power is able to flow through you more fully.”
Followers at D3 need leaders operating at L3: and that requires of us the humility to let others do what we do – to let them do things perhaps not the way we would have done it ourselves; and even, at least initially, not as well as we would have done it…It requires of us that we are generous enough to endorse another, in these circumstances; and (because we’re not Jesus) to be big enough to apologise and ask for forgiveness of the other when we fail to do so. And it may require that we have to go to a community and apologise where those we are responsible for sending do something spectacularly wrong (it happens; I’ve known it from the D side and the L side) and have caused unintentional hurt. And to help them learn from their mistake, and give them another go…
missional church leadership , making disciples , emerging missional church , Discipleship Square
Making Disciples | L2/D2
You’ve cast a vision to start something in a ‘new’ neighbourhood. A few others have joined you – some because they are attracted to you, some because they are attracted to the vision – and a core team has begun to coalesce. One couple committed to join you for two years; that time is up, and they are moving on. About the same time, another family had to move on due to redeployment at work. Good things have been going on, but whatever growth you had hoped for – deepening relationships with neighbours, say – has been slower than the team might have hoped. Now it seems like you’ve taken a collective hit; a backward step from some ‘critical mass’ in momentum. Morale heads south. What are you going to do?
Quite early into Jesus’ public ministry, we see him working hard – and not entirely successfully – to get away from the crowds in order to spend a significant amount of time with his disciples, who have come to the realisation that they have given up their means of providing food and clothing for themselves and their families, to follow a visionary who might be out of his mind, and is certainly starting to attract hostile attention from influential enemies…
Followers at D2 need leaders operating at L2: and this level of encouragement requires prioritising significant amounts of contact time. Naturally pioneering leaders – the kind of leaders we often see in emerging missional churches – will find this requirement frustrating, because you will find yourself spending more time with your team behind closed doors than ‘out there’ engaging with the community. But if you fail to bite the bullet on this one, you will end up as a chaplain to a de-motivated group of people, until the day you have had enough of that and quit…
missional church leadership , making disciples , emerging missional church , Discipleship Square
Quite early into Jesus’ public ministry, we see him working hard – and not entirely successfully – to get away from the crowds in order to spend a significant amount of time with his disciples, who have come to the realisation that they have given up their means of providing food and clothing for themselves and their families, to follow a visionary who might be out of his mind, and is certainly starting to attract hostile attention from influential enemies…
Followers at D2 need leaders operating at L2: and this level of encouragement requires prioritising significant amounts of contact time. Naturally pioneering leaders – the kind of leaders we often see in emerging missional churches – will find this requirement frustrating, because you will find yourself spending more time with your team behind closed doors than ‘out there’ engaging with the community. But if you fail to bite the bullet on this one, you will end up as a chaplain to a de-motivated group of people, until the day you have had enough of that and quit…
missional church leadership , making disciples , emerging missional church , Discipleship Square
Making Disciples | L1/D1
There are four stages to discipleship (notation: D1, D2, D3, D4), and each stage calls for a different approach to leading (notation: L1, L2, L3, L4). Being realistic we are likely to naturally default to one, or possibly two, of these; and be naturally weaker at one or more others – depending on our personality, and our own experience of being led. But we can learn from Jesus how to operate appropriately to each stage, as we seek to make disciples who make disciples until the end of the age.
To recap, the stages of discipleship are: unconscious incompetence (D1); conscious incompetence (D2); conscious competence (D3); and unconscious competence (D4).
Allow me to make two general observations:
1) inherited-mode church is deeply, profoundly risk-averse. Institutional leaders rarely permit pioneering developments without first requiring fully-comprehensive risk-assessment and detailed plans mapped out up front.
2) the emerging church is deeply, profoundly committed to decision-making by consensus; and suspicious – as the result of abuses they have witnessed in the inherited-mode church – of strong individual leadership.
Both positions are deeply, profoundly unhelpful starting points, and equally contribute to conspire against pioneering new growth ever taking off.
Followers at D1 need leaders operating at L1: single-minded vision-bearers, with the ability to spot potential that has not yet been proven (prioritising character before gifting) and extend opportunity, the invitation to invest in the life of another. Leaders operating at L1 will be big on vision, big on opportunity to be with them as they engage with their vision, low in explanation concerning the vision – not weighing relationship down with theory, but allowing explanation to follow experience; drawing-out questions rather than downloading answers; hands-on learning rather than academic study. And some people need a bit more structure than that, and might show an initial interest that rapidly falls away: but L1 leaders won’t beat themselves up over that (“Was it something I said?” “Please don’t go…”), or beat the other guy up either (“Well, they were never going to amount to much – too many issues.”). Leaders operating at L1 will hear the concerns of their bishops and their congregation, acknowledge them, affirm the individuals…and then get on with what they are about. And the Chuch needs to learn to give them permission to do so.
Antione de Saint-Exupery’s dictum “If you want people to build ships, you don’t have to teach them how to cut wood, you just have to teach how to dream about the endless sea…” is popular with emerging missional church commentators. And it perfectly expresses L1 visionary leadership. But, if you want people to build ships, at some point you do have to teach them how to cut wood; to move into and through conscious incompetence…They need to learn some skills – not only how to build a ship, but how to navigate by the stars so they can cross the sea. Keeping the dream alive – returning to it time and time and time again; resisting the siren allure of other, seemingly more appealing, dreams; not permitting dilution or distraction (Jesus telling Peter to “Get behind me, satan” is not pastorally sensitive. Get over it.) – will carry them through the trough of the wave that obliterates the sky above and threatens to drown us almost before we have begun…
missional church leadership , making disciples , emerging missional church , Discipleship Square
To recap, the stages of discipleship are: unconscious incompetence (D1); conscious incompetence (D2); conscious competence (D3); and unconscious competence (D4).
Allow me to make two general observations:
1) inherited-mode church is deeply, profoundly risk-averse. Institutional leaders rarely permit pioneering developments without first requiring fully-comprehensive risk-assessment and detailed plans mapped out up front.
2) the emerging church is deeply, profoundly committed to decision-making by consensus; and suspicious – as the result of abuses they have witnessed in the inherited-mode church – of strong individual leadership.
Both positions are deeply, profoundly unhelpful starting points, and equally contribute to conspire against pioneering new growth ever taking off.
Followers at D1 need leaders operating at L1: single-minded vision-bearers, with the ability to spot potential that has not yet been proven (prioritising character before gifting) and extend opportunity, the invitation to invest in the life of another. Leaders operating at L1 will be big on vision, big on opportunity to be with them as they engage with their vision, low in explanation concerning the vision – not weighing relationship down with theory, but allowing explanation to follow experience; drawing-out questions rather than downloading answers; hands-on learning rather than academic study. And some people need a bit more structure than that, and might show an initial interest that rapidly falls away: but L1 leaders won’t beat themselves up over that (“Was it something I said?” “Please don’t go…”), or beat the other guy up either (“Well, they were never going to amount to much – too many issues.”). Leaders operating at L1 will hear the concerns of their bishops and their congregation, acknowledge them, affirm the individuals…and then get on with what they are about. And the Chuch needs to learn to give them permission to do so.
Antione de Saint-Exupery’s dictum “If you want people to build ships, you don’t have to teach them how to cut wood, you just have to teach how to dream about the endless sea…” is popular with emerging missional church commentators. And it perfectly expresses L1 visionary leadership. But, if you want people to build ships, at some point you do have to teach them how to cut wood; to move into and through conscious incompetence…They need to learn some skills – not only how to build a ship, but how to navigate by the stars so they can cross the sea. Keeping the dream alive – returning to it time and time and time again; resisting the siren allure of other, seemingly more appealing, dreams; not permitting dilution or distraction (Jesus telling Peter to “Get behind me, satan” is not pastorally sensitive. Get over it.) – will carry them through the trough of the wave that obliterates the sky above and threatens to drown us almost before we have begun…
missional church leadership , making disciples , emerging missional church , Discipleship Square
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Everyday Images Of The Cross
That Hideous Man (Gavin, in Perth, Scotland) sent me an email suggesting I consider submitting a photograph to the Rood Awakenings gallery. Rood Awakenings is a fringe event at the forthcoming Perth Festival of the Arts, and the gallery will showcase images of the cross in daily life, illustrating how representations of the cross are all around us, influencing us to a greater or lesser extent. Last year I submitted several photographs to a local exhibition, and this online exhibition could be well worth a visit, if it attracts enough submissions.
I took these images late this afternoon. They are probably too subtle to submit, lack enough contrast; but a negative image cross (i.e. one formed by the space between solid forms) has been created in this finely-chopped onion.* The very ordinariness of this tiny detail gives it its power: brings the cross into the heart of the home, grounded in the domestic busyness of the kitchen; emphasises the place of the cross in God’s ongoing everyday provision for our lives; speaks of its sweet-and-bitterness…
*the handiwork of my wife – I have no idea how to cut an onion like that!
Rood Awakenings , the cross
I took these images late this afternoon. They are probably too subtle to submit, lack enough contrast; but a negative image cross (i.e. one formed by the space between solid forms) has been created in this finely-chopped onion.* The very ordinariness of this tiny detail gives it its power: brings the cross into the heart of the home, grounded in the domestic busyness of the kitchen; emphasises the place of the cross in God’s ongoing everyday provision for our lives; speaks of its sweet-and-bitterness…
*the handiwork of my wife – I have no idea how to cut an onion like that!
Rood Awakenings , the cross
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Discipleship | Competence
The symptoms of my being of ‘low mood’ at present include a significant loss of confidence in my ability to do things that I have done at a level of competence in the past. While this feels crap, I know that God works in all circumstances, whether good or bad, to bring good for those who love him.
There are four stages to being/making disciples (in any sphere – think about the stages of learning to drive a car, for example):
unconscious incompetence (you’ve just got your provisional licence…);
conscious incompetence (“I’m never going to pass my test…”);
conscious competence (you can drive/parallel park so long as you think about what you are doing);
unconscious competence (you drive/parallel park without thinking about driving/parking).
(This summarises the Lifeshapes Discipleship Square, based on Jesus’ dealings with his disciples in the Gospels.)
My friend Sharon describes it like this:
a stage defined by ‘self’ (one can imagine Jesus’ disciples feeling special at being chosen by him, perhaps even superior to those who weren’t);
a stage defined by ‘emptying’ of self;
a stage defined by ‘being filled’ by God;
and a stage defined by the ‘overflow’ of what has filled us touching others.
The thing is, it’s hard to teach someone else to do something that you do at a level of unconscious competence: “How do you do that?” “I just do.”
Sometimes, we need to be taken back to a stage where we have to work through conscious competence in order to better teach others what we have been taught.
missional church leadership , making disciples , competence , Discipleship Square
There are four stages to being/making disciples (in any sphere – think about the stages of learning to drive a car, for example):
unconscious incompetence (you’ve just got your provisional licence…);
conscious incompetence (“I’m never going to pass my test…”);
conscious competence (you can drive/parallel park so long as you think about what you are doing);
unconscious competence (you drive/parallel park without thinking about driving/parking).
(This summarises the Lifeshapes Discipleship Square, based on Jesus’ dealings with his disciples in the Gospels.)
My friend Sharon describes it like this:
a stage defined by ‘self’ (one can imagine Jesus’ disciples feeling special at being chosen by him, perhaps even superior to those who weren’t);
a stage defined by ‘emptying’ of self;
a stage defined by ‘being filled’ by God;
and a stage defined by the ‘overflow’ of what has filled us touching others.
The thing is, it’s hard to teach someone else to do something that you do at a level of unconscious competence: “How do you do that?” “I just do.”
Sometimes, we need to be taken back to a stage where we have to work through conscious competence in order to better teach others what we have been taught.
missional church leadership , making disciples , competence , Discipleship Square
Refreshment
The garden has been a place of micro-retreat, a well that goes deep to living water, for me in all this. Over the past few days I’ve observed Blue Tits in the early morning and Magpies in the afternoon; and yesterday morning, after the first rain in six weeks fell over night, the unfurling of the masses of Bluebells…
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labour or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendour was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
(Jesus, Matthew 6:25-34)
small is beautiful
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labour or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendour was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
(Jesus, Matthew 6:25-34)
small is beautiful
Depressed But Hopeful
Recently I have been of what my GP diagnosed on Monday as ‘low mood.’
The past six months or so have been hard. Several pressure circumstances have coincided, and ground me down in incremental bites – each bite small enough to go, almost, unnoticed, easily dismissed; but collectively decimating – to the point where I was existing more than living. And that, in turn, has put massively increased burdens on Jo. Very recently, the ongoing situation has been interrupted by a kairos moment; a point of shouting out ‘ENOUGH!’ with the status quo; an opportunity for the kingdom of God to break in and transform our circumstances, as we repent and believe.
I’ve written before about the process of repentance and belief: of having one’s eyes opened to observe what is going on, to reflect on the situation, and seek to discuss it appropriately with friends who will help us to see rightly; and then of making a plan together of how we will live differently, asking friends to hold us to account to do what we have said we will do, before we act in a different way from before. (This summarises the Lifeshapes Learning Circle, based on Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.)
But I wanted to name the pressure points, because they are incredibly common and yet as Church we are often silent about them - which is a mistake, because in naming things we bring them into the light, and they begin to lose their hold over us.
Our third child, Elijah, who is 8 months old, cries much more than his sister and brother did. And every time he has cried, something inside of me has shut down; something that should have responded to his calling out with emotional presence and practical support; something that should have drawn the family closer, not driven us apart. (I guess all those friends who wished ‘pay back’ on us for having two easy babies have got what you wished for. I forgive you, totally. Just be careful what you wish for…) And now I can understand why parents, and child-minders, sometimes harm babies, sometimes fatally. They say you shouldn’t judge another man until you have walked in his shoes. I guess the point is not that gaining an understanding of their experience of life qualifies you to pass judgement; but that once you have such insight you will want only mercy for them, and pass up on the ‘right’ to call for judgement at all…
I don’t recall ever hearing such things brought into the light when church has gathered. I suspect that this is, at least in part, out of deference for those to whom it does not apply. But sometimes single/married/childless/parenting/caring for a disabled or elderly relative/[keep filling in the blank as relevant] people need to take a back seat and learn of the things married/single/parenting/childless/[fill the blank]/caring people struggle with. If we only discuss lowest-common-denominator experiences, or speak in generalisations, we will fail to carry one another’s burdens; to live as God’s redeemed-and-being-redeemed family. Instead, we give everyone the impression that the church is biased towards whichever group of people they do not fit into, and give the accuser room to sow seeds of resentment.
At the same time, my experience of the workplace is pretty shitty. I can’t discuss the situation in any detail, but suffice to say that it concerns workplace politics, and a feud between certain individuals that has resulted in everyone else being caught in the crossfire. And again, I’m aware of several other individuals whose workplace is a miserable and/or unjust place; and I suspect that this is a fairly common experience.
And then there has been the process of discerning with the Diocese and wider Church of England my sense of vocation, and my sense that this is the time to move into that calling. That has been a difficult and at times very painful journey. It feels like, if you survive the process, you’re fit to go through. Nietzsche proposed that whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. I’m inclined to disagree. I suspect the institutional process results in a lot of people – curates, junior doctors, whatever – starting out crushed in spirit.
The good news is all three of these specific pressure circumstances have fairly close resolution dates: Elijah will learn to speak, instead of cry; I leave my present employment in the summer, whatever happens next; and I have a date for a selection panel in the summer, and an offer of a college place to take up if I am approved. The better news is that we have the opportunity to address how we will better deal with other pressure circumstances that will, inevitably, arise in the future; and friends who will support us in that process.
under pressure , low mood , hope , Learning Circle
The past six months or so have been hard. Several pressure circumstances have coincided, and ground me down in incremental bites – each bite small enough to go, almost, unnoticed, easily dismissed; but collectively decimating – to the point where I was existing more than living. And that, in turn, has put massively increased burdens on Jo. Very recently, the ongoing situation has been interrupted by a kairos moment; a point of shouting out ‘ENOUGH!’ with the status quo; an opportunity for the kingdom of God to break in and transform our circumstances, as we repent and believe.
I’ve written before about the process of repentance and belief: of having one’s eyes opened to observe what is going on, to reflect on the situation, and seek to discuss it appropriately with friends who will help us to see rightly; and then of making a plan together of how we will live differently, asking friends to hold us to account to do what we have said we will do, before we act in a different way from before. (This summarises the Lifeshapes Learning Circle, based on Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.)
But I wanted to name the pressure points, because they are incredibly common and yet as Church we are often silent about them - which is a mistake, because in naming things we bring them into the light, and they begin to lose their hold over us.
Our third child, Elijah, who is 8 months old, cries much more than his sister and brother did. And every time he has cried, something inside of me has shut down; something that should have responded to his calling out with emotional presence and practical support; something that should have drawn the family closer, not driven us apart. (I guess all those friends who wished ‘pay back’ on us for having two easy babies have got what you wished for. I forgive you, totally. Just be careful what you wish for…) And now I can understand why parents, and child-minders, sometimes harm babies, sometimes fatally. They say you shouldn’t judge another man until you have walked in his shoes. I guess the point is not that gaining an understanding of their experience of life qualifies you to pass judgement; but that once you have such insight you will want only mercy for them, and pass up on the ‘right’ to call for judgement at all…
I don’t recall ever hearing such things brought into the light when church has gathered. I suspect that this is, at least in part, out of deference for those to whom it does not apply. But sometimes single/married/childless/parenting/caring for a disabled or elderly relative/[keep filling in the blank as relevant] people need to take a back seat and learn of the things married/single/parenting/childless/[fill the blank]/caring people struggle with. If we only discuss lowest-common-denominator experiences, or speak in generalisations, we will fail to carry one another’s burdens; to live as God’s redeemed-and-being-redeemed family. Instead, we give everyone the impression that the church is biased towards whichever group of people they do not fit into, and give the accuser room to sow seeds of resentment.
At the same time, my experience of the workplace is pretty shitty. I can’t discuss the situation in any detail, but suffice to say that it concerns workplace politics, and a feud between certain individuals that has resulted in everyone else being caught in the crossfire. And again, I’m aware of several other individuals whose workplace is a miserable and/or unjust place; and I suspect that this is a fairly common experience.
And then there has been the process of discerning with the Diocese and wider Church of England my sense of vocation, and my sense that this is the time to move into that calling. That has been a difficult and at times very painful journey. It feels like, if you survive the process, you’re fit to go through. Nietzsche proposed that whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. I’m inclined to disagree. I suspect the institutional process results in a lot of people – curates, junior doctors, whatever – starting out crushed in spirit.
The good news is all three of these specific pressure circumstances have fairly close resolution dates: Elijah will learn to speak, instead of cry; I leave my present employment in the summer, whatever happens next; and I have a date for a selection panel in the summer, and an offer of a college place to take up if I am approved. The better news is that we have the opportunity to address how we will better deal with other pressure circumstances that will, inevitably, arise in the future; and friends who will support us in that process.
under pressure , low mood , hope , Learning Circle
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Sketch
It might not look much to you, but this preparatory sketch for an oil painting (which may or may not materialise) is the first time in years I’ve drawn (last time was BC, or Before Children…), and that makes it significant to me. It is of a part of Blacka Moor, looking towards Totley Moor on the horizon.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Resurrection | Uncertainty
Easter has come to be a great celebration of the Church – and rightly so. But it is worth remembering that Jesus’ resurrection gives rise to uncertainty as much as to certainty – and, indeed, that in response to the resurrected Lord we may have to pass through uncertainty before certainty (in the sense of confidence, not empirical proof) can be ours.
Thomas famously ‘doubts,’ and is held up by the Church as the example par excellence of lack of faith (somewhat unfairly, as Jesus comes to restore Thomas just as he comes to restore Peter who has denied him). Thomas lacks certainty that Jesus has risen from the dead. In this, it seems to me, he does not doubt God; but expresses uncertainty in the ability of the community of disciples to rightly discern what God is up to; and quite possibly uncertainty in his own ability to do likewise.
Peter also expresses uncertainty: having encountered the risen Jesus, and knowing him to be so, Peter and others return to Galilee, and take up their fishing nets. In going back to what he had been doing before God called him to follow, Peter demonstrates an uncertainty in his ability to discern what God is up to now.
At times, I have uncertainty in the ability of the Church to rightly discern God’s leading. At times I am challenged to accept uncertainty in my ability to do likewise. Having ‘gone through’ Good Friday and Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday, I may wish it were otherwise. But perhaps this is as much part of the post-Easter continuation of the story as our celebrations.
Easter , resurrection
Thomas famously ‘doubts,’ and is held up by the Church as the example par excellence of lack of faith (somewhat unfairly, as Jesus comes to restore Thomas just as he comes to restore Peter who has denied him). Thomas lacks certainty that Jesus has risen from the dead. In this, it seems to me, he does not doubt God; but expresses uncertainty in the ability of the community of disciples to rightly discern what God is up to; and quite possibly uncertainty in his own ability to do likewise.
Peter also expresses uncertainty: having encountered the risen Jesus, and knowing him to be so, Peter and others return to Galilee, and take up their fishing nets. In going back to what he had been doing before God called him to follow, Peter demonstrates an uncertainty in his ability to discern what God is up to now.
At times, I have uncertainty in the ability of the Church to rightly discern God’s leading. At times I am challenged to accept uncertainty in my ability to do likewise. Having ‘gone through’ Good Friday and Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday, I may wish it were otherwise. But perhaps this is as much part of the post-Easter continuation of the story as our celebrations.
Easter , resurrection
Meeting The Resurrected Jesus
Risen Lord Jesus, reconcile me
With you, and with
My wife
My children
Your Church
My neighbour
The Earth
For I have fallen short
As disciple
And husband
And father
And member of your body
And neighbour
And steward of creation
Christ with pierced feet
Come to me:
Pierce the walls I have built around me
To hide behind,
And still my fear
With your peace
Christ with pierced hands
Come to me:
Pierce the night through which
I have laboured in my own strength,
And still my striving
With your grace
Christ with pierced side
Come to me:
Who has denied your place
In my life,
And pierce my heart
With your restoring love
Easter , resurrection
With you, and with
My wife
My children
Your Church
My neighbour
The Earth
For I have fallen short
As disciple
And husband
And father
And member of your body
And neighbour
And steward of creation
Christ with pierced feet
Come to me:
Pierce the walls I have built around me
To hide behind,
And still my fear
With your peace
Christ with pierced hands
Come to me:
Pierce the night through which
I have laboured in my own strength,
And still my striving
With your grace
Christ with pierced side
Come to me:
Who has denied your place
In my life,
And pierce my heart
With your restoring love
Easter , resurrection
Friday, April 06, 2007
Good Friday | The Cross | Reconciled Creation
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Colossians 1:15-20
The cross is a paradox: at once, one of the central images of Christianity; and yet an unfathomable mystery. (This paradox is equally true of other central Christian images, such as bread and wine, and baptism. I believe that they are meant to present us with such a paradox.) At best, the Church has made use of several different ways of talking about the cross, to partially describe facets of its significance. At worst, the Church has elevated one or other particular way of talking about to cross as being the most important, or even the explanation.
Evangelical and Liberal traditions alike (though in different ways) emphasise the rational and elevate knowledge (for example, the evangelical Alpha course tells those interested in Christianity which Questions they need to be asking, and which Answers they need to arrive at; while Liberal Christianity strips the funding narrative of the faith of any elements that cannot be measured and explained by scientific enquiry: both traditions focus on ‘knowing the right things,’ often at the expense of ‘knowing in the right way,’ that is, understanding that results in transformation rather than simply information). Each tradition, in its own way, fears mystery – as being fundamentally undermining to faith…
One of the more overlooked dimensions of the cross is its place in relation to creation wider than humanity (let alone individuals). But according to Colossians 1, the cross is – somehow – key to a work of reconciliation, the scope of which takes in ‘all things.’ We need to rediscover this element…
Wood,
Taken from trees of the fields
That clapped their hands in praise;
Co-opted, against its will, by men
To stretch out the hands
That moulded the earth…
Iron,
Dug from the ground,
Smelted,
Poured into moulds,
Nine-inch nails,
To pierce the hands
That moulded the earth…
Wood,
And iron,
And flesh,
Brought together by men –
And reconciled by God…
Holy Week , Good Friday , the cross
Colossians 1:15-20
The cross is a paradox: at once, one of the central images of Christianity; and yet an unfathomable mystery. (This paradox is equally true of other central Christian images, such as bread and wine, and baptism. I believe that they are meant to present us with such a paradox.) At best, the Church has made use of several different ways of talking about the cross, to partially describe facets of its significance. At worst, the Church has elevated one or other particular way of talking about to cross as being the most important, or even the explanation.
Evangelical and Liberal traditions alike (though in different ways) emphasise the rational and elevate knowledge (for example, the evangelical Alpha course tells those interested in Christianity which Questions they need to be asking, and which Answers they need to arrive at; while Liberal Christianity strips the funding narrative of the faith of any elements that cannot be measured and explained by scientific enquiry: both traditions focus on ‘knowing the right things,’ often at the expense of ‘knowing in the right way,’ that is, understanding that results in transformation rather than simply information). Each tradition, in its own way, fears mystery – as being fundamentally undermining to faith…
One of the more overlooked dimensions of the cross is its place in relation to creation wider than humanity (let alone individuals). But according to Colossians 1, the cross is – somehow – key to a work of reconciliation, the scope of which takes in ‘all things.’ We need to rediscover this element…
Wood,
Taken from trees of the fields
That clapped their hands in praise;
Co-opted, against its will, by men
To stretch out the hands
That moulded the earth…
Iron,
Dug from the ground,
Smelted,
Poured into moulds,
Nine-inch nails,
To pierce the hands
That moulded the earth…
Wood,
And iron,
And flesh,
Brought together by men –
And reconciled by God…
Holy Week , Good Friday , the cross
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Palm Sunday | April Fool
Frequently in the headlines, for all the wrong reasons; and name-checked, somewhat too lazily, by the Media at any eruption anywhere of the social ills common to the multicultural inner-city; the Jerusalem Estate had become a national byword for trouble.
The last time the local MP visited, rioting had ensued. And that had left the government with a problem they had to respond to, in a decisive manner…But to parachute-in the Home Secretary would be seen as an admission that, for all their talk of being Tough On Crime, Tough On The Causes Of Crime, they had lost grip of the situation; lost the Law And Order debate. The PM summoned the unfortunate MP: he would have to go back. He’d have, of course, the PM’s public backing – every confidence; standing by my man – of course; but, if he were to screw up again, that would – you do understand – be the end of his political career: do I make myself clear?
The MP returned to his constituency, and made his visit. The police presence on the streets was visibly raised – some would say, heavy-handed. He drove through in a big car, complete with police outriders – more in keeping with the visit of a senior cabinet minister, or member of the royal family.
Jesus read about it the next morning in the papers, over breakfast. Then he sent two of his mates to fetch him a car: a new one, just delivered by the dealership to a regular bloke who lived on the edge of the Estate – he hadn’t even driven it yet. Jesus was going joy-riding.
Somehow the neighbours realised what was behind Jesus’ actions. Not dissing them, but identifying with them. Parodying the Official Visit. Not bringing the neighbourhood down; but celebrating it. Even the guy whose car was chosen knew he’d get it back without a scratch.
So Jesus set off, driving through the Estate, windows down, radio turned up high – loud enough to bother the police, now back down to normal numbers, with not enough back-up to risk making an arrest – waving at passers-by as he went. Word spread. People came out of their houses. The atmosphere among the crowd remained good-natured throughout; but a fair degree of vandalism to street furniture was later reported, as they celebrated somewhat enthusiastically (several traffic cones were liberated; that sort of thing).
Later Jesus returned the car, unscratched, to its owner; and went out for a curry with his mates.
(Some years later the government decided to bulldoze the Estate and relocate the community. The police had to evict whole streets of families from their homes.)
And Jesus asked, “How ought my Church relate to the wider community? As those arriving to gift her patronage, and demanding the appropriate respect; or fully identifying with the locals, even at the risk of appearing foolish?”
[Archives: here is what I wrote last Palm Sunday]
Lent , Palm Sunday , April Fool
The last time the local MP visited, rioting had ensued. And that had left the government with a problem they had to respond to, in a decisive manner…But to parachute-in the Home Secretary would be seen as an admission that, for all their talk of being Tough On Crime, Tough On The Causes Of Crime, they had lost grip of the situation; lost the Law And Order debate. The PM summoned the unfortunate MP: he would have to go back. He’d have, of course, the PM’s public backing – every confidence; standing by my man – of course; but, if he were to screw up again, that would – you do understand – be the end of his political career: do I make myself clear?
The MP returned to his constituency, and made his visit. The police presence on the streets was visibly raised – some would say, heavy-handed. He drove through in a big car, complete with police outriders – more in keeping with the visit of a senior cabinet minister, or member of the royal family.
Jesus read about it the next morning in the papers, over breakfast. Then he sent two of his mates to fetch him a car: a new one, just delivered by the dealership to a regular bloke who lived on the edge of the Estate – he hadn’t even driven it yet. Jesus was going joy-riding.
Somehow the neighbours realised what was behind Jesus’ actions. Not dissing them, but identifying with them. Parodying the Official Visit. Not bringing the neighbourhood down; but celebrating it. Even the guy whose car was chosen knew he’d get it back without a scratch.
So Jesus set off, driving through the Estate, windows down, radio turned up high – loud enough to bother the police, now back down to normal numbers, with not enough back-up to risk making an arrest – waving at passers-by as he went. Word spread. People came out of their houses. The atmosphere among the crowd remained good-natured throughout; but a fair degree of vandalism to street furniture was later reported, as they celebrated somewhat enthusiastically (several traffic cones were liberated; that sort of thing).
Later Jesus returned the car, unscratched, to its owner; and went out for a curry with his mates.
(Some years later the government decided to bulldoze the Estate and relocate the community. The police had to evict whole streets of families from their homes.)
And Jesus asked, “How ought my Church relate to the wider community? As those arriving to gift her patronage, and demanding the appropriate respect; or fully identifying with the locals, even at the risk of appearing foolish?”
[Archives: here is what I wrote last Palm Sunday]
Lent , Palm Sunday , April Fool
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Jesus | Stations Of The Cross
I wanted to piece together a series of images representing the Stations of the Cross. The fourteen stations, traditionally depicting scenes from the last week of Jesus’ life through sculpture or painting, form a spiritual pilgrimage in preparation for Easter. Some variation exists as to the scenes, and I’ve chosen a list created by Pope John Paul II, which limits itself to scenes recounted in the New Testament Gospels and eschews stations inspired by extra-biblical church tradition. I’ve also chosen to let the images stand alone, but to offer a short commentary in the form of a comment to each post.
Lent , Holy Week , Stations of the Cross
Lent , Holy Week , Stations of the Cross
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Cross Of God
The shadow of the cross encroaches upon Lent, as the shadow of the earth encroaches upon the surface of the moon.
Because Jesus’ anguish is, at least in part, corporeal; because we can depict his Passion, and gaze upon our depiction; because we are young enough to believe we can imagine what it felt like; we have constructed a Christocentric cross.
But for Trinitarians, a Christocentric cross alone is an inadequate representation. Indeed, such a representation may contribute heavily to erroneous theology, such as Jesus as victim of a malevolent, vengeful, abusive patriarch; or Jesus as a masochistic uber-male ideal.
At the cross, not just Jesus’ physical body, but the Trinity is shattered; its persons dispersed:
The Father, in his heavenly palace; his radiance shrouded in grief; his face turned away from the prolonged death of his Son, as King David did before him…
The Spirit, brooding over the chaos of a satan-smashed earth, as at ‘the beginning’; watching, waiting (for the moment when she will breathe into Jesus’ nostrils, re-animating this adam who has returned to the dust from which he was made)…
The Son, laid low in Sheol, the shadowy grave…
…The central unity of the universe, scattered to three corners, to the margins.
But the Trinity is not a community that has been touched by loss, and carries on diminished, in a lessened form, growing weary unto death by implosion or explosion. Through the communitas forged in response to the cross, the eternal community of the Trinity is re-imagined, re-configured, renewed:
The Son now keeps his (transformed) bodily form, to intercede for those who share it; whereas he has pointed to the Father, now the Father exalts the Son; the Spirit will now be poured out on all flesh, young and old, male and female…
And it is precisely because the Trinity has been shattered and marginalised by hatred and re-membered anew by love that we, who have been shattered and marginalised, can be re-membered anew by that same love; and, in being re-membered, have hope to hold out to those around us.
Lent , spirituality , the trinity , missional church
Because Jesus’ anguish is, at least in part, corporeal; because we can depict his Passion, and gaze upon our depiction; because we are young enough to believe we can imagine what it felt like; we have constructed a Christocentric cross.
But for Trinitarians, a Christocentric cross alone is an inadequate representation. Indeed, such a representation may contribute heavily to erroneous theology, such as Jesus as victim of a malevolent, vengeful, abusive patriarch; or Jesus as a masochistic uber-male ideal.
At the cross, not just Jesus’ physical body, but the Trinity is shattered; its persons dispersed:
The Father, in his heavenly palace; his radiance shrouded in grief; his face turned away from the prolonged death of his Son, as King David did before him…
The Spirit, brooding over the chaos of a satan-smashed earth, as at ‘the beginning’; watching, waiting (for the moment when she will breathe into Jesus’ nostrils, re-animating this adam who has returned to the dust from which he was made)…
The Son, laid low in Sheol, the shadowy grave…
…The central unity of the universe, scattered to three corners, to the margins.
But the Trinity is not a community that has been touched by loss, and carries on diminished, in a lessened form, growing weary unto death by implosion or explosion. Through the communitas forged in response to the cross, the eternal community of the Trinity is re-imagined, re-configured, renewed:
The Son now keeps his (transformed) bodily form, to intercede for those who share it; whereas he has pointed to the Father, now the Father exalts the Son; the Spirit will now be poured out on all flesh, young and old, male and female…
And it is precisely because the Trinity has been shattered and marginalised by hatred and re-membered anew by love that we, who have been shattered and marginalised, can be re-membered anew by that same love; and, in being re-membered, have hope to hold out to those around us.
Lent , spirituality , the trinity , missional church
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Celestial Bodies
The moon, as I don’t recall seeing it before. Whereas usually light from the sun illuminates the surface of the moon from one side across its face to the other, at the moment sun, earth and moon are lined up in such a way that the moon is being struck ‘from below’ by sunlight bouncing off the earth.
The bright dot beneath the moon is Venus. It looks like nothing in the photo, but it was stunning to the naked eye this evening…
the moon
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Hen | Mothers Day [UK, Yesterday]
Mothers are a nuisance. Mothers can be really embarrassing.
Mothers have stood up to political authorities, making a nuisance and embarrassing them into doing what is right. Or, if not, embarrassing the wider world into saying, “What you are doing is wrong, and we are watching you.” Or, if even this does not happen, staying anyway…
Mothers have stood up to boy soldiers, embarrassing them, causing them to think twice before carrying out illegal and unethical orders. Or, if not, being beaten, even beaten to death; cut to pieces; (rarely shot – who would waste a bullet on a mother?). But staying anyway…
It will be mothers who take the lead in making a nuisance of themselves and embarrassing the community – if that is what it takes – into addressing the issues behind the recent spate of teenage gang murders in London…while resigned teenagers tell reporters that this is just how things are now, and we just have to live with it; and politicians call for legislation that will reactively address the symptoms, not proactively address root causes.
In his book Exiles [pp. 118-120], Michael Frost writes about the Four Mothers Movement in Israel; Nobel Peace Prize winners Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan from Northern Ireland; and the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo in Argentina – as just some examples of the lead that women have taken in forming communitas, or purpose-intentional community. And while each example embraces women who aren’t mothers, and men, when it comes to social justice, mothers often stand up to be counted first, and stay after everyone else has gone home. Not superwomen. Certainly not porcelain saints. Just tenacious, flawed mothers.
Mothers are undervalued by male-dominated society: in the ‘Developed Nations,’ not least because they generate no immediately obvious economic benefit (of course, neither does the teaching profession – both invest in the future – but that’s a double-standard that needs confronting). Ironically, mothers are equally undervalued by the feminist movement, which insists that the primary context in which women should find fulfilment is through their career, through economic independence, rather than (for men and women) through the quality of their relationships. Mothers have little military-economic power. But, at their best – and we can all tell stories of when mothers fail, at least in our opinion – mothers exert a moral authority that no politician or general or corporate CEO can match, or, with a few notable exceptions, come close to.
Mothers are a nuisance. Mothers can be really embarrassing.
Thank God it is so.
At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.”
He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day – for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
Jesus, Luke 13:31-35
Mothers Day
Friday, March 09, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Lent | A Simple Supper
Tonight I ate on my own. My shift ended at 7pm, so the children were already upstairs; and as soon as I got in, Jo had to go out on an urgent errand for a neighbour. Eating alone gave me cause to give thanks that I am not alone in the world; that I live as part of a loving family; and, more than that, that I am part of a wider community of people who are committed to one another. To pause to recognise that, for many, this is not the case; and to pray for those who are living, and dying, on their own tonight: Lord, have mercy…
The dish was a sweet root vegetable stew with couscous, a Nigella recipe. Root vegetables are humble, and hidden; yet nutritious, and delicious…which gave me cause to reflect on the value of the hidden life; the unpretentious, not-ostentatious, honest, simple life; of unearthing treasure in an apparently unremarkable field, or, seeing the commonly-missed value in others, and encouraging it to flourish…
The main course was followed by a bowl of fresh pineapple pieces, simultaneously sweet and sour on the tongue…which gave me cause to reflect on the nature of this life, where joy and sorrow intertwine; and the responsibility to celebrate with those who are celebrating, and mourn with those who are mourning – to get alongside each other…
A simple supper. A profound meal eaten, not alone after all, but with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sat around my kitchen table…each mouthful a prayer, of praise, of thanksgiving, of confession, of intercession…each mouthful, sustenance received, for body and for soul…
Lent , food , spirituality
The dish was a sweet root vegetable stew with couscous, a Nigella recipe. Root vegetables are humble, and hidden; yet nutritious, and delicious…which gave me cause to reflect on the value of the hidden life; the unpretentious, not-ostentatious, honest, simple life; of unearthing treasure in an apparently unremarkable field, or, seeing the commonly-missed value in others, and encouraging it to flourish…
The main course was followed by a bowl of fresh pineapple pieces, simultaneously sweet and sour on the tongue…which gave me cause to reflect on the nature of this life, where joy and sorrow intertwine; and the responsibility to celebrate with those who are celebrating, and mourn with those who are mourning – to get alongside each other…
A simple supper. A profound meal eaten, not alone after all, but with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sat around my kitchen table…each mouthful a prayer, of praise, of thanksgiving, of confession, of intercession…each mouthful, sustenance received, for body and for soul…
Lent , food , spirituality
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Lent | Responding To Our Enemies
“But what nobody should doubt is that whatever the debates about tactics, the strategy is clear: to bring about enduring change in the Middle East as an indispensable part of our own enduring security. The poisonous ideology that erupted after 9/11 has its roots there, and is still nurtured and supported there. It has chosen Iraq as the battleground. Defeating it is essential. Essential for Iraq.
But also, now, for us here in our own country. Self-evidently the challenge is enormous. It is the purpose of our enemies to make it so. But our purpose in the face of their threat, should be to stand up to them, to make it clear that however arduous the challenge the values that they represent will not win and the values we represent, will.”
Tony Blair, PM, to the House of Commons, 21 February 2007
I must confess to finding speeches such as the one the Prime Minister made in Parliament yesterday disturbing. I am not ‘pro-terrorism’; nor am I ‘pro’ a refusal to take a stand against terrorism. But I do believe that the stand taken by the political leaders of the US and the UK since 9/11 has been deeply misguided, and has had disastrous results. We in the West have believed for centuries, and still believe, that our values are better than the values of the rest of the world; and that our values should be imposed upon the rest of the world, for their own good and betterment.
In the Middle-Eastern desert, Jesus came face to face with his enemy, satan (see Matthew 4:1-11 // Luke 4:1-13). And we could say that he countered the vision the enemy held out for the future by knowing clearly what he valued, and living according to those values. Values such as:
a sense of security in his own identity that does not need justification through flashy display;
a choice to live in harmony with his environment, rather than exploit it to satisfy his own needs;
a disinterest in expansionist political power;
a refusal to take a “the ends justifies the means” approach;
a commitment to live a life of worshipful service in response to God’s revelation;
a patient trust in God’s being at work in the world…
St Francis of Assisi is attributed with the dictum: “The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better.” I’m not convinced that the values we, as western society – and in particular the UK and US – represent are better than anyone else’s right now. I’m not even convinced that we know what our values are. And I’m sure we haven’t taken the time to understand what their values are, and why they hold them. So, if our values win out over theirs, we’re all in trouble…
Lord, have mercy on the oppressed,
and on the oppressor.
Christ, spit in our faces
and open our blind eyes,
to see you in the eyes of those
we have demonised,
and to see signs and symbols pointing to you
in the cultures and values
we have despised and rejected.
Lord, expose us
where our values are but white-washed tombs,
trading on the past;
and where our pride prevents us,
and our militancy prevents others,
from entering into your life of freedom.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Lent
But also, now, for us here in our own country. Self-evidently the challenge is enormous. It is the purpose of our enemies to make it so. But our purpose in the face of their threat, should be to stand up to them, to make it clear that however arduous the challenge the values that they represent will not win and the values we represent, will.”
Tony Blair, PM, to the House of Commons, 21 February 2007
I must confess to finding speeches such as the one the Prime Minister made in Parliament yesterday disturbing. I am not ‘pro-terrorism’; nor am I ‘pro’ a refusal to take a stand against terrorism. But I do believe that the stand taken by the political leaders of the US and the UK since 9/11 has been deeply misguided, and has had disastrous results. We in the West have believed for centuries, and still believe, that our values are better than the values of the rest of the world; and that our values should be imposed upon the rest of the world, for their own good and betterment.
In the Middle-Eastern desert, Jesus came face to face with his enemy, satan (see Matthew 4:1-11 // Luke 4:1-13). And we could say that he countered the vision the enemy held out for the future by knowing clearly what he valued, and living according to those values. Values such as:
a sense of security in his own identity that does not need justification through flashy display;
a choice to live in harmony with his environment, rather than exploit it to satisfy his own needs;
a disinterest in expansionist political power;
a refusal to take a “the ends justifies the means” approach;
a commitment to live a life of worshipful service in response to God’s revelation;
a patient trust in God’s being at work in the world…
St Francis of Assisi is attributed with the dictum: “The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better.” I’m not convinced that the values we, as western society – and in particular the UK and US – represent are better than anyone else’s right now. I’m not even convinced that we know what our values are. And I’m sure we haven’t taken the time to understand what their values are, and why they hold them. So, if our values win out over theirs, we’re all in trouble…
Lord, have mercy on the oppressed,
and on the oppressor.
Christ, spit in our faces
and open our blind eyes,
to see you in the eyes of those
we have demonised,
and to see signs and symbols pointing to you
in the cultures and values
we have despised and rejected.
Lord, expose us
where our values are but white-washed tombs,
trading on the past;
and where our pride prevents us,
and our militancy prevents others,
from entering into your life of freedom.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Lent
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Lent | Intimacy
Lent can feel austere.
But Jesus’ forty days in the desert followed on immediately after God declared: “This is my son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” And Jesus comes out of the desert enfolded by that Father-love. John’s Gospel, in particular, portrays this: “I only do what I see the Father doing…I and the Father are one…if anyone has seen me, they have seen the Father…”
Everything that Jesus DOES flows out of his understanding of who he IS – an understanding that is grounded in intimacy…intimacy that is grounded in his experience in the desert, even in the midst of pressure to denounce that very relationship.
Far from a summons from an austere father-figure, Lent is an invitation to experience intimacy with God.
May God the Father, who is pleased to love his children, enfold us in his love this Lenten season and beyond;
May God the Son, who is our model, teach us to embrace and rest in the Father’s love this Lenten season and beyond;
May God the Holy Spirit, who descended from heaven to Jesus and led him into the desert, come to us and lead us with the Son to our loving heavenly Father this Lenten season and beyond.
“And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to this love that surpasses knowledge – that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.”
Ephesians 3:17b-19
Lent
Lent | Re-calibration
Lent can have the feel of a spiritual endurance test: do I have the will-power to hold out for forty days without succumbing to the siren lure of chocolate/alcohol/whatever-I-have-decided-to-abstain-from? But is self-flagellation – and, if we’re being honest, fairly token self-flagellation at that – really what it is about? While the decision to deny self and take up our cross daily are certainly prerequisites to following after Jesus (Luke 9:23ff), Jesus’ repeated invitation throughout the Gospels is: choose to enter into the life of the kingdom of heaven, through the process of repentance and belief (summarised in Mark 1:15). Though they might well be two sides to the same coin, perhaps Lent is better understood not as embracing the opportunity of dying to self but as embracing the opportunity of taking hold of the life of the kingdom…
To repent means to change our mind (literal translation), or to change the direction in which we are facing; while to believe means to actively step out in that new direction, as an expression of faith. To repent and believe, therefore, is to keep changing direction so as to keep in line with God’s changing will, to keep facing Jesus as he moves on from one place to the next. As I’ve said before, though that includes repenting from ‘sin’ – the times we fall short of God’s best for us – that alone is an inadequate definition: to repent can be pre-emptive (keeping us in God’s will) as well as reactive (returning to God’s will). Until his baptism, Jesus is in line with the Father’s will by being a carpenter, a builder of houses. From his baptism, he must change direction (repent) and head off on a new course (believe), that will lead, ultimately, to Jerusalem and a whole heap of trouble. The forty days he spent in the wilderness immediately following his baptism – the forty days that Lent draws so deeply on – are a period of re-calibration, making adjustments that he will carry into the next season of his life.
Perhaps the question God hopes we will ask through Lent is not what we should temporarily lay aside, but what long-term changes we need to put in place…
Lent
To repent means to change our mind (literal translation), or to change the direction in which we are facing; while to believe means to actively step out in that new direction, as an expression of faith. To repent and believe, therefore, is to keep changing direction so as to keep in line with God’s changing will, to keep facing Jesus as he moves on from one place to the next. As I’ve said before, though that includes repenting from ‘sin’ – the times we fall short of God’s best for us – that alone is an inadequate definition: to repent can be pre-emptive (keeping us in God’s will) as well as reactive (returning to God’s will). Until his baptism, Jesus is in line with the Father’s will by being a carpenter, a builder of houses. From his baptism, he must change direction (repent) and head off on a new course (believe), that will lead, ultimately, to Jerusalem and a whole heap of trouble. The forty days he spent in the wilderness immediately following his baptism – the forty days that Lent draws so deeply on – are a period of re-calibration, making adjustments that he will carry into the next season of his life.
Perhaps the question God hopes we will ask through Lent is not what we should temporarily lay aside, but what long-term changes we need to put in place…
Lent
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Devaluation
Growing up evangelical, and an MK (missionary kid, or child of missionary parents) at that, I know a thing or two about the particular Christian tradition of pointing to heroes of the faith: pioneers of church reform (such as Luther; Wesley; Whitfield), of social reform (such as Wilberforce; Shaftsbury; the Quaker businessmen – and women; Muller; Booth), of mission (such as Carey; Hudson Taylor; Elliot and his companions), and those who faced incredible circumstances (such as Corrie Ten Boom; Joni Eareckson Tada). And, of course, the great biblical heroes: Abraham, Moses, David, Paul.
While there is nothing wrong with retelling such stories per se, telling them with greater enthusiasm than sensitivity results in the very opposite response to the one intended: instead of feeling inspired, we feel condemned. (This is where the Protestant hero of the faith differs from the Catholic saint, because the heroes are ‘supposed’ to be role-models whereas the saints are ‘supposed’ to be somewhat detached.) Here are some of the unspoken problems – whether intentional or unintended, and, I suspect, largely un-thought-through:
First, we’ve devalued the ordinary, by saying that raising children is not enough, that your years of employment are not enough (unless your colleagues ‘get saved’); that these are simply ‘givens’ and that you ought to have a sense of ‘calling,’ a Big Hairy Audacious Goal, that can’t be done in your own strength. (Judging by the evidence of the past fortnight alone, raising children would fall into that category…)
Then, we’ve devalued the extraordinary, by saying that those individuals whose lives impact at least one nation, if not more than one, are ‘just the same as everyone else.’ They’re not. Sure, they are in certain ways; but in others, they’re not. It might not be Politically Correct to say that some people are extraordinary, but it is true. And if we were all extraordinary – all single-handedly Changing The World, as opposed to collectively having an incredible impact – it would be bloody chaos.
We need heroes. We need role-models. And, I’d argue, that the kind of heroes, the kind of role-models, the church needs if it is to have any chance of making a difference in our society, are the kinds of heroes that no-one is ever going to write a biography of, whether in paper or on Wikipedia. Ordinary heroes. Unknown heroes. People you know, but I don’t know of; people I know, but you don’t know of. Heroes I won’t list here, because they don’t need their fifteen minutes of fame: they already have a far longer-lasting impact.
Christianity , heroes of the faith , missional church
While there is nothing wrong with retelling such stories per se, telling them with greater enthusiasm than sensitivity results in the very opposite response to the one intended: instead of feeling inspired, we feel condemned. (This is where the Protestant hero of the faith differs from the Catholic saint, because the heroes are ‘supposed’ to be role-models whereas the saints are ‘supposed’ to be somewhat detached.) Here are some of the unspoken problems – whether intentional or unintended, and, I suspect, largely un-thought-through:
First, we’ve devalued the ordinary, by saying that raising children is not enough, that your years of employment are not enough (unless your colleagues ‘get saved’); that these are simply ‘givens’ and that you ought to have a sense of ‘calling,’ a Big Hairy Audacious Goal, that can’t be done in your own strength. (Judging by the evidence of the past fortnight alone, raising children would fall into that category…)
Then, we’ve devalued the extraordinary, by saying that those individuals whose lives impact at least one nation, if not more than one, are ‘just the same as everyone else.’ They’re not. Sure, they are in certain ways; but in others, they’re not. It might not be Politically Correct to say that some people are extraordinary, but it is true. And if we were all extraordinary – all single-handedly Changing The World, as opposed to collectively having an incredible impact – it would be bloody chaos.
We need heroes. We need role-models. And, I’d argue, that the kind of heroes, the kind of role-models, the church needs if it is to have any chance of making a difference in our society, are the kinds of heroes that no-one is ever going to write a biography of, whether in paper or on Wikipedia. Ordinary heroes. Unknown heroes. People you know, but I don’t know of; people I know, but you don’t know of. Heroes I won’t list here, because they don’t need their fifteen minutes of fame: they already have a far longer-lasting impact.
Christianity , heroes of the faith , missional church
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Charlotte's Web
One evening back in the autumn, I found myself having dinner at a Mexican restaurant with Bob Beltz of Walden Media. Bob had been working on Amazing Grace – a film we’ll be hearing a lot about this spring – and had shown us a sneak-preview trailer earlier in the day. But when, over dinner, I asked him what was exciting him at the moment, he started talking about another Walden project, Charlotte’s Web.
Yesterday I took Susannah (5) and Noah (4) to see Charlotte’s Web. A trip to the cinema has become a half-tem holiday tradition. We all enjoyed it very much. Before we went, I’d read them an abridged version of the story, so they knew that Charlotte dies – is that giving away too crucial a part of the plot of a film adaptation of a children’s classic written in 1952? I don’t think so! – and, though they found that quite sad, they still wanted to see the film. In fact, the film is not as tear-jerking as the book (after all, to get a ‘U’ Certificate, a film has to be considered suitable for anyone aged four and upwards by the censors). But it is full of gentle wisdom on how to see others through the eyes of child-like wonder, and, to borrow a phrase from Rowan Williams, the impact of ‘prosaic heroism’ on a community.
Charlotte’s Web , Walden Media , film , family
Friday, February 16, 2007
United (?) Kingdom | Prosaic Heroism
“The true measure of a nation’s standing is how well it attends to its children – their health and safety, their material security, their education and socialization, and their sense of being loved, valued, and included in the families and societies into which they are born.”
UNICEF: Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries: A comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations.
This week, UNICEF has published a report on child well-being in rich countries. The report considered 6 dimensions of child well-being: material well-being, health and safety, educational well-being, family and peer relationships, behaviours and risks, and subjective well-being. The report compares these 6 dimensions across 21 nations.
The UK ranked last in the family and peer relationships, behaviours and risks, and subjective well-being dimensions; and last overall. The US ranked second last overall. As a society, we are failing our children – and therefore, though we are economically rich, we are poor.
It is interesting to note the impact of the breakdown of family relationships on child well-being. Aware of the sensitive nature of such an observation, the UNICEF Report states:
“The use of data on the proportion of children living in single-parent families and stepfamilies as an indicator of well-being may seem unfair and insensitive. Plenty of children in two-parent families are damaged by their parents’ relationships; plenty of children in single-parent and stepfamilies are growing up secure and happy. Nor can the terms ‘single-parent families’ and ‘stepfamilies’ do justice to the many different kinds of family unit that have become common in recent decades. But at the statistical level there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being – including a greater risk of dropping out of school, of leaving home early, of poorer health, of low skills, and of low pay.” [p. 23]
Equally aware of political sensitivity, and equally unwilling to bow to Political Correctness, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made the following comments in a speech in support of marriage just a week earlier:
“…Because when we’re talking about the marriage relationship, we’re talking about a relationship, which constantly unfolds over time, which allows you to build on difficult experience, to work through it, to move, to mature. It allows you to have a story to tell about yourself, a story that is not just about how I wanted this, and I got that, but a story about how I discovered and moved through time to something more like the humanity that I’m capable of…
“…Marriage is for life; and that doesn’t just mean life-long, important as that is. It means for life; that is for an enhanced kind of human experience…Marriage is a relationship in which my commitment to somebody else, my risky, high risk, commitment to someone else, is matched and met by their risky commitment to me, and as already quoted from the significant source for our understanding on this, let me cap that with something St Paul says about how husband and wife belong not to themselves, but to each other. They really are giving some sort of ownership in themselves to another person, and that is so phenomenally risky that it’s only the mutuality of it, the shared promise of one to the other, that makes it doable. If someone comes along and says ‘give me your life’ you don’t normally just say ‘okay’. You enter into a covenant, a relationship of mutual risk and mutual promise - and that’s how you get a life. You know that someone else has a life invested in yours, as yours is invested in theirs. That seems to me really the bottom line of why marriage matters, not just for this society, but for any human society. That risk of investing yourself on another person, letting them invest themselves in you so completely, that’s about how we grow, about how we become human, and unless that relationship models for the whole of society what’s possible for human beings, we have a desperately impoverished society - and you’ve heard already this morning something of the nature of that impoverishment. Think this through for a moment: the committed relationship of husband and wife in marriage says to people around, and most importantly of all, says to the children of that marriage, it’s quite possible to live as a human being, not afraid at any moment that you’re going to be let down, abandoned, left to yourself. Someone is actually committed to be there for you. That’s what marriage is about, and modelling that kind of unconditional being there, that sets the foundation of stability, trustworthiness, which allows children to grow up confident that whatever goes wrong, for them, in them, through them, there’s something beyond that to hold them, to give them room, time, space, fresh air, to grow. The tragedy of the kind of social situation that we’ve already heard so much about this morning, is fundamentally a level of anxiety and abandonment among so many people who don’t and can’t believe that there’s anybody truly there for them; who don’t believe there’s anything trustworthy, apart from those transient and fraught, intense and violent relationships which was described by Iain [Duncan Smith] in his speech about the ‘gang culture’. If that’s the only kind of stable background people know, well we can expect the disasters that we see. One of the things that Camilla Batmanghelidj, my great heroine, has taught me - seeing her at work, talking to her - is precisely the absolute significance of that background of trustworthiness. Here is someone who is for you; and marriage which says between two people, I am for you and I am for you, says to children, says to those around, that’s the ground on which you grow, that’s the security, that’s what guarantees you, the air, the space, the time to move on.
“So what we’re up against at the moment is a society that has painfully and disastrously low expectations of relationships. I really liked the ‘ambition about relationships’ phrase, which came up earlier. We need to be ambitious about our relationships, ambitious for life, in both senses, ambitious for life-long relationships, ambitious for the kind of depth of human experience, the life that marriage can give. And as expectations spiral downwards then it’s not only the one relationship with marriage that suffers, it’s everything in sight that suffers. We can’t legislate this into being, but we can go on challenging the imagination of society and saying ‘aren’t you being desperately unambitious about what you are capable of? And what those close to you are capable of? Aren’t you lowering, lowering and lowering the sights because actually you are capable of much more than you think you are? When you think that millions of people every year embark on this extraordinary enterprise called marriage, without any exceptional sanctity or heroism, they just do it and they just carry on doing it, doesn’t that say something about the ambition that we can rightly have? And at the risk of sounding slightly sentimental, I think it’s quite important to look back to an earlier generation, remember parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and think there were a lot of very ordinary human beings, not especially saintly, not especially holy, who did this, who ‘got a life’, who worked through all of this with that prosaic heroism that brings out the best in people, that trained a new generation, that shaped the world which had some trustworthy limits, which had some recognisable moral geography to it. Were they wasting their time? Were they living out an illusion? Well if they were we are in a very strange position now, because we are trading on the achievements that they created for us. And that’s of course one of the sad things about some of the debates we have about marriage these days; that a great deal of the running is made in commentating in reflective terms by people who don’t perhaps fully see how much they are trading off the inherited capital of a stability and yes, a prosaic heroism that’s evolved over generations. And the fluidity and changeability of relationships and the transience of marriage may look perfectly fine if you belong to the commentating classes of north London, but you don’t have to go very many miles to see what the cost is for people who can’t take that sort of thing for granted…”
UNICEF , Rowan Williams , marriage , faith and society
UNICEF: Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries: A comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations.
This week, UNICEF has published a report on child well-being in rich countries. The report considered 6 dimensions of child well-being: material well-being, health and safety, educational well-being, family and peer relationships, behaviours and risks, and subjective well-being. The report compares these 6 dimensions across 21 nations.
The UK ranked last in the family and peer relationships, behaviours and risks, and subjective well-being dimensions; and last overall. The US ranked second last overall. As a society, we are failing our children – and therefore, though we are economically rich, we are poor.
It is interesting to note the impact of the breakdown of family relationships on child well-being. Aware of the sensitive nature of such an observation, the UNICEF Report states:
“The use of data on the proportion of children living in single-parent families and stepfamilies as an indicator of well-being may seem unfair and insensitive. Plenty of children in two-parent families are damaged by their parents’ relationships; plenty of children in single-parent and stepfamilies are growing up secure and happy. Nor can the terms ‘single-parent families’ and ‘stepfamilies’ do justice to the many different kinds of family unit that have become common in recent decades. But at the statistical level there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being – including a greater risk of dropping out of school, of leaving home early, of poorer health, of low skills, and of low pay.” [p. 23]
Equally aware of political sensitivity, and equally unwilling to bow to Political Correctness, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made the following comments in a speech in support of marriage just a week earlier:
“…Because when we’re talking about the marriage relationship, we’re talking about a relationship, which constantly unfolds over time, which allows you to build on difficult experience, to work through it, to move, to mature. It allows you to have a story to tell about yourself, a story that is not just about how I wanted this, and I got that, but a story about how I discovered and moved through time to something more like the humanity that I’m capable of…
“…Marriage is for life; and that doesn’t just mean life-long, important as that is. It means for life; that is for an enhanced kind of human experience…Marriage is a relationship in which my commitment to somebody else, my risky, high risk, commitment to someone else, is matched and met by their risky commitment to me, and as already quoted from the significant source for our understanding on this, let me cap that with something St Paul says about how husband and wife belong not to themselves, but to each other. They really are giving some sort of ownership in themselves to another person, and that is so phenomenally risky that it’s only the mutuality of it, the shared promise of one to the other, that makes it doable. If someone comes along and says ‘give me your life’ you don’t normally just say ‘okay’. You enter into a covenant, a relationship of mutual risk and mutual promise - and that’s how you get a life. You know that someone else has a life invested in yours, as yours is invested in theirs. That seems to me really the bottom line of why marriage matters, not just for this society, but for any human society. That risk of investing yourself on another person, letting them invest themselves in you so completely, that’s about how we grow, about how we become human, and unless that relationship models for the whole of society what’s possible for human beings, we have a desperately impoverished society - and you’ve heard already this morning something of the nature of that impoverishment. Think this through for a moment: the committed relationship of husband and wife in marriage says to people around, and most importantly of all, says to the children of that marriage, it’s quite possible to live as a human being, not afraid at any moment that you’re going to be let down, abandoned, left to yourself. Someone is actually committed to be there for you. That’s what marriage is about, and modelling that kind of unconditional being there, that sets the foundation of stability, trustworthiness, which allows children to grow up confident that whatever goes wrong, for them, in them, through them, there’s something beyond that to hold them, to give them room, time, space, fresh air, to grow. The tragedy of the kind of social situation that we’ve already heard so much about this morning, is fundamentally a level of anxiety and abandonment among so many people who don’t and can’t believe that there’s anybody truly there for them; who don’t believe there’s anything trustworthy, apart from those transient and fraught, intense and violent relationships which was described by Iain [Duncan Smith] in his speech about the ‘gang culture’. If that’s the only kind of stable background people know, well we can expect the disasters that we see. One of the things that Camilla Batmanghelidj, my great heroine, has taught me - seeing her at work, talking to her - is precisely the absolute significance of that background of trustworthiness. Here is someone who is for you; and marriage which says between two people, I am for you and I am for you, says to children, says to those around, that’s the ground on which you grow, that’s the security, that’s what guarantees you, the air, the space, the time to move on.
“So what we’re up against at the moment is a society that has painfully and disastrously low expectations of relationships. I really liked the ‘ambition about relationships’ phrase, which came up earlier. We need to be ambitious about our relationships, ambitious for life, in both senses, ambitious for life-long relationships, ambitious for the kind of depth of human experience, the life that marriage can give. And as expectations spiral downwards then it’s not only the one relationship with marriage that suffers, it’s everything in sight that suffers. We can’t legislate this into being, but we can go on challenging the imagination of society and saying ‘aren’t you being desperately unambitious about what you are capable of? And what those close to you are capable of? Aren’t you lowering, lowering and lowering the sights because actually you are capable of much more than you think you are? When you think that millions of people every year embark on this extraordinary enterprise called marriage, without any exceptional sanctity or heroism, they just do it and they just carry on doing it, doesn’t that say something about the ambition that we can rightly have? And at the risk of sounding slightly sentimental, I think it’s quite important to look back to an earlier generation, remember parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and think there were a lot of very ordinary human beings, not especially saintly, not especially holy, who did this, who ‘got a life’, who worked through all of this with that prosaic heroism that brings out the best in people, that trained a new generation, that shaped the world which had some trustworthy limits, which had some recognisable moral geography to it. Were they wasting their time? Were they living out an illusion? Well if they were we are in a very strange position now, because we are trading on the achievements that they created for us. And that’s of course one of the sad things about some of the debates we have about marriage these days; that a great deal of the running is made in commentating in reflective terms by people who don’t perhaps fully see how much they are trading off the inherited capital of a stability and yes, a prosaic heroism that’s evolved over generations. And the fluidity and changeability of relationships and the transience of marriage may look perfectly fine if you belong to the commentating classes of north London, but you don’t have to go very many miles to see what the cost is for people who can’t take that sort of thing for granted…”
UNICEF , Rowan Williams , marriage , faith and society
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
A Rose By Any Other Name
Moreover, if you buy the Kenyan roses, you’ll be investing in the employment of 70,000 Kenyan women. Okay, it won’t be a very big investment on its own, but, a nation’s worth of rose-buyers has more impact…
…On the other hand, there is insufficient regulation of the working conditions of those 70,000 women. And the rose farms divert precious water away from farms that grow crops that Kenyans can eat…
Isaac Newton said that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He was wrong. To every action – buying roses, for example – there are multiple reactions – or consequences – of varying impact, some of them totally disproportional to the action taken.
Doing the right thing is not necessarily straight-forward. But what we don’t have the luxury of doing is carrying on without thinking about the consequences of even our simplest actions – such as the food we eat. At the very least we need to make informed choices. And beyond that, we may even want to find ways of shaping the big picture.
However you choose to mark, or not, Valentine’s Day tomorrow, I hope that you will know expressed shared love with at least one other person. It costs nothing – and you’ll both be the richer for it.
UPDATE: Kester Brewin has some great thoughts on how to escape the labyrinth of inaction through living symbolically here.
environmental issues , Valentines Day , ethical consuming
…On the other hand, there is insufficient regulation of the working conditions of those 70,000 women. And the rose farms divert precious water away from farms that grow crops that Kenyans can eat…
Isaac Newton said that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He was wrong. To every action – buying roses, for example – there are multiple reactions – or consequences – of varying impact, some of them totally disproportional to the action taken.
Doing the right thing is not necessarily straight-forward. But what we don’t have the luxury of doing is carrying on without thinking about the consequences of even our simplest actions – such as the food we eat. At the very least we need to make informed choices. And beyond that, we may even want to find ways of shaping the big picture.
However you choose to mark, or not, Valentine’s Day tomorrow, I hope that you will know expressed shared love with at least one other person. It costs nothing – and you’ll both be the richer for it.
UPDATE: Kester Brewin has some great thoughts on how to escape the labyrinth of inaction through living symbolically here.
environmental issues , Valentines Day , ethical consuming
Monday, February 12, 2007
Be My (Carbon-Neutral) Valentine
This Wednesday is Valentine’s Day, the day when we are supposed to go out and pay three-times what we would pay any other day of the year for a bouquet of roses for the one we love. But that is just the tip of the (melting) ice-berg in terms of environmental cost…
A report out this week by Cranfield University compared the carbon emissions involved in the production of batches of roses sold in the UK and grown in Kenya and Holland. [reported p. 36, The Times, Saturday February 10 2007]
Guess which roses have the higher carbon cost? Well, it’s a no-brainer: it has to be the Kenyan roses. And if I tell you that transportation accounts for 91% of the carbon emissions of the Kenyan roses – that’s the aeroplane industry for you – compared to less than 1% for the Dutch roses, those stats only go to confirm it, right? Wrong.
Growing and importing Kenyan roses produces 6,004 kg of Co2 per batch; or 17% of the 34,188 kg of Co2 produced by the Dutch roses. Growing roses on an industrial scale in the Netherlands takes a lot of light and heat (and even then results in half the yield of roses grown in Kenya’s natural climate)…
So if you are planning on buying roses on Valentine’s Day, you might want to ask the florist where they came from. And if they are (relatively) local, you might want to choose some grown further a-field instead…
environmental issues , Valentines Day , carbon emissions
Monday, February 05, 2007
U2Charist
My friend Mike Rutter introduced me to this one on Saturday: the U2Charist, or Eucharist set to the music of U2. It is, apparently, all the rage among American Episcopalians; it is all over YouTube (though some videos have been removed for copyright reasons, and I suspect others will follow); and it is coming to the UK soon…
I love U2, especially the Achtung Baby and Zooropa albums. I find much of their music emotionally engaging and their lyrics thought-provoking, at what I would describe as a spiritual level. I believe that Bono speaks with a prophetic voice on issues of justice for the oppressed and alienated; speaks to the powerful on behalf of those who are powerless and have no voice of their own. I have no problem with the idea of a worship service at which we ask God to speak to us through the music (or other cultural artefacts) of our culture (such as God’s iPod); and I’m not precious about setting the Eucharist to music that was not originally written for that purpose, either.
But, I’ve always been uncomfortable with what I perceive as attempts by Christians to forcibly co-opt U2 as representatives for their particular doctrinal position; or as evidence that Christians aren’t necessarily social freaks (sorry – I saw the clothes and dancing on YouTube, and some of you really are!); or to ensnare the prophetic bird within the cage of an institutional form of Christian religion. Bono sang:
And I’d join the movement
If there was one I could believe in
Yeah I’d break bread and wine
If there was a church I could receive in
’Cos I need it now
(Acrobat, Achtung Baby)
I’m just not sure whether, in the U2Charist, he has found what he is looking for…
What do you think?
U2Charist
I love U2, especially the Achtung Baby and Zooropa albums. I find much of their music emotionally engaging and their lyrics thought-provoking, at what I would describe as a spiritual level. I believe that Bono speaks with a prophetic voice on issues of justice for the oppressed and alienated; speaks to the powerful on behalf of those who are powerless and have no voice of their own. I have no problem with the idea of a worship service at which we ask God to speak to us through the music (or other cultural artefacts) of our culture (such as God’s iPod); and I’m not precious about setting the Eucharist to music that was not originally written for that purpose, either.
But, I’ve always been uncomfortable with what I perceive as attempts by Christians to forcibly co-opt U2 as representatives for their particular doctrinal position; or as evidence that Christians aren’t necessarily social freaks (sorry – I saw the clothes and dancing on YouTube, and some of you really are!); or to ensnare the prophetic bird within the cage of an institutional form of Christian religion. Bono sang:
And I’d join the movement
If there was one I could believe in
Yeah I’d break bread and wine
If there was a church I could receive in
’Cos I need it now
(Acrobat, Achtung Baby)
I’m just not sure whether, in the U2Charist, he has found what he is looking for…
What do you think?
U2Charist
Snap
I noticed this little tool on Andrew Jones’ blog recently, and now my good friend Ben Askew has put a technophobe’s guide (that’s just the sort of help I need – cheers, Ben!) on his blog. Snap Preview Anywhere pops up a little preview pane when you hover over a link, so you can decide whether you want to follow it now or stay here. Likewise for all the permanent links on the sidebar. Oh, and it looks so pretty! Especially when my browser is being temperamental about uploading photographs, to break up my text…
Snap Preview Anywhere
Snap Preview Anywhere
Further Thoughts On Sexuality And Church
Recently I’ve written a couple of posts on sexuality, and have had positive feedback from several people who have said that it has helped them to wrestle with the issue. I recognise that sexuality is a pastorally sensitive issue; that the relationship between Christian faith and homosexuality is particularly (and, in my opinion, unhelpfully) charged at the moment; and I recognise the wisdom of those who feel it is best to hold back from expressing their views on an issue that has, perhaps, been blown out of proportion in importance. But perhaps it is the very fact that sexuality has been blown out of proportion that means that we have to address it. And perhaps the current over-emphasis on homosexuality within church dialogue (both internal, and with society) needs addressing, too. Personally, I believe that addressing has to be done through a combination of personal reflection and communal discussion; arriving at plans as to how we shall live, that may be provisional but in which we are nonetheless holding each other accountable to act in a manner that is consistent with those plans. Therefore I have decided to add this further post, in which I will try to set out where I find myself at this point. Though I generally prefer a narrative approach to theological reflection, on this occasion I shall make a series of statements. What follows is long, and wide-ranging; but is not intended to be exhaustive, nor especially systematic.
a) I believe that every aspect of our being has been broken, in some way or other, as a result of humanity’s decision to act in opposition to God’s expressed will for our lives; as symbolically expressed through the decision of our first representatives, recorded in the first chapters of the Bible.
b) I believe that for each one of us, our sexuality is broken; and that that brokenness is expressed in a variety of ways. I believe that the Bible records some examples of the ways in which sexual brokenness is expressed (though not every possible example), in the forms of prohibitive statements and of narratives that show the consequences of acting out of our brokenness. The examples of sexual brokenness recorded in the Bible are not necessarily considered to be examples of sexual brokenness in every culture; and may be seen as neutral or even desirable in certain cultures. For example, I live in a culture that has a ‘neutral or desirable’ view of adultery, and of same-sex sexual relationships.
c) I believe that our brokenness falls short of the wholeness God intended and hopes for our lives, as those made in God’s image to share in God’s wholeness; and that therefore we can rightly describe our inherent brokenness as ‘sinful nature’ (‘sin’ literally meaning ‘falling short,’ as in an arrow that fails to reach the target), and the actions that result from our brokenness as ‘sins’ (attempts that fall short).
d) I believe that denying our brokenness – whether by calling it ‘not broken,’ or by hiding from others those things in ourselves that we consider broken in others – only serves to further break us.
e) I believe that God longs to bind up the broken-hearted: which I understand to mean, God can hold our broken nature together so closely, so intimately, that we are able to live as though we were whole. I believe that as we (increasingly) admit to our brokenness, and allow God to hold us, we experience (increasing) wholeness.
f) I believe that it is wrong to require that those who do not claim to live in relationship with Christ should live according to the same values as those who do. I believe that the ‘moral norms’ of Christendom, imposed upon culture, served to strengthen the tendency in all of us to hide our brokenness; and also to obscure our need for wholeness, our need to be made whole. I believe that this was unintentional, and deeply ironic; but I am glad that we find ourselves in a post-Christendom context.
g) I believe that, in response to humanity’s commitment to calling brokenness ‘wholeness,’ God has chosen to give humanity over to the consequences of this commitment: brokenness upon brokenness. I believe that God has done so in the hope that we will wake up to the condition in which we find ourselves, and turn (back) to him. But, I also believe that if this is what God has chosen, then when Christians seek to oppose the choices of society – such as legislation that confers the name ‘wholeness’ on brokenness – we may in fact be guilty of opposing God’s decision (as unintentionally and ironically as Christendom – which perhaps such Christians are hoping for a return to). In the specific context of early C21st Britain, I believe that Christians who lobby Government in opposition to civil partnerships and other anti-discrimination legislation (which differs from requesting that Christians have the freedom under law to live differently) fall into this trap.
h) I believe that a lifestyle of habitually behaving out of our brokenness and habitually calling brokenness ‘wholeness’ – as opposed to a lifestyle of habitually wrestling with our brokenness and habitually asking God for grace to overcome, and grace to be restored when we succumb – is incompatible with a life of orthodox Christian discipleship. Regarding sexuality, I believe that same-sex sexual relationships are one of various expressions of sexuality that are incompatible with orthodox Christian discipleship.
i) I believe that we act out of brokenness (that is, we sin) when we consider the brokenness of others to be greater, or of greater seriousness, than our own: whether we consider sexual brokenness to be greater than other areas in which we are broken; or particular expressions of sexual brokenness to be greater than others. Sadly, I believe that the Church, as community of broken individuals and institution, is guilty of this sin – in particular in relation to those whose sexual brokenness is not manifest primarily or fully in opposite-sex desire – and needs to repent.
j) I believe that in order to honestly identify-with and reflect humanity’s brokenness, and model God’s redemptive restoration to wholeness, the Church needs leaders whose sexual brokenness results in or includes a bias towards same-sex relationships as much as the Church needs leaders whose sexual brokenness results in or includes a bias towards heterosexual promiscuity (I suspect, the vast majority of church leaders; myself included).
k) I believe that the Church should be a community where it is safe for leaders to be honest about their brokenness, including specific forms of brokenness – safe enough that they can repent of acting out of that brokenness, when they do, and be restored to the community, including the possibility of retaining their position of leadership; and safe enough for their families. If this is not the case, such honesty, vulnerability, and love is not modelled for the community; and, indeed, secrecy, defensiveness, and hate are endorsed. The Church needs to be a safe place for leaders whose brokenness manifests itself primarily or partially in same-sex desire; and for leaders whose brokenness manifests itself primarily or partially in opposite-sex desire. Sadly, I do not believe that the Church, in general, is a safe place for leaders, regardless of the specific nature of their sexual brokenness.
Though I have given these views some reflection, they are essentially a snap-shot of where I am right now. However, I believe them to be located within orthodox Christian belief, while seeking to be more generous in orthopraxy than the Church has often been. Feel free to disagree with me, strongly if necessarily; but please respect my right to place myself here, at least for now.
human sexuality , church , missional church
a) I believe that every aspect of our being has been broken, in some way or other, as a result of humanity’s decision to act in opposition to God’s expressed will for our lives; as symbolically expressed through the decision of our first representatives, recorded in the first chapters of the Bible.
b) I believe that for each one of us, our sexuality is broken; and that that brokenness is expressed in a variety of ways. I believe that the Bible records some examples of the ways in which sexual brokenness is expressed (though not every possible example), in the forms of prohibitive statements and of narratives that show the consequences of acting out of our brokenness. The examples of sexual brokenness recorded in the Bible are not necessarily considered to be examples of sexual brokenness in every culture; and may be seen as neutral or even desirable in certain cultures. For example, I live in a culture that has a ‘neutral or desirable’ view of adultery, and of same-sex sexual relationships.
c) I believe that our brokenness falls short of the wholeness God intended and hopes for our lives, as those made in God’s image to share in God’s wholeness; and that therefore we can rightly describe our inherent brokenness as ‘sinful nature’ (‘sin’ literally meaning ‘falling short,’ as in an arrow that fails to reach the target), and the actions that result from our brokenness as ‘sins’ (attempts that fall short).
d) I believe that denying our brokenness – whether by calling it ‘not broken,’ or by hiding from others those things in ourselves that we consider broken in others – only serves to further break us.
e) I believe that God longs to bind up the broken-hearted: which I understand to mean, God can hold our broken nature together so closely, so intimately, that we are able to live as though we were whole. I believe that as we (increasingly) admit to our brokenness, and allow God to hold us, we experience (increasing) wholeness.
f) I believe that it is wrong to require that those who do not claim to live in relationship with Christ should live according to the same values as those who do. I believe that the ‘moral norms’ of Christendom, imposed upon culture, served to strengthen the tendency in all of us to hide our brokenness; and also to obscure our need for wholeness, our need to be made whole. I believe that this was unintentional, and deeply ironic; but I am glad that we find ourselves in a post-Christendom context.
g) I believe that, in response to humanity’s commitment to calling brokenness ‘wholeness,’ God has chosen to give humanity over to the consequences of this commitment: brokenness upon brokenness. I believe that God has done so in the hope that we will wake up to the condition in which we find ourselves, and turn (back) to him. But, I also believe that if this is what God has chosen, then when Christians seek to oppose the choices of society – such as legislation that confers the name ‘wholeness’ on brokenness – we may in fact be guilty of opposing God’s decision (as unintentionally and ironically as Christendom – which perhaps such Christians are hoping for a return to). In the specific context of early C21st Britain, I believe that Christians who lobby Government in opposition to civil partnerships and other anti-discrimination legislation (which differs from requesting that Christians have the freedom under law to live differently) fall into this trap.
h) I believe that a lifestyle of habitually behaving out of our brokenness and habitually calling brokenness ‘wholeness’ – as opposed to a lifestyle of habitually wrestling with our brokenness and habitually asking God for grace to overcome, and grace to be restored when we succumb – is incompatible with a life of orthodox Christian discipleship. Regarding sexuality, I believe that same-sex sexual relationships are one of various expressions of sexuality that are incompatible with orthodox Christian discipleship.
i) I believe that we act out of brokenness (that is, we sin) when we consider the brokenness of others to be greater, or of greater seriousness, than our own: whether we consider sexual brokenness to be greater than other areas in which we are broken; or particular expressions of sexual brokenness to be greater than others. Sadly, I believe that the Church, as community of broken individuals and institution, is guilty of this sin – in particular in relation to those whose sexual brokenness is not manifest primarily or fully in opposite-sex desire – and needs to repent.
j) I believe that in order to honestly identify-with and reflect humanity’s brokenness, and model God’s redemptive restoration to wholeness, the Church needs leaders whose sexual brokenness results in or includes a bias towards same-sex relationships as much as the Church needs leaders whose sexual brokenness results in or includes a bias towards heterosexual promiscuity (I suspect, the vast majority of church leaders; myself included).
k) I believe that the Church should be a community where it is safe for leaders to be honest about their brokenness, including specific forms of brokenness – safe enough that they can repent of acting out of that brokenness, when they do, and be restored to the community, including the possibility of retaining their position of leadership; and safe enough for their families. If this is not the case, such honesty, vulnerability, and love is not modelled for the community; and, indeed, secrecy, defensiveness, and hate are endorsed. The Church needs to be a safe place for leaders whose brokenness manifests itself primarily or partially in same-sex desire; and for leaders whose brokenness manifests itself primarily or partially in opposite-sex desire. Sadly, I do not believe that the Church, in general, is a safe place for leaders, regardless of the specific nature of their sexual brokenness.
Though I have given these views some reflection, they are essentially a snap-shot of where I am right now. However, I believe them to be located within orthodox Christian belief, while seeking to be more generous in orthopraxy than the Church has often been. Feel free to disagree with me, strongly if necessarily; but please respect my right to place myself here, at least for now.
human sexuality , church , missional church
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Referee! (Again...)
Bloody hell! (My maternal grandfather would have known how to say that in Welsh.)
Following in the tradition of yesterday’s fourth official who was so out of touch with the rules of rugby that he didn’t know what carrying the ball into touch means, today Wales had to play against Ireland and a referee who doesn’t know that it is illegal to tackle a player who isn’t carrying the ball. In a World Cup year, the standard of international refereeing is looking ominous…
Six Nations Rugby , referee
Following in the tradition of yesterday’s fourth official who was so out of touch with the rules of rugby that he didn’t know what carrying the ball into touch means, today Wales had to play against Ireland and a referee who doesn’t know that it is illegal to tackle a player who isn’t carrying the ball. In a World Cup year, the standard of international refereeing is looking ominous…
Six Nations Rugby , referee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)