 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You scored as Emergent/Postmodern You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.
|
2008/05/30
Theological Quiz
Ok, thanks to Chris Case, I found an interesting quiz, with enough questions to give a reasonable measure. I'm a bit surprised by the result: I know I've never been terribly reformed, but I suspect most people who met me would have me down as a moderately conservative evangelical right now. Or maybe not. Note to self: theology is one thing; action is another.
2008/05/24
Ouch!
Peter Rollins' writing is always thought-provoking. I don't understand it all, but I find it by turns confusing, exciting, provocative, thrilling, and many other things beside.
His post this week (Treating church as a fetish) certainly fits those categories. Sometimes, I feel quite at one with those he describes in the first paragraph (though I would hesitate to describe my fellowship as "dogmatic"), but far from all the time. The post is, however, quite close to the mark. Not that I fully understand the last part of it. The ensuing comments make for an interesting discussion, as does his promise that more thoughts on the same subject are yet to come.
I appreciate most of his sentiments, and yet, I wonder. Is it really a given that we are eventually happiest when we throw off the social charades? The pursuit of truth is downright important, but some ways of doing so cause more pain than others. For me, evolutionary change usually beats revolutionary change.
His post this week (Treating church as a fetish) certainly fits those categories. Sometimes, I feel quite at one with those he describes in the first paragraph (though I would hesitate to describe my fellowship as "dogmatic"), but far from all the time. The post is, however, quite close to the mark. Not that I fully understand the last part of it. The ensuing comments make for an interesting discussion, as does his promise that more thoughts on the same subject are yet to come.
I appreciate most of his sentiments, and yet, I wonder. Is it really a given that we are eventually happiest when we throw off the social charades? The pursuit of truth is downright important, but some ways of doing so cause more pain than others. For me, evolutionary change usually beats revolutionary change.
2008/05/20
The Ethical Cross-Road
On which topic is the vast majority of (Western) Christianity at odds with wider society most vocally? Something central to Jesus' teaching perhaps? Or a key Pauline doctrine on how to live in a world tainted by sin? Or at least, something the law of Moses dwells on? Or a topic from one of the catholic creeds? Or something that would feature in the "basis of faith" or "doctrinal statement" of most of our churches and para-church movements?
Arguably none of those (though therein lies part of the argument). No, one thing where there's a huge amount of friction is biomedical ethics, and specifically the issues around reproduction. The British Parliament is currently debating a bill on the subject, and has already voted to allow human-animal hybrid embryos (though precisely what that means is ill-explored in the press); to allow the creation of "saviour siblings" (engineered to provide genetically-suitable material to be a doner to a sick brother or sister); to remove the presumption in IVF that the child to be created should have a father figure; and, as I write, probably to retain the present term limits on abortion.
All this is taking place against the backdrop of arguments - largely from believing people - that these things are bad, unethical, and calling down judgement upon the land and/or the people. Of course, the lines are not perfectly drawn, and there are believers and unbelievers on both sides, but the voice of opposition seems to come largely from the Catholics and the Evangelicals.
Have we got it right? Of course, there's no a priori reason why society has to have got it right: indeed, there are many reasons to suppose, on many issues, that society has not. And yet, those promoting the measures described above (and embryonic stem cell research, and much else beside) do so not from a hedonistic desire to promote sexual licence or infidelity, but from a genuine wish to advance medical science, to allow as wide a cross-section of the community as possible to enjoy family life, and to avoid the terror of a return to "back-street abortions". These are all good motivations.
It would be naive to say that because the motivation is good, therefore the measures and the consequences must also be morally worthwhile. But, on the issues at hand, at least, that seems to be the direction of travel for our society. And it has much to commend it.
Man made in the image of God might well expect to wield the creative power of God. I find it hard to approve of selective breeding but disapprove of DNA manipulation. "You shall do no murder" is a plain enough command, but there is a legitimate debate about when life begins.
I have this fear of Christians painting themselves into a corner, rather as some have over creationism; rather as the JWs have over blood transfusions; rather as the Amish have over the trappings of modern life. In 50 years' time, there will be a staggering range of treatments on offer. Many will, in all probability, have had their genesis in, say, embryonic stem cells - whether as a one-off kick-start, or as an ongoing part of the treatment. Will there be a rump of Christians who refuse to have anything to do with those treatments? Will that be a large or a small rump? How will that impact telling people about God's love and the gospel of the kingdom?
It strikes me that we stand at a cross-roads. Our society is choosing to take its bus off down a particular route. We choose that route or another at our peril. But I think the time is running out for that choice.
Arguably none of those (though therein lies part of the argument). No, one thing where there's a huge amount of friction is biomedical ethics, and specifically the issues around reproduction. The British Parliament is currently debating a bill on the subject, and has already voted to allow human-animal hybrid embryos (though precisely what that means is ill-explored in the press); to allow the creation of "saviour siblings" (engineered to provide genetically-suitable material to be a doner to a sick brother or sister); to remove the presumption in IVF that the child to be created should have a father figure; and, as I write, probably to retain the present term limits on abortion.
All this is taking place against the backdrop of arguments - largely from believing people - that these things are bad, unethical, and calling down judgement upon the land and/or the people. Of course, the lines are not perfectly drawn, and there are believers and unbelievers on both sides, but the voice of opposition seems to come largely from the Catholics and the Evangelicals.
Have we got it right? Of course, there's no a priori reason why society has to have got it right: indeed, there are many reasons to suppose, on many issues, that society has not. And yet, those promoting the measures described above (and embryonic stem cell research, and much else beside) do so not from a hedonistic desire to promote sexual licence or infidelity, but from a genuine wish to advance medical science, to allow as wide a cross-section of the community as possible to enjoy family life, and to avoid the terror of a return to "back-street abortions". These are all good motivations.
It would be naive to say that because the motivation is good, therefore the measures and the consequences must also be morally worthwhile. But, on the issues at hand, at least, that seems to be the direction of travel for our society. And it has much to commend it.
Man made in the image of God might well expect to wield the creative power of God. I find it hard to approve of selective breeding but disapprove of DNA manipulation. "You shall do no murder" is a plain enough command, but there is a legitimate debate about when life begins.
I have this fear of Christians painting themselves into a corner, rather as some have over creationism; rather as the JWs have over blood transfusions; rather as the Amish have over the trappings of modern life. In 50 years' time, there will be a staggering range of treatments on offer. Many will, in all probability, have had their genesis in, say, embryonic stem cells - whether as a one-off kick-start, or as an ongoing part of the treatment. Will there be a rump of Christians who refuse to have anything to do with those treatments? Will that be a large or a small rump? How will that impact telling people about God's love and the gospel of the kingdom?
It strikes me that we stand at a cross-roads. Our society is choosing to take its bus off down a particular route. We choose that route or another at our peril. But I think the time is running out for that choice.
2008/05/19
Emerging politics/economics
Something that's quite striking about the emerging conversation (or whatever you want to call it) is the fairly overtly political (or economic; the two being very closely linked) stance often involved. That seems entirely reasonable: the gospel is about transforming ourselves and our community according to kingdom principles, surely.
And yet, that too is a reason why it's silly to try and say "emerging church people believe X", because the context in which politics is being done varies so much from place to place. I'm very struck, for example, by the way in which both Democrat candidates for the US presidency are surely (on most analyses) somewhere to the right of the British Conservative Party (not that "left" and "right" work so well as political categories these days). Emerging church as a protest against the alignment of evangelicals with the American Right has no obvious counterpart in Britain.
Which is why Josh Brown's Indian Taxi Fund is intriguing: it's a plan to raise money for Amit, a church planting guy in India. But it's constructed as a loan scheme, along the lines of Kiva, but more relational. So, folks from the blogosphere hand over cash to help get a business going for Amit (it was going to be a taxi; now it looks as if it will be a shop), and later the money will be paid back. Now, that sounds like a very right wing way of thinking about aid to me - but to Josh and others (I'm guessing here, but with some confidence) it probably seems radical and subversive.
Perhaps this blog is just a thinly-veiled way of suggesting that you, gentle reader, might want to participate in the fund. That would be a most excellent thing to do. Perhaps, too, it is a plea to anyone who wants to put the conversation (or whatever you want to call it) into a box and claim to understand the full extent of the motivation of all the participants. It's all a bit too complex for that.
And yet, that too is a reason why it's silly to try and say "emerging church people believe X", because the context in which politics is being done varies so much from place to place. I'm very struck, for example, by the way in which both Democrat candidates for the US presidency are surely (on most analyses) somewhere to the right of the British Conservative Party (not that "left" and "right" work so well as political categories these days). Emerging church as a protest against the alignment of evangelicals with the American Right has no obvious counterpart in Britain.
Which is why Josh Brown's Indian Taxi Fund is intriguing: it's a plan to raise money for Amit, a church planting guy in India. But it's constructed as a loan scheme, along the lines of Kiva, but more relational. So, folks from the blogosphere hand over cash to help get a business going for Amit (it was going to be a taxi; now it looks as if it will be a shop), and later the money will be paid back. Now, that sounds like a very right wing way of thinking about aid to me - but to Josh and others (I'm guessing here, but with some confidence) it probably seems radical and subversive.
Perhaps this blog is just a thinly-veiled way of suggesting that you, gentle reader, might want to participate in the fund. That would be a most excellent thing to do. Perhaps, too, it is a plea to anyone who wants to put the conversation (or whatever you want to call it) into a box and claim to understand the full extent of the motivation of all the participants. It's all a bit too complex for that.
2008/05/14
Love Oxford: Pentecost in the Open Air
Sunday saw a large open-air service for Pentecost, in the centre of Oxford. This was an initiative of a big combination of many of the city's churches, under the banner of "Love Oxford".
Mostly, I feel very positive about that. First, it was a celebration, a festival of faith: it sought to be inclusive for people on the edge of faith, but wasn't particularly trying to arrest and proselytize them. We celebrated the birthday of the church, the joy of all being together, the tremendous heritage we have in this city, and much else beside. The sermon, from Michael Green, stressed that those who believed needed to get out there and serve our city - whether in youth work, caring for the elderly, looking after the homeless, serving on the City Council, and so on. The climax of the meeting was some open-air baptisms, conducted jointly by one of the city's Baptist pastors and the (Anglican) Bishop of Oxford: what an expression of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"!
I do wonder what the non-churchpeople thought of it all. One of the students in a nearby college (doubtless rudly awakened at 11.30am on a Sunday, and resenting it) started playing loud music from his (or her, but I'm guessing his) window: but it didn't last long. Perhaps he decided to get a life; perhaps the college authorities impressed their rules upon him. I could imagine that for many of those around, the strength of the message would have come from how many people stayed around to buy lunch (and the attitude they had as they waited in line). And how they responded to the stewards asking them to keep the footpaths clear. Or to the crazy cyclist who insisted on taking his bike right through the middle of the crowd.
Slightly mixed feelings? Well the thing that spurred me to write this after all was today's Tall Skinny Kiwi's post on Post-Charismatics. It seems churlish of me to criticize the event on stylistic grounds (when they went to great lengths to be inclusive), but the phrase "Many are Post-Charismatic. . . after 20 years, they would rather shoot themselves than sing another chorus." seems apposite. After about the twentieth time of singing "Greater things are yet to come, ... still to be done... in this city" it did begin to pall slightly. Well, actually, the second time wasn't that great. And I wasn't really sure what the phrase/song was supposed to mean. In fact, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. [The whole singing and worship thing prompted some other thoughts, actually, but they'll have to wait for another blog.]
Nor was I sure what to make of Charlie Cleverly's outburst prayer "Lord we're so jealous of China". But perhaps we can let that ride.
Mostly, I feel very positive about that. First, it was a celebration, a festival of faith: it sought to be inclusive for people on the edge of faith, but wasn't particularly trying to arrest and proselytize them. We celebrated the birthday of the church, the joy of all being together, the tremendous heritage we have in this city, and much else beside. The sermon, from Michael Green, stressed that those who believed needed to get out there and serve our city - whether in youth work, caring for the elderly, looking after the homeless, serving on the City Council, and so on. The climax of the meeting was some open-air baptisms, conducted jointly by one of the city's Baptist pastors and the (Anglican) Bishop of Oxford: what an expression of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"!
I do wonder what the non-churchpeople thought of it all. One of the students in a nearby college (doubtless rudly awakened at 11.30am on a Sunday, and resenting it) started playing loud music from his (or her, but I'm guessing his) window: but it didn't last long. Perhaps he decided to get a life; perhaps the college authorities impressed their rules upon him. I could imagine that for many of those around, the strength of the message would have come from how many people stayed around to buy lunch (and the attitude they had as they waited in line). And how they responded to the stewards asking them to keep the footpaths clear. Or to the crazy cyclist who insisted on taking his bike right through the middle of the crowd.
Slightly mixed feelings? Well the thing that spurred me to write this after all was today's Tall Skinny Kiwi's post on Post-Charismatics. It seems churlish of me to criticize the event on stylistic grounds (when they went to great lengths to be inclusive), but the phrase "Many are Post-Charismatic. . . after 20 years, they would rather shoot themselves than sing another chorus." seems apposite. After about the twentieth time of singing "Greater things are yet to come, ... still to be done... in this city" it did begin to pall slightly. Well, actually, the second time wasn't that great. And I wasn't really sure what the phrase/song was supposed to mean. In fact, the more I think about it, the less sure I am. [The whole singing and worship thing prompted some other thoughts, actually, but they'll have to wait for another blog.]
Nor was I sure what to make of Charlie Cleverly's outburst prayer "Lord we're so jealous of China". But perhaps we can let that ride.
2008/05/01
Ascension Day
How is it that those from the protestant wing of Christendom don't tend to celebrate Ascension Day? This day - today - 40 days after Easter, celebrates the end of Christ's ministry on earth. It's a day for closure, celebration, for victory. A veritable feast day. I confess that it has all but passed me by. I would have gone to the Cathedral service ... but I, er, forgot.
I know that some people celebrate festivals of the church not for their own sake, but because they represent "an opportunity" to "reach" people. I understand that when my parents were younger, our "tribe" celebrated Easter only insofar as it was an opportunity to get together over a long weekend (in England, we have public holidays on Good Friday and Easter Monday) for a conference, not as a specific celebration of Jesus' death and resurrection. So, I guess, with Ascension-tide having a lower profile in the wider community (and no public holiday!), there's been no reason to mark it.
But what a narrow view of festivals this is. Primarily, surely, they belong to the Christian community. They are an opportunity to mark the turning of the year, and to rehearse the details of our shared faith; to teach the young, and to cure us of narrow emphasis. The liturgical traditions, with their set readings covering the whole bible through the year, and festivals to mark all the major events of Christ's life (and other events too), have much to teach the rest of us. Slavish adherence to that Church calendar may be out of keeping with the modern age, and it certainly isn't an essential, but I'm increasingly convinced that if we overlook these markers of the changing seasons of the year, we are the lesser for it.
I know that some people celebrate festivals of the church not for their own sake, but because they represent "an opportunity" to "reach" people. I understand that when my parents were younger, our "tribe" celebrated Easter only insofar as it was an opportunity to get together over a long weekend (in England, we have public holidays on Good Friday and Easter Monday) for a conference, not as a specific celebration of Jesus' death and resurrection. So, I guess, with Ascension-tide having a lower profile in the wider community (and no public holiday!), there's been no reason to mark it.
But what a narrow view of festivals this is. Primarily, surely, they belong to the Christian community. They are an opportunity to mark the turning of the year, and to rehearse the details of our shared faith; to teach the young, and to cure us of narrow emphasis. The liturgical traditions, with their set readings covering the whole bible through the year, and festivals to mark all the major events of Christ's life (and other events too), have much to teach the rest of us. Slavish adherence to that Church calendar may be out of keeping with the modern age, and it certainly isn't an essential, but I'm increasingly convinced that if we overlook these markers of the changing seasons of the year, we are the lesser for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)