But the bottom line is, though it may seem self-evident that declining church attendance is evidence of something gone wrong, would we rather see churches that accommodate society’s ills grow? Isn’t it more likely that a faith that asks more than we can naturally give, that compels us to believe in things we can’t see, and calls us to live in ways that are counter to our own self interests, would find itself at odds with the prevailing culture?And that seems very much in line with what I blogged about a few months back, motivated by a quote from Rick Warren asserting almost the opposite - that the churches of which Fitzgerald speaks are 'in decline' precisely because they have embraced the prevailing culture. Which perspective makes more sense?
2012/07/24
perspective
I liked this article in Patrol Magazine, responding to a widely-cited column from the weekend's New York Times. The latter talked of decline - specifically in the American Episcopal church - reflected in falling congregations. Fitzgerald - editor at Patrol - argues
2012/07/18
ain't seen nothing yet
There are people trying to whip up anti-Creationist sentiment against some of England's new free schools. Depending on whom you believe, this is a great affront to science - and a damage to some children's education - or a storm in a mis-communicated tea-cup. My guess would be that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It would be illegal to teach young earth creationism as a scientific theory, as I understand it, and so science lessons are not under direct threat. On the other hand, they might be undermined by the tone of religious education lessons, one supposes, depending on how successfully the teachers can handle nuanced epistemology. It seems reasonable to fear the worst, if those setting up the free schools have a track record on this sort of stuff.
What baffles me, though, is the way that Creationism seems to get to be the totemic issue in the utterly false debate about science versus faith. Sure, it's nice stark place to make a comparison - if you overlook the way that Genesis chapter 1 is quite clearly a form of stylized writing, not unlike a poem. But, really, there are countless bible stories which those of a fundamentalist disposition might take as historical accounts (talking donkeys? the sun standing still?) when they are really very difficult to reconcile with our normal experience of the world. Worse, the chronology - or, indeed, the outright historicity - of some of the biblical passages which purport to give an account of past events is also at odds with the best available archaeology.
We may brush aside Genesis as an ahistorical story to make a point about the sovereignty of God - and his character in contrast to that of the gods in the Babylonian legends. But if we observe that there is scant evidence for David being the great king who he is presented as, we begin to strike at the heart of a much bigger, broader tradition of biblical interpretation. Christians - even thoughtful educated ones - would rather look the other way than face up to the fact that St. Paul almost certainly didn't write all the letters which bear his name. And when questions arise about the accuracy of the biblical text we have received, well, we'd just rather not think about that.
Scholarship has a huge amount to say about the biblical text, its transmission and original content, the context and timing of its writing, and much else beside. The theories of all those scholars will not be precise or perfect, and will be subject to revision over time. Taken together, though, the study which has gone into the history, archaeology, linguistics, and the rest, has a huge amount to say to biblical interpretation. And most of it is barred from being heard in our churches.
Instead we too often - particularly in the Evangelical world - have the conceit that we can take an English translation made in the 21st century and discern the intention of the original authors from reading it alone. Even if someone could come to this bible afresh for the first time as an educated adult, the very language they speak, the language in which the translation is expressed, and the way in which we construct knowledge as a society have all co-evolved in the years since the text was written.
Young Earth Creationism is a great topic for secular humanists to get concerned about in education. It does indeed represent a threat to the good teaching of science: but really it's just scratching the surface of a mind-set which is all too often thoroughly wedded to a pre-modern way of viewing things. There are much bigger fish to fry.
What baffles me, though, is the way that Creationism seems to get to be the totemic issue in the utterly false debate about science versus faith. Sure, it's nice stark place to make a comparison - if you overlook the way that Genesis chapter 1 is quite clearly a form of stylized writing, not unlike a poem. But, really, there are countless bible stories which those of a fundamentalist disposition might take as historical accounts (talking donkeys? the sun standing still?) when they are really very difficult to reconcile with our normal experience of the world. Worse, the chronology - or, indeed, the outright historicity - of some of the biblical passages which purport to give an account of past events is also at odds with the best available archaeology.
We may brush aside Genesis as an ahistorical story to make a point about the sovereignty of God - and his character in contrast to that of the gods in the Babylonian legends. But if we observe that there is scant evidence for David being the great king who he is presented as, we begin to strike at the heart of a much bigger, broader tradition of biblical interpretation. Christians - even thoughtful educated ones - would rather look the other way than face up to the fact that St. Paul almost certainly didn't write all the letters which bear his name. And when questions arise about the accuracy of the biblical text we have received, well, we'd just rather not think about that.
Scholarship has a huge amount to say about the biblical text, its transmission and original content, the context and timing of its writing, and much else beside. The theories of all those scholars will not be precise or perfect, and will be subject to revision over time. Taken together, though, the study which has gone into the history, archaeology, linguistics, and the rest, has a huge amount to say to biblical interpretation. And most of it is barred from being heard in our churches.
Instead we too often - particularly in the Evangelical world - have the conceit that we can take an English translation made in the 21st century and discern the intention of the original authors from reading it alone. Even if someone could come to this bible afresh for the first time as an educated adult, the very language they speak, the language in which the translation is expressed, and the way in which we construct knowledge as a society have all co-evolved in the years since the text was written.
Young Earth Creationism is a great topic for secular humanists to get concerned about in education. It does indeed represent a threat to the good teaching of science: but really it's just scratching the surface of a mind-set which is all too often thoroughly wedded to a pre-modern way of viewing things. There are much bigger fish to fry.
2012/05/29
review: Indescribable
review: Indescribable, by Louie Giglio
Our church is watching Loiue Giglio DVDs week-by-week at the moment. I've missed most of these, but caught Indescribable last evening. Indescribable is a good word ... perhaps one of the few printable ones I have at my fingertips to sum it up.
I wasn't sure whether to write this review - I try not to be overly negative or critical here (no, really, I do try) - but, well, the experience has stuck in my mind so perhaps it does it justice to report it.
Giglio is a preacher/pastor in Atlanta, and evidently undertakes tours with an audio-visual presentation -this one is several years old now. Evidently he is at the heart of something called the Passion Movement which one reviewer on Amazon thought was hugely preferable to being associated with the emerging church. So I warmed to the idea immediately (well, I can try irony). I did Google around for his name beforehand, and found that the more reformed and fundamentalist souls distrust him - so I thought he had that at least in his favour.
Speaking to a huge, somewhat whipped-up, crowd, with a slick presentation didn't really endear him to me. Worse, well-known manipulative speaking techniques were used throughout - rather a lot of exuberant shouting, followed sharply by intimate whispered punchlines - which seemed a bit irresponsible to me (though, if you are a speaker, an easy trap to fall into, I admit). Combine this with speaking over a weird ethereal kind of music, while looking at pictures of constellations and galaxies, with a handful (really only a handful) of carefully-plucked scripture references, and doubtless you have the audience eating out of the palm of your hand.
The central thesis of Indescribable was that the universe is awfully big and complex, and that God made it all. Drawing on Isaiah 40 - he who called out the starry host and calls them each by name - juxtaposed with a saviour who knows us all (and the hairs on our heads, though I don't recall that verse being invoked), the Almighty's power, wisdom, strength - and personal love and compassion are estimated indescribable. An image of the saviour on the cross cuts across the pictures of galaxies (to be followed by a cross-shaped formation in the heavens) to bring the point home. The resurrection didn't get much of a look-in, but perhaps it was beside the point.
The breathless scientific presentation was largely inoffensive - the pictures were accompanied with an account of some of the big numbers which accompany astronomy, and frequent references to the speed of light - light issuing forth from the mouth of the creator. He declared himself a friend of science - and didn't make any gross mis-statements of fact that I noticed - but the sharpness of this was dimmed somewhat by a studied careful avoidance of offending the young earth creationists. The account of the numbers was big on distance numbers, short on time - the age of the universe didn't get a mention. To explore one without the other seems to border on the dishonest (it would be unfair to suggest that this was to protect sales - bearing with the weaker souls who cannot bear this would be the generous interpretation).
There are much better presenters of the cosmology stuff - Brian Cox springs to mind. He doesn't, of course, weave scripture references into his breathless wide-eyed commentary, but I don't think the awe-inspiring vision of the universe is particularly diminished by that. I didn't warm to Louie Giglio, and I rather doubt I shall join any of the other sessions our church is running.
Our church is watching Loiue Giglio DVDs week-by-week at the moment. I've missed most of these, but caught Indescribable last evening. Indescribable is a good word ... perhaps one of the few printable ones I have at my fingertips to sum it up.
I wasn't sure whether to write this review - I try not to be overly negative or critical here (no, really, I do try) - but, well, the experience has stuck in my mind so perhaps it does it justice to report it.
Giglio is a preacher/pastor in Atlanta, and evidently undertakes tours with an audio-visual presentation -this one is several years old now. Evidently he is at the heart of something called the Passion Movement which one reviewer on Amazon thought was hugely preferable to being associated with the emerging church. So I warmed to the idea immediately (well, I can try irony). I did Google around for his name beforehand, and found that the more reformed and fundamentalist souls distrust him - so I thought he had that at least in his favour.
Speaking to a huge, somewhat whipped-up, crowd, with a slick presentation didn't really endear him to me. Worse, well-known manipulative speaking techniques were used throughout - rather a lot of exuberant shouting, followed sharply by intimate whispered punchlines - which seemed a bit irresponsible to me (though, if you are a speaker, an easy trap to fall into, I admit). Combine this with speaking over a weird ethereal kind of music, while looking at pictures of constellations and galaxies, with a handful (really only a handful) of carefully-plucked scripture references, and doubtless you have the audience eating out of the palm of your hand.
The central thesis of Indescribable was that the universe is awfully big and complex, and that God made it all. Drawing on Isaiah 40 - he who called out the starry host and calls them each by name - juxtaposed with a saviour who knows us all (and the hairs on our heads, though I don't recall that verse being invoked), the Almighty's power, wisdom, strength - and personal love and compassion are estimated indescribable. An image of the saviour on the cross cuts across the pictures of galaxies (to be followed by a cross-shaped formation in the heavens) to bring the point home. The resurrection didn't get much of a look-in, but perhaps it was beside the point.
The breathless scientific presentation was largely inoffensive - the pictures were accompanied with an account of some of the big numbers which accompany astronomy, and frequent references to the speed of light - light issuing forth from the mouth of the creator. He declared himself a friend of science - and didn't make any gross mis-statements of fact that I noticed - but the sharpness of this was dimmed somewhat by a studied careful avoidance of offending the young earth creationists. The account of the numbers was big on distance numbers, short on time - the age of the universe didn't get a mention. To explore one without the other seems to border on the dishonest (it would be unfair to suggest that this was to protect sales - bearing with the weaker souls who cannot bear this would be the generous interpretation).
There are much better presenters of the cosmology stuff - Brian Cox springs to mind. He doesn't, of course, weave scripture references into his breathless wide-eyed commentary, but I don't think the awe-inspiring vision of the universe is particularly diminished by that. I didn't warm to Louie Giglio, and I rather doubt I shall join any of the other sessions our church is running.
2012/05/26
2012/05/01
retrospective
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/
This is a nice discussion of a little bit of history. It has broader implications for epistemology and hermeneutics also.
2012/04/10
sufficient grace
I was struck by a comment from Rick Warren. He was apparently being interviewed on ABC, repeating some nonsense about his principled objection to "same sex marriage". He was asked about the prospect of his church adapting its views, as wider culture changes. His response:
WARREN: Actually, history shows that when the church accommodates culture, it weakens it. This is why there is a very weak church in Europe today. It’s almost non-existent in many areas.
Now, that is hard to defend - and shows a staggering lack of self-awareness. But the striking sentence is the middle one. The implication is that strength is good and weakness is bad. But I'm just not sure that that is a Kingdom principle. Of course, context is all-important. But in general, I'm not sure that the message of Christ is about a need to be strong, powerful, or influential. St. Paul was assured that God's strength was made perfect in his weakness; he said that God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
All this is a little reminiscent of the view of a certain man from Seattle who bemoaned Great Britain's lack of famous bible teachers.
Oh the irony. If we have a business model of church, with franchises spread around the country (or the world), then fame, strength, and influence will be all-important. But might there not be a chance, just a little one, that this is the embrace of wider culture, precisely the thing Warren complains about? The Kingdom is different from that. It's summed up by a man at the end of himself, hung on a cross.
2012/04/01
feeling unapologetic
Some spam in my mailbox asks if I'm Fed up with being told that Christiani
A new book by Richard Beck apparently brings a related perspective. Richard writes a good blog, so I'm hopeful of a good book - when it eventually hits these shores. He writes
If objective truth exists, it does so independently of the democratic will Things can be true even if no one believes them, and having two billion adherents does not necessarily validate a belief system. However, things done in the name of Christ have a substantial impact on the world today, and for that reason alone, his followers need to be taken seriously. Moreover, they need to take themselves seriously, since it is surely by clinging to the outdated (and the already falsified) that the central message of Christ is obscured, and worse.
I can think of many reasons for the life of faith - and I don't think they need apology in either sense of the word. I think I'd find the Rollins school of faith and philosophy the source of some better questions (if only I understood him better) - with his current blog title to believe is human; to doubt, divine.
A new book by Richard Beck apparently brings a related perspective. Richard writes a good blog, so I'm hopeful of a good book - when it eventually hits these shores. He writes
The goal of this book is to answer a question: Why do people believe in God? More specifically, this book is aimed at answering a particular form of this question, a nuance that emerged in the modern period through the work of thinkers such as Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and, of particular importance for this book, Sigmund Freud. The shift in emphasis in “the God question” occasioned by these thinkers has rendered much of Christian theology and apologetics effectively useless in addressing many contemporary criticisms of religious faith. The playing field has shifted. And a new kind of apologetics is needed.And that opening line makes for an interesting question. Not one best tackled by rehearsing the tenets of mediaeval metaphysics. Dawkins poetically and accurately observes that believing in God is as rational as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (with all his noodly appendages). Well, it's accurate in one particular form of rationality - but the notable, gaping hole in the argument is that there are a large number of people who do believe in God (generally involuntarily, as I discussed previously), and for a large number of these, that belief leads to action of one kind or another. Notwithstanding the adherent of the Jedi creed who had a place on Channel 4's 4thought.tv slot, I don't think that the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has any active communicants. The interesting, rational, testable bit of Christian Faith is the impact it has upon the lives of its adherents - and the impact (for good or ill) which they have on the rest of the world.
If objective truth exists, it does so independently of the democratic will Things can be true even if no one believes them, and having two billion adherents does not necessarily validate a belief system. However, things done in the name of Christ have a substantial impact on the world today, and for that reason alone, his followers need to be taken seriously. Moreover, they need to take themselves seriously, since it is surely by clinging to the outdated (and the already falsified) that the central message of Christ is obscured, and worse.
I can think of many reasons for the life of faith - and I don't think they need apology in either sense of the word. I think I'd find the Rollins school of faith and philosophy the source of some better questions (if only I understood him better) - with his current blog title to believe is human; to doubt, divine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)