Too funny.
H/T Peter Ould
Sunday, October 18, 2009
More on Labels
Since I posted about labels a few weeks ago, there have been a number of other posts on the subject (not that I'm claiming there's any connection with my post). Both Church Mouse and Bishop Alan pick up on the same Nicky Gumbel quote that I did. They both advocate consigning labels to the fiery pit, believing they are more a hindrance than a help, particularly in relation to those outside the church. Jonny Baker also expresses his dislike of labels such as evangelical, liberal etc (he is very complimentary about Fulcrum though). However, as so often, it is Richard Sudworth who offers one of the most nuanced and thoughtful pieces on the subject. Whilst acknowledging the shortcomings of labels, and the way they can be abused he stresses the importance of owning our heritage. Speaking from his own experience of moving in ecumenical circles, he suggests that people are actually looking for us to bring our heritage to the table. Having recently returned from an 'ecumenical' trip to the Bossey Ecumenical Institute and the World Council of Churches I concur. I found both that my 'evangelical' heritage was coming to the fore, and that it was looked for and listened to. This also emphasises the importance of our 'story' and heritage though. Labels need unpacking if they are not to miscommunicate. To some within 'the ecumenical movement', evangelical means something like unthinking, fundamentalist who is not interested in ecumenism. The fact that I might be able to engage with such people, whilst owning my evangelical heritage, would confound expectations and hopefully bring something important to the conversation. So I guess, like Richard (and also, it seems from the comments, Jason Clarke) I am both 'yes' and 'no' on labels, and the evangelical label in particular.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
ABC on Newsnight
I thought Rowan Williams was good on the newsnight special about the banking collapse last night. He condemned the excesses and pointed out that there had been no repentance, from the bankers, or anyone else.
I particularly enjoyed this exchange towards the end, talking about why we all, as a society went along with the excesses of spending and debt: (starts at 57:17 on iPlayer)
Rowan: 'Why exactly were we seduced by this?'
Paxman: 'well nobody's got an answer to that yet, have they?'
Rowan: 'Well, I could say original sin, which is a good start, but I'd need to spell that out...'
Paxman: 'I don't think you really believe that, do you?
Rowan: 'Original sin? Oh yes'
Paxman: 'You really think original sin is the cause of our delusion about this?'
Rowan: 'There is, inbuilt into human beings, a sort of dangerous taste for unreality
Paxman: (pauses) 'Right, that is far too complex a thought for this time of night.'
I particularly enjoyed this exchange towards the end, talking about why we all, as a society went along with the excesses of spending and debt: (starts at 57:17 on iPlayer)
Rowan: 'Why exactly were we seduced by this?'
Paxman: 'well nobody's got an answer to that yet, have they?'
Rowan: 'Well, I could say original sin, which is a good start, but I'd need to spell that out...'
Paxman: 'I don't think you really believe that, do you?
Rowan: 'Original sin? Oh yes'
Paxman: 'You really think original sin is the cause of our delusion about this?'
Rowan: 'There is, inbuilt into human beings, a sort of dangerous taste for unreality
Paxman: (pauses) 'Right, that is far too complex a thought for this time of night.'
Friday, September 04, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Labels
I don't know if anyone has been following the Guardian's Comment is Free - Belief series where Adam Rutherford (an editor of Nature journal) has been attending an Alpha course and writing up his reflections. Adam is a convinced atheist, but he has a fairly good understanding of Christianity, and he gives a fascinating and fair appraisal of the course, whilst remaining utterly unpersuaded.
Anyhoo, this week, instead of going on the Holy Spirit away day, he goes and interviews Nicky Gumbel. The whole thing is interesting, but one bit that jumped out at me was where Nicky says the following -
'This may sound pernickety but I wouldn't describe myself as an evangelical. These are labels, which I don't think are helpful. If I was going to use any label it would be Christian, and if you push me any further I'd say I'm an Anglican - that's the family of the Church that I belong to. There's nothing wrong with any of the other labels, but if you have any of them I want them all. If you're going to say, 'I'm Catholic, liberal, evangelical…' let's have them all. But I wouldn't want to isolate one of those. Personally I think labels are terribly unhelpful because they enable you to dismiss things.'
So there you have it. Nicky Gumbel, perhaps one of the most influential people in 'the evangelical' world, says he wouldn't describe himself as an evangelical.
This is pretty much where I am. Labels such as 'evangelical' have become unhelpful, if not completely meaningless. To those outside the church, 'evangelical' either mean nothing, or it means 'fundamentalist'. To those inside, again, it either means 'fundamentalist' (to those on the liberal/progressive/radical wing) or it leads to endless and tedious discussions of 'what sort of evangelical' you are (open or conservative, charismatic or not) etc, etc. Typically, this search for increasing definition is, as Nicky says, either so you can be dismissed, or so you can be proved to be not evangelical enough or the wrong stripe of evangelical.
So I am a Christian. I realise this 'label' has its own baggage, but it's good enough for me. If pushed further I would say I am a stumbling, faultering, trying to be follower of Jesus. Somewhere down the line, I am an Anglican. I am glad to see I am in the company of such a wonderful and humble Christian man as Nicky Gumbel.
See the full transcript of the interview here
Anyhoo, this week, instead of going on the Holy Spirit away day, he goes and interviews Nicky Gumbel. The whole thing is interesting, but one bit that jumped out at me was where Nicky says the following -
'This may sound pernickety but I wouldn't describe myself as an evangelical. These are labels, which I don't think are helpful. If I was going to use any label it would be Christian, and if you push me any further I'd say I'm an Anglican - that's the family of the Church that I belong to. There's nothing wrong with any of the other labels, but if you have any of them I want them all. If you're going to say, 'I'm Catholic, liberal, evangelical…' let's have them all. But I wouldn't want to isolate one of those. Personally I think labels are terribly unhelpful because they enable you to dismiss things.'
So there you have it. Nicky Gumbel, perhaps one of the most influential people in 'the evangelical' world, says he wouldn't describe himself as an evangelical.
This is pretty much where I am. Labels such as 'evangelical' have become unhelpful, if not completely meaningless. To those outside the church, 'evangelical' either mean nothing, or it means 'fundamentalist'. To those inside, again, it either means 'fundamentalist' (to those on the liberal/progressive/radical wing) or it leads to endless and tedious discussions of 'what sort of evangelical' you are (open or conservative, charismatic or not) etc, etc. Typically, this search for increasing definition is, as Nicky says, either so you can be dismissed, or so you can be proved to be not evangelical enough or the wrong stripe of evangelical.
So I am a Christian. I realise this 'label' has its own baggage, but it's good enough for me. If pushed further I would say I am a stumbling, faultering, trying to be follower of Jesus. Somewhere down the line, I am an Anglican. I am glad to see I am in the company of such a wonderful and humble Christian man as Nicky Gumbel.
See the full transcript of the interview here
Friday, June 19, 2009
Wrestling with Retribution
For my research I have somehow ended up focussing on 2 Thessalonians. My actual title is going to be something like 'A Critical Examination of the Significance of the Roman Imperial Order as a Background to II Thessalonians'. Basically I am going to look at the three main issues in the letter, steadfastness under persecution, eschatological teaching about the "man of lawlessness", and the issue of idleness, and examine them all with the imperial cult and imperial patronage as a background. I have done a general literature survey on the imperial cult, and am now researching the history of Thessalonica with this in mind.
Anyway, in the process of reading the letter, and working through the commentaries, I am realising that 2 Thessalonians in one of the most unpleasant and difficult books of the New Testament, if not the bible, and I am struggling with it, and to be honest it is getting me down. Why so? Well, for a Pauline letter (if indeed it is by Paul, which is a major question) it has few of the key Pauline themes, there is no mention of the cross, or resurrection, there is very little grace, no discussion of the Spirit and salvation seems to be expressed entirely in future terms of escaping the wrath which is about to fall. What there is a good dose of, on the other hand, is retribution.
Paul (or whoever) writes 'For it is indeed just if God to repay with affliction those who afflict you.' (1.6) Here it seems clear that Paul is writing to comfort and encourage the Thessalonians with the thought that those who are persecuting them will get what's coming to them, their just deserts as it were. So far, so good. However, he goes on to say that this will happen 'when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.' (1:7b-9)
Here, many commentators move from seeing Paul giving a description of those persecutors (they don't know God and have not obeyed the gospel) to seeing a universal condemnation of the vast swathes of humanity that are outside the church. Furthermore, most commentators are at pains to explain that the 'punishment of eternal destruction' cannot mean annhilation, but is referring to a conscious punishment and devastation which is everlasting in duration. This is a move which, as you can imagine, I am not comfortable with.
Bear in mind that the Thessalonian church was probably tiny at this stage. Estimates range between 25 and 75 members. The population of Thessalonica was probably around 100, 000. Is Paul really saying that God has chosen this tiny elect, less than 0.1%, for salvation, whilst the 99.9% (most of whom will clearly have never heard the gospel) are to suffer the vengeful wrath of God for all eternity? Was Paul really this myopic?
One perspective that may help is the correlation between apocalyptic and persecution/social alienation. Paul's teaching here is certainly apocalyptic in style, with its dualisms of heaven and earth, present and future, the elect and the lost. When this worldview is combined with a situation of social alienation and persecution, the context and the theology reinforce one another. The closest parallel in the New Testament is probably the book of Revelation. This was also probably written in a situation of persecution (interestingly, almost certainly connected to the imperial cult) and is full of colourful and lurid language of vengeance. So I need to unpack how the language is being used in 2 Thessalonians. Is it hyperbole? Is it literal? How should we interpret this extreme language of vengeance and eternal destruction?
Rather than being the basis of a doctrine of eternal conscious torment for 99.9% of humanity, I think it is far more likely that Paul is wanting to stress to the Thessalonians, in the strongest possible terms, that there will be a great reversal - those who are suffering persecution now will be granted relief, and those who are doing the persecuting will get what's coming to them.
There is another thought that I struggle with though. I can understand how, on one level, it is comforting for those who are being persecuted, to contemplate the future punishment of their tormentors. But, I would like to think (and here I am probably being naive and showing that I've never experienced persecution) that I could try and cultivate the attitude of Christ, who said 'Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you'. He after all, when he was undergoing the ultimate persecution, prayed for his torturers and murderers 'Father forgive them, they know not what they do.' On the face of it, there doesn't seem to be too much of this attitude exemplified in 2 Thessalonians. In the first letter, however, Paul does instruct them to 'abound in love for each other and for all' and to 'see that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all'
So there you are, my current struggles. If you're the praying type, then please pray for me as I try to study, understand, and be faithful to the scriptures. It's not always easy.
Anyway, in the process of reading the letter, and working through the commentaries, I am realising that 2 Thessalonians in one of the most unpleasant and difficult books of the New Testament, if not the bible, and I am struggling with it, and to be honest it is getting me down. Why so? Well, for a Pauline letter (if indeed it is by Paul, which is a major question) it has few of the key Pauline themes, there is no mention of the cross, or resurrection, there is very little grace, no discussion of the Spirit and salvation seems to be expressed entirely in future terms of escaping the wrath which is about to fall. What there is a good dose of, on the other hand, is retribution.
Paul (or whoever) writes 'For it is indeed just if God to repay with affliction those who afflict you.' (1.6) Here it seems clear that Paul is writing to comfort and encourage the Thessalonians with the thought that those who are persecuting them will get what's coming to them, their just deserts as it were. So far, so good. However, he goes on to say that this will happen 'when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.' (1:7b-9)
Here, many commentators move from seeing Paul giving a description of those persecutors (they don't know God and have not obeyed the gospel) to seeing a universal condemnation of the vast swathes of humanity that are outside the church. Furthermore, most commentators are at pains to explain that the 'punishment of eternal destruction' cannot mean annhilation, but is referring to a conscious punishment and devastation which is everlasting in duration. This is a move which, as you can imagine, I am not comfortable with.
Bear in mind that the Thessalonian church was probably tiny at this stage. Estimates range between 25 and 75 members. The population of Thessalonica was probably around 100, 000. Is Paul really saying that God has chosen this tiny elect, less than 0.1%, for salvation, whilst the 99.9% (most of whom will clearly have never heard the gospel) are to suffer the vengeful wrath of God for all eternity? Was Paul really this myopic?
One perspective that may help is the correlation between apocalyptic and persecution/social alienation. Paul's teaching here is certainly apocalyptic in style, with its dualisms of heaven and earth, present and future, the elect and the lost. When this worldview is combined with a situation of social alienation and persecution, the context and the theology reinforce one another. The closest parallel in the New Testament is probably the book of Revelation. This was also probably written in a situation of persecution (interestingly, almost certainly connected to the imperial cult) and is full of colourful and lurid language of vengeance. So I need to unpack how the language is being used in 2 Thessalonians. Is it hyperbole? Is it literal? How should we interpret this extreme language of vengeance and eternal destruction?
Rather than being the basis of a doctrine of eternal conscious torment for 99.9% of humanity, I think it is far more likely that Paul is wanting to stress to the Thessalonians, in the strongest possible terms, that there will be a great reversal - those who are suffering persecution now will be granted relief, and those who are doing the persecuting will get what's coming to them.
There is another thought that I struggle with though. I can understand how, on one level, it is comforting for those who are being persecuted, to contemplate the future punishment of their tormentors. But, I would like to think (and here I am probably being naive and showing that I've never experienced persecution) that I could try and cultivate the attitude of Christ, who said 'Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you'. He after all, when he was undergoing the ultimate persecution, prayed for his torturers and murderers 'Father forgive them, they know not what they do.' On the face of it, there doesn't seem to be too much of this attitude exemplified in 2 Thessalonians. In the first letter, however, Paul does instruct them to 'abound in love for each other and for all' and to 'see that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all'
So there you are, my current struggles. If you're the praying type, then please pray for me as I try to study, understand, and be faithful to the scriptures. It's not always easy.
Update
Well, as is my habit, I've had a bit of a hiatus from blogging. Just one of the things that's had to go on the back burner since Emily came along. Thought I'd better get back into it though, so here we are. My main news is that I've found out that I've been successful in my application to stay on at college for another 2 years in order to upgrade my MPhil to PhD. This is a huge privilege and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity. I do have that nagging feeling that one day I'm going to be found out, and they will discover what a doofus I really am!
It is great for us as a family to be able to stay where we are in Bristol for the time being. We have a lovely little house and it's a fantastic place for the kids to be at this stage. I'm getting the chance to do something which a few years ago was only a vague dream, and I hope that I'll be able to make the most of it. It has dawned on my though, now that I have my funding, that I have a huge amount of work to do, which is quite scary. I am conscious of the fact that the church has invested a huge amount in me and failure is not an option. Studying full time at this level is an incredible honour which I hope I won't take for granted. Having said that, it does come with its own struggles which I intend to blog about next.
It is great for us as a family to be able to stay where we are in Bristol for the time being. We have a lovely little house and it's a fantastic place for the kids to be at this stage. I'm getting the chance to do something which a few years ago was only a vague dream, and I hope that I'll be able to make the most of it. It has dawned on my though, now that I have my funding, that I have a huge amount of work to do, which is quite scary. I am conscious of the fact that the church has invested a huge amount in me and failure is not an option. Studying full time at this level is an incredible honour which I hope I won't take for granted. Having said that, it does come with its own struggles which I intend to blog about next.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Emily Rachel
Isn't she lovely
Isn't she wonderfull
Isn't she precious
Less than one minute old
I never thought through love we'd be
Making one as lovely as she
But isn't she lovely made from love
Isn't she pretty
Truly the angel's best
Boy, I'm so happy
We have been heaven blessed
I can't believe what God has done
through us he's given life to one
But isn't she lovely made from love
I said I'd break my internet fast to bring news of our new arrival, so here she is. Emily Rachel was born on 26th March, which was the day after her due date. Su woke up with a start at 1.00 as her waters broke. We called our friend Mary, who came round to look after William. The contractions started at 6 minute intervals. We called the birthing suite at Southmead, who told us to call back when they were every 4 or 5 minutes. As soon as we put the phone down, they were every 3 minutes, so off we went. We arrived at the birthing suite at about 2.55am. At 3.26am Emily arrived! A less that 2.5 hours labour!
Emily weighed 9lbs9oz! Being such a healthy size, she caused a third degree tear on the way out, which I won't go into, but let's just say it's not very nice. Su had to have a spinal block and go into theatre for a repair job. This meant she had to stay in hospital for an extra night, which is a shame, but she's doing really well now. We brought Emily home this evening and William loves her to bits. I am so proud of my amazing wife Su and my wonderful daughter Emily. Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Lent Internet Fast
So I've been thinking about what to give up for Lent. Whilst I'm well up for the whole idea of taking things on for Lent rather than the whole sackcloth and ashes thing, I do still think there is a real place for fasting, and Lent is a good time to do it. Fasting is supposed to be giving something up as a spiritual discipline for God. It is saying to God, I need you and want you more than this thing. It is not meant to be easy, because this would be no discipline at all. I think for me, the most difficult thing to give up at the moment is the internet; more difficult than chocolate, or alcohol, or TV, or coffee (ok, maybe not coffee). So for the next 40 days, not including the Sundays (I'll have to think about Sundays) I will not be using the internet, except for strictly academic research purposes. So that means no blogging, no facebook, no Twitter, no BBC iplayer, no BBC news, no Youtube, no nothing. This is going to be rock hard for me, 'cos I love the internet. I practically live on it. When we have been away to Su's dad's or somewhere, when the broadband has been down, it has been a nightmare for me. I even take my laptop to bed with me. Which is probably why it's time to have a break. What am I going to do for my quick fix of news, for that random blog entry, for that stupid video? What will I do with my time? I may even have to start talking to my wife again :)
There will be one exception to this internet fast. When our second child arrives, at some point during the next 4 weeks or so, I will of course let the world know, and get some piccies up. But this, hopefully, will be the only break in the fast (like I say, apart from academic articles relevant to my research). Wish me luck. Signing off.
There will be one exception to this internet fast. When our second child arrives, at some point during the next 4 weeks or so, I will of course let the world know, and get some piccies up. But this, hopefully, will be the only break in the fast (like I say, apart from academic articles relevant to my research). Wish me luck. Signing off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
