mustard seeds

so long, farewell - moving to wordpress!!!

2006-05-22T15:15:00.000Z

I've decided to port my blog over to WordPress. One of the reasons I find it difficult to keep this one up (apart from spending any free time on my lectionary blog) is that I just don't fancy the layout anymore. I wanted something more customisable - something clean and contemporary. WordPress is a really aesthetically pleasing platform. Just wish I could port disclosing new worlds over, too, but the hassle isn't worth it.

Thanks to Blogger for getting me started. Please some over to the new site, and leave a comment. It'll take me a week or so to get all the bookmarks brought over and submit it to search engines, but I'd like to get a vibrant discussion going among those of you with similar interests. For those of you who want the URL, it's http://wol1959.wordpress.com

See you there!

postmodern churches

2006-03-08T23:34:00.000Z

Have a look at Blind Beggar. There's a post entitled "Ten Distinctives of Postmodern Churches". I couldn't agree more! We've just had two courses at the Windermere Centre on and Emerging Church and Multimedia Worship. I found that the stuff in the latter that I resonated most with was the material that engaged with the tradition - the Celtic and Latin traditions, for example. Makes me glad I'm part of today's church and not that of 20 years ago!

his bobness: what would the boy say to the man?

2006-03-08T22:17:00.000Z

Surfing through bobdylan.com, I found some of his rare performances (http://bobdylan.com/performances/). Have a listen to his April 17 rendition of "I dreamed I saw St Augustine", from the Orpheum Theatre, Boston, Mass. Here is Bob singing one of his greatest songs - in a way I've never heard him do it before. The words are often indistinct. He sounds as though he's recovering from a sore throat - or hasn't quite hit recovery yet! - and slips into his lazy performance-mode "talkie-sing" mode (ie when he's coasting and just can't be bothered to interpret his material). And yet ... it's great! It's beautiful and moving. He sings it with the love of the familiar - he's lived long with the song. It's never blase, although it hovers on the edge. Instead, he manages to hold on to that dynamic of a familiarity that speaks of deep, deep knowledge, and yet is aware of further mystery. But Bob is the Gnostic - these are secrets only he knows, and he almost plays with us, exciting our envy and longing for a similar depth knowledge.

Ok, ok, this is sounding far too ... something! Pretentious? Sentimental? I mean, it's just a man singing a song. And yet Bob manages to do that sort of stuff with his music, doesn't he? Listening to Bob sing his old songs is to be drawn into the narrative of his journey with the music. There's a crossover somewhere: Bob interprets the songs/the songs interpret Bob. What the songs become is what Dylan himself has become.

So I found myself listening to an old man sing an old song, while looking at a photo of him at the Newport Festival. And I wondered what the young Dylan would say to the man he's become? Would he like him? Would he regret the way it all turned out? If he knew how he'd sound 40 years down the road ... would he do it all differently?

Now, call me sentimental and uncritical, but I reckon he'd be fine with it all. He started out knowing he had something to say - and found that he didn't have a clue as to just how much! He's "followed the river down to the sea" and the beach is pretty good. He's learned to live with his regrets (more than a few, and certainly enough to merit more than just a mention!). You can hear it in the songs. The world ain't what he probably hoped it would become, but it's a better place for having given him space and recognition. He's "just tryin' to get to heaven before they close the door" - and that ought to do just fine!

uniquely jesus ...

2006-02-18T17:05:00.000Z

You scored as Servant Model. Your model of the church is Servant. The mission of the church is to serve others, to challenge unjust structures, and to live the preferential option for the poor. This model could be complemented by other models that focus more on the unique person of Jesus Christ.

Servant Model

100%

Mystical Communion Model

61%

Sacrament model

61%

Herald Model

50%

Institutional Model

What is your model of the church? [Dulles]
created with QuizFarm.com

So there it is! It's worth looking at these things every so often - mine's changed a little since last time. I'm intrigued at the suggestion that I could concentrate more on the uniqueness of Jesus. That's my presupposition. I believe that only Jesus saves - but not only Christians are saved! Jesus is unique not least because Jesus uniquely refuses the boundaries that most of us - church and world alike - create. So I'm right up with those who say that Jesus alone saves us. No one else has done or could do what Christ did on the cross. That is the means of salvation. But Jesus came, not to start a new religion or create the Church, but to transform the world into the kingdom of God.

That is not to say that Jesus alone gives us access to God or to Truth. But Jesus alone gives us access to the Life that God for us here - the Holy Spirit and involvement in God's continual mission to make this world wall that God intends. I don't usually frame the question this way, but if it's the one I was asked a week ago - "Can Buddhists be saved?" - my answer is "Yes, of course they can? Who can't be saved? But Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, genocidal maniacs, alcoholics, unborn children and whomever else are all saved because of what God has done in Jesus. No one else."

born to run

2006-02-18T16:46:00.000Z

Talking of music, here's my latest present: the 30th anniversary release of Born to Run. The boxed set consists of the remastered CD and 2 DVDs - the Hammersmith 1975 concert and the making of Born to Run.

It's not just the music - it's the stories. Born to Run has a special assocation for me, because when my cousin died last year (2 years older than I am), they played this at the crem. And of course, this song -and album - has a seminal place in Bruce's career. He made it when he was on the edge of the huge success he's become - it was the album that tipped him over that particular edge.

Listening to him describing his relationship to the song was very moving. He was aware of all the latent talent he had, but not sure of where it would take him. Just knew he was born to run ...

everybody needs a tame ..

2006-02-18T16:29:00.000Z

(a) car mechanic, who won't rip you off by telling you you need to replace your steering wheel; (b) all-round electrician, plumber, builder and carpenter who can help you out when basic tools and ineptirude reach their limits; (c) computer consultant and (d) - most importantly - music expert, who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of what's happening and who, and can point you to stuff you ought to be discovering!

I'm incredibly fortunate in all 4, but none is as amazing as the guy who runs Action Replay in Bowness! His shop is a veritable treasure trove of any kind of music you might like - or learn to like. He's also an enthusiast who will spend hours talking about music, playing stuff, and his advice is pretty well infallible. He put me on to such delights as the Be Good Tanyas - required listening. He also dug me out some suitable non-sacred sacred music, which led to a fascination conversation about his atheism.

But the one to get is the new album by Neil Diamond, 12 Songs. Now when someone like Diamond produces Uncut's album of the month, something is happening. And the something is the producer, Rick Rubin. When Johnny Cash was washed up and had been dumped by everyone, Nick Rubin (who usually produces hard urban music) took him in hand and made him a legend before he died. And now he's taken Neil Diamond into the studio and treated him as new discovery, unencumbered by his past career, and made him produce the best album he's capable of. 12 Songs is the result - and one helluva result it is, too! Stunning!

And if, like me, you've got a nostalgic and embarrassed love of old songs like I am, I said, Holly Holy, Jonathan Livingstone Seagull ... well, here's one to buy and play unashamedly!

Talking of blasts from the past, a close second is Janis Ian's new album, Folk is the new Black. Can't wait until payday now.

the royal tour

2005-11-02T09:59:00.000Z

It's been far too long since I was actively blogging here! I blame the start of the church year - September and October have been manic. So Charles and Camilla begin their US tour today. And the question is, can Camilla woo the Diana-ites over? Isn't it tragic that a marriage is public property in the way that Charles' marriages have been? I write as an ardent anti-royalist, but on this one, I want to put in a plea for Charles. What a bizarre system we have here in the UK! The heir to the throne had to marry a "suitable" wife. Apart from anything else, she had to be a virgin (and be tested!). So on all sorts of grounds, Charles the human being is prevented from marrying the woman he loves. Well, let's be candid: he's prevented from marrying for love, full stop. In the 20th century (an nothing's changed with the new millennium) we are still running a system of royal marriage as alliance! I have every sympathy with Diana when she complained that there were three people in her marriage (to say nothing of the numbers she herself brought to the party!). Diana was treated very shabbily by her husband. But I still blame the system. We assume that the heart of the marriage relationship is love and the desire to be together. The bit in the service about "forsaking all others" presumes that the reason for getting married to this particular person is because this is the person one wishes to spend life with, rather than anyone else. Marriages are under enough pressure at the best of times: imagine having had to plan with the woman you love how to go about marrying someone else! Poor guy! So here's my one and only plea for sympathy for the royals. We set them up - we put them into impossible situations like this, then we demand a fairytale story of them and are outraged when it doesn't happen. One of my chief problems with the monarchy is that the system wrecks lives - theirs! And we are the ones who do it.

feeding places

2005-10-19T13:03:00.000Z

It's been far too long since I had a few minutes spare enough to sit down and post. I've had to make do with "browsing and grazing" as far as blogging has been concerned for the past few weeks, and I am grateful to those whose blogs I've always found helpful that there's always something worthwhile to read and ponder. It's been a way of keeping in the conversational loop, albeit as an observer! Had you been able to see it, though, my body language would have said "Engaged listener" very loudly!

One place I've stopped over repeatedly at of late is Sean the Baptist. Sean is a Greek Orthodox monk who ... (just kidding!!!!) Sean is the New Testament lecturer at Northern College, Manchester. What I particularly enjoy is the way in which he interacts with theology, so that for someone who is fundamentally a biblical theologian, it's a nourishing waterhole! I may be mixing metaphors here, but the point is, go visit and see for yourself ...

bush the new (moderate) crusader!

2005-10-07T16:13:00.000Z

Did you catch Bush's latest "state of the union" address on the war against terror? I'm still depressed about it! Here is a man who sees the presence of American and British troops in Iraq as an obvious good. He inveighed against radical islamic terrorists and their jaundiced view of the world, their war against humanity, their hubris (look it up, George - it's a particular kind of sin, which caused the fall of Lucifer in the story) and their wicked, amoral and determined war against humanity.

Now let's be clear. What bin Laden and his ilk do is godless and inexcusable. Absolutely. But it is understandable! Or at least, partially. And what Bush will not have is that he and his policies are part cause of it. He gives them the reason, the excuse and the mandate. He talks of the terrorists' war on democracy and on people who enjoy liberty. And he's blissfully, sublimely and culpably unaware of the affront that American aggression gives! He clearly hasn't stopped to ask himself how the good ol' American people who (didn't actually) elect him (first time round) would react if there were Iraqi soldiers on the streets of New York and other cities and towns. And if they claimed to be there for the good of humanity, does he honestly suppose that irate Americans would say, "Oh! Silly us! That's ok, then!"?

The trouble is, I think he actually does think that! But what really gets me is that he dresses it mall up in terms of a Christian crusade. It's as extreme, fundamentalist and deadly a crusade as any waged by militant islamists. And it's got a lot of power and money behind it. For God's sake (literally) will someone make him realise it hasn't got God's blessing????

bob the articulate? must be some mistake, surely ...

2005-09-27T11:08:00.000Z

Did you watch His Bobness on BBC2 at 9pm last night? What a treat! Nearly 2 hours of Dylan's early years. It was great to watch classic footage of the early Dylan - highlights for me being Newport and the 1966 tour - but also to see his musical biography come to life. There was Pete Seeger, who's grown into the thoughtful, softly-spoken, articulate yet committed gentleman he always threatened to become. And Suzie Rotolo, talking with her hands - the girl from that album cover who hasn't lost her impish mischief or obvious affection for The Man over the years. The biggest treat, though, was to see Joan Baez, then and now, who is always conspicuously absent from these bobfests and yet was so seminal to the emergence of Dylan's own writing voice. The chemistry was obvious and a joy to see - not least because Dylan we got to see plenty of those rare events: Dylan actually enjoying himself!

The reprise of those early years drove home just how enormous a change Dylan not only lived through but effected. Michael Gray and others who insist that the music scene must be divided into two eras - Before Dylan and After Dylan - are right. The Greenwich Village scene that hosted the young waif in Cafe Wha transformed itself within a remarkably short space of time. Dylan was both the catalyst and the prophet who showed the way.

Most surprising, though, was Dylan himself, as interviewee and commentator. He was uncharacteristically giving and articulate. He gave straight answers to straight questions. The familiar irony and multiple masks behind which he hides when being asked to talk about his work were notably absent. Dylan talked about music - and about his music. He spoke about what grabbed him and didn't. He talked about what he was trying to do with his music.

Two things struck me forcibly. When Dylan spoke of his first album - a collection of covers which were planned in the studio as he was recording - he talked of the dynamic in him that instinctively held back what was most important to him and best in terms of what he had to offer. What distinguishes this album is the absence of original material (though not arrangements). This is surprising because Dylan was already writing prolifically, constantly and easily. It wasn't shyness that silenced the (lyrically) unique voice of Dylan (the man who is held up as the voice of his and subsequent generations), but an instinctive dis-ease with self-disclosure. Dylan writes and plays primarily for himself and for other musicians. He is hyper aware of the fickleness of the general public and their appetite for the banal (if any proof was needed, we had only to listen to some of the huge number of anodyne covers of "Blowin' in the Wind" that sold more than Dylan's own punchy, uncomfortable renditions). It struck me again how, if we want to "listen" to Dylan, we ought not to try and force him into the straitjacket of second-order commentary. The Man is not the explanation for the Songs - if for no other reason that he cannot and will not be!

The second related point was the refrain that ran through nearly every point at which Dylan spoke about musicians he admired and what musicians were about. He kept saying, "(S)he was really saying something - and I wanted to say it!" Dylan writes and performs to say something. Music is his chosen vehicle of expression. Music doesn't exist to be frozen in time and space like a photograph. It exists to say something. The beauty for Dylan is its polyvalence and acapacity for reinterpretation - to say something new to a new context. Hence Bob's refusal to bow to audience pressure and recreate the recordings in performance. Dylan, as has often been noted, constantly reinterprets his songs rather than re-performing them. He changes lyrics, beat, tune, accompaniment, tone, phrasing and emphasis to the bewilderment and fury of his fans. It was wonderfully ironic to watch that bewilderment surface when he went electric in 1966. Devotees of the man's music spoke on screen of their anger at Dylan for daring to own and rework his own songs. Dylan had broken the contract. That's not how music "worked"! Performers were supposed to create something that the public liked - and then it became public property! The job of the live performer was just that - to perform to order. Reproduce the recordings like some live hologram. And that was how it was Before Dylan. It was Bob who broke the mould.

Dylan has always "said something". He's always insisted, too, that "the songs are the message". You can't penetrate behind the songs to get at a "deeper truth". The truth is inextricable from the medium - the song, which is the lyrics, the music, Dylan's voice ... and Dylan himself! Those of us who whine at his lack of self-giving have simply not got that point. If it's Bob we want, we must go to the songs. It is Dylan's presence and re-interpretation that make Dylan's music an encounter with The Man himself - even when he's having an off-day or an off-decade or two! Scorcese managed a rare feat. He got Dylan to talk easily about himself and his music. Yet did he "penetrate behind the mask"? Or was this articulate, comfortable-with-biography Dylan just another mask for the inexhaustively re-inventive Bob, created to deliver what was needed? I didn't learn anything "new" about Bob from Bob. It was a joy to listen to him, but it was commentary, not self-disclosure. He still peddled some of the old myths of origin that he'd created in the first place - or at least, made no corrections to them! He didn't contradict or shape what was said about his musical development - he merely commented. For me, I'm prepared to buy what he's always said. "The Songs are the Message!" That's when I "get" Dylan (as much as I ever do) and when I'm constantly delighted, surprised and shocked. That's when I feel the power of the untameable and recalcitrant genius of the man, and when I reckon I get closest to whoever Bob Dylan really is. I buy into it as an act of faith and appreciation. And hey ... it works for me!

new blog on the block

2005-09-23T13:01:00.000Z

Just discovered that Keith Alexander, a URC minister in Manchester, has stared a blog - Thoughts of Keith - with a thoughtful (no pun intended!) piece on the privatisation of faith (or at least, that's what struck me about it). Drop in and visit.

a theology of contamination

2005-09-20T12:29:00.000Z

We're privileged to have Richard Giles, author of Re-pitching the Tent, doing a course at the Centre as I write. For those of us in the URC, buildings are a real issue. They soak up huge amounts of time, energy and resources. Most importantly, membership in the URC has declined by 51% in the last 30 years, while the number of church buildings has declined by only 16%. In other words, we've got fewer than half the people supporting nearly the same work. Add the complications of increasing maintenance charges because of age, increased standing costs as utility costs rise, increased expectations and the requirements to conform with ever-burgeoning legislation and it is small wonder that buildings generate frantic activity just to stand still! They throw us into "survival mode" in ways that few other aspects of church life do.

Richard pointed out something very interesting this morning. He is an Anglican priest (presently Dean of Philadelphia Cathedral but keen to return to his native shores at every opportunity!) and he started out with a slide of the Jewish temple, with its courts at varying distances away from the Holy of Holies. He then put up a slide of a typical parish church, with the knave acting like the court of the Gentiles or the court of Israel, the choir acting as the priests (all robed etc) and then the altar - the Holy of Holies. His argument is that we reproduce the temple in our church buildings. And he's right!

What struck me even more forcibly is that the traditional seating plan in churches, where we fill up (from the back) and gaze forwards to the action spot (where God is) is based on a theology of holiness and contamination. God is holy. That means people must keep their distance. The holier we are, the greater proximity we are allowed to the "God spot"! For all the difficulties of worshipping in the round, it struck me as vitally important that we do so. It says something - that we are a community, gathered around God. We have equal access to God. It is a necessary corrective to a theology of contamination, expressed weekly in "performance", whereby we gather at a "safe" distance from God.

model of the church

2005-09-15T20:13:00.000Z

This is how I scored on models of the church (thanks, stuart). A servant model. I'm intrigued by the mystical communion high score. Pleased and not surprised that church as institution is not exactly right up there at the top ...

Servant Model

84%

Mystical Communion Model

72%

Sacrament model

72%

Herald Model

45%

Institutional Model

What is your model of the church? [Dulles]
created with QuizFarm.com

church life is also mission

2005-09-15T19:35:00.000Z

I'm writing this in Cleveland, Ohio, where 4 of us from the URC are visiting the United Churches of Christ to consult on their God is Still Speaking, initiative. It's quite something! This relatively small church has done market research which shows that many people are extremely angry with the Church. They are alienated from the institutional church, rather than from God. They feel there isn't a place for them. This includes lesbians, gays and transgengered people, but also thinking people, divorcees and others whom the church feels unable to welcome. They've mounted a nation-wide sophisticated advertising campaign that extends a welcome to everyone, without suggesting they need to become "like us". The God is still speaking theme is to say that God hasn't pronounced the last word on subjects the church often appears to regard as closed. The inclusion of gay people is an obvious area. The point is that if a subject is closed, then so are the doors to the people it affects.

In one sense, it seems an innocuous enough campaign. After all, don't we all tend to say "Everyone is welcome here"? Yet people experience a different reality. As a result of the campaign, the UCC has had hundreds of thousands of people contacting them to find their nearest UCC church. The attitude is "If church is really like that, I want to be part of it!" The response has been astonishing and overwhelming. They've had independent churches wanting to affiliate to the UCC because of the campaign. The streets here are lined with banners with the campaign strap lines and the UCC logo.

My concern was that this was yet another instance of a church engaged in self-promotion. It clearly isn't! They've found a way of being unapologetically evangelical not only about the gospel but also about church (without confusing the two inappropriately) because the message of welcome is heard as Good News.

One reason for the campaign's success is that the campaign is edgy, irreverent and playful. Its message is designed with the target audience in mind, rather than the church itself. And it genuinely communicates! Have a look at stillspeaking.com and play the bouncer ad on the title page. We've heard and seen testimonies about how the simple message of genuine love, acceptance and welcome has revolutionised people's lives. It's stopped suicides. It's given hope and purpose. And it's enabled people to relate to God in Jesus Christ in new and real ways.

We were talking about the way in which we as the URC and other UK churches still have to resolve the sexuality issue. Ron Buford, the mover behind the campaign, said something that I've not heard in the various church debates on the subject and that made a deep impression. He said, "We are a covenant church. Baptism is a covenant. It promises lifelong incorporation into the body of Christ and acceptance. When we exclude people whom we've baptised, we break covenant. We say, 'Sorry. We didn't mean that this was a lifelong covenant!' Then we break covenant with God and that is desperately serious!"

Another comment that really grabbed me as true of so much of church life: "If the 1950s ever return, let me tell you: we're ready for it!" Isn't it depressingly true that we're stuck in models of the past that are passe and will never do for us now what they did in their time? Let's bring that emerging church to birth ... quickly!

when is evangelism (in)appropriate?

2005-09-07T12:13:00.000Z

I received the daily email bulletin from ekklesia. One of the articles on Hurricane Katrina is entitled, "Don't use aid to proselytize, Christians urged". The head of the Christian Aid agency co-ordinating relief efforts criticises Christians using aid to win vulnerable people over to their religious convictions as "morally questionable". I think he's absolutely right! When people are suffering as they are, aid is a wonderfully Christian response. It is the equivalent of not walking by on the other side of the road when other human beings are suffering. It says, without words, "We are moved by compassion! What is happening to you is appalling! We want to help!"

That has its own evangelistic dimension. True compassion of that sort is sacramental. If we believe what we say about compassion mirroring the heart of God, then we must trust that people who encounter love and compassion in action encounter God. That is what is needed in this instant. It is Good News concretely in the face of the bad news that governs their lives.

Of course, Christians do not have the monopoly on compassion! Another article is headed, "Axis of evil offers to come to America's rescue" and details offers of help from the Cuban president, Fidel Castro. That must be pretty galling for the American religious Right! Yet we need reminding that all acts of compassion and love are ultimately Godly, whether coming from people of faith or not. The Kingdom, after all, is bigger than the Church (however much we'd like it to be otherwise) and its values and priorities are shared in many ways by extraordinarily different groups. We need to learn to see these other groups as co-workers for the Kingdom, even when they have nothing to do with it and theoretically oppose it. God's presence is found in strange places, as the hearers of the parable of the Good Samaritan found out!

But why the ban on using aid to proselytise? Because that is neither Christian nor evangelistic! The distinction between "proselytise" and "evangelise" is crucial. To proselytise is to seek to persuade someone to embrace my religious convictions - to think and believe and live in the same way as I do. To evangelise is to tell people the Good News of Jesus Christ and invite them to find the same Life as I have in being a follower. That is not the same thing! The former views the other person as a potential convert - a target, or statistic. More importantly, proselytisation is fundamentally about cloning, so that I see the other as a potential "someone like me". Evangelisation sees them as a fellow human being and assumes some sort of relationship between us that is not based on their potential "convertibility".

We need to recognise how deep the unconscious drive is in us to make a success of the Church. Because we express our faith in this context as we do, Church and discipleship are pretty well interchangeable. The trouble is, we lose sight of the crucial difference - just as many of the Christian missionaries were unable to disentangle discipleship of Jesus Christ from white, western, imperial culture! Until we can disentangle the two for ourselves, we will tend to proselytise rather than evangelise.

This is not to say that we shouldn't be desperately keen for those in dire need to receive not only bread but the Bread of Life! Yet what we should be offering beyond aid alone is our prayers and offers of friendship. We are sacraments of God's grace and love in Jesus Christ, far more eloquently than our words. We need to offer ourselves - not our religious beliefs - because in so doing we are offering Christ. And we need to celebrate the Jesus whom we meet in communist Cubans, as well. Because Jesus is there too.

a Jesus & Peter dialogue on forgiveness

2005-09-04T12:39:00.000Z

I've written this dialogue in the style of the "Eh, Jesus ... Yes Peter?" Wild Goose meditations. In the interests of space, I'm only putting enough on here to give the general idea. It goes on to deal with forgiveness and "winning vs healing", loving enemies and praying for them. If you want the full text, I'll happily email it to you by return. You can email me on wol@fish.co.uk

FORGIVENESS
Matthew 18: 21-35
Cast: Jesus & Peter (Peter clearly seething)
J: Peter …
P: WHAT??? O, sorry, Jesus! Didn’t realize it was you.
J: What’s the matter?
P: Nothing! Why SHOULD anything be the matter?
J: Oh, ok. I was looking for Andrew – do you know where he’s got to?
P: Don’t know, don’t care, don’t matter!
J: Aaah … the joys of family life getting to you, are they? What’s happened?
P: It’s not fair! I’ve told him over and over again … but does it make any difference? Does it thump!
J: What is unfair Peter?
P: Wednesday’s Andrew’s day to get up early, make sure the nets are untangled and ready in the boat, check for any splits in the sail ... you know, get everything ready for the day’s fishing. It’s a real pain to get up early, but it has to be done. We take it in turns – or we’re SUPPOSED to. But Andrew keeps oversleeping. He says he “forgets”. So I end up making breakfast, thinking he’s sorting the boat out, when all the time he’s snoring his socks off and then I end up doing the boat as well! AND it happens ALL the time! I could have murdered him this morning!
J: What did he say?
P: He said he was sorry …
J: So it’s all sorted out, then?
P: Sorted out? How?
J: Well, you were angry, he said he’s sorry …
P: And …?
J: So if you’ve forgiven him – problem solved!
P: FORGIVEN him? You’re kidding! Why should I forgive him?
J: Why not?
P: Apart from anything else, because it happens again and again and again! And I KNOW it’ll probably be just the same way next week. It’s not a one-off. Surely you don’t expect me to go on and ON forgiving him, do you?
J: Why not?
P: Why do you rabbi types ALWAYS answer a question with a question?
J: What’s wrong with a question?
P: Very funny! Ok, answer me this: how many times do you expect me to forgive him?
J: 70 times 7
P: 70 TIMES 7??? That’s … that’s … well, that’s a LOT of times!
J: It’s 490 times, Peter.
P: 490 times? How do you expect me to keep count? I’ll lose track long before 490 and then have to start all over again! I may as well give up counting and just say I’ll forgive him every time!
J: Would that be so bad?
P: Of course it would! Why should I always be the one to give way, when he’s in the wrong? Apart from anything else, I’d look weak … a pushover!
J: You think forgiving someone is weak?
P: Of course it is! It lets him off the hook … oh, I get it! Jesus, you’re a genius!
J: I am? ...

gone live on the lectionary!

2005-08-31T14:35:00.000Z

I'm ahead of my schedule, which is unusual enough to make video of the event and seal it in a time capsule, let alone simply diarise! My disclosing new worlds blog has gone live, with reflections on the texts for 11 September rather than the first week in October. I'd be grateful for any and all critical comments, please. I want to know whether it's worth the time, and that depends on how effective a resource it proves to be!

a postmodern, neo-orthodox welseyan

2005-08-31T08:54:00.000Z

Well, I just took the quiz to find out what my theology's like (thanks for the tip, homileo) and discovered that I'm clearly postmodern, alienated from the institutional church, strongly neo-orthodox and pretty welseyan! Only an 18% reformed evangelical. So what am I doing with myself? Working for the United Reformed Church! Actually, I'd say my spirituality rather than my theology is wesleyan/catholic/not reformed. My theology is pretty much neo-orthodox, postmodern reformed (aren't labels fun???? NOT!). Actually, the most satisfactory label I've ever really been prepared to wear is a South African one - radical evangelical. These are people who believe in the vital importance of a personal relationship with God through Christ, and who are pretty well thorough-going liberation theologians. Here are my results:

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.

Emergent/Postmodern

96%

Neo orthodox

82%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

71%

Roman Catholic

61%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

57%

Classical Liberal

50%

Modern Liberal

32%

Reformed Evangelical

18%

Fundamentalist

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

disclosing new worlds

2005-08-30T11:35:00.000Z

I've started my new blog, disclosing new worlds. Its purpose is to be a resource for ministers and preachers, with a weekly reflection on the lectionary readings. I also want to build up a library of prayers, worship resources and images, so any contributions are more than welcome! If you go to the section on the art of preaching, you'll find the first of a series of essays on preaching entitled dissonance and disturbance - journeying outside the comfort zone, reflecting my conviction that one of the primary and early tasks of a sermon is to jolt people out of their comfort zone to engage and disturb them. In so doing, we create space for God to break into our self-enclosed and self-constructed world and show us the new world of the Gospel. I'd be interested in your comments and criticisms.

different gospels, different christs

2005-08-30T11:21:00.000Z

One of the most disturbing lessons I had to learn was that there is no one Gospel that is preached and believed by all Christians. Nor is there just one Jesus. There are all sorts of Jesuses - competing Christs. Christs in opposition to one another. I learned that in the South African context. I see it most clearly today in the conflict in Israel/Palestine. My son is out there at the moment (returning imminently) and has had the same shock I had when making this same discovery. I reflect on that in my article for the Carver Calendar this month, entitled When gospels collide.

so why aren't we all on skype?

2005-08-29T10:40:00.000Z

Skype's the way that the whole world can talk for free - or at least, the online world! It turns your computer into a telephone, and the quality is superb! I was talking to the minister from Australia who's coming to Carver Church on an exchange, and we could hear each other as clear as a bell. Much better than my home phone. And of course, it's free. So why aren't we all downloading it? It's a great way to follow up some conversations. Go to skype and download the software. Then go to "share skype" and you'll find buttons for your blog (you'll see mine on the sidebar). Go on - what's to lose?

if I were you, I wouldn't start from here

2005-08-29T10:01:00.000Z

If you're thinking of starting your own blog, I wouldn't start here! Mandy put me on to blogSpirit, a site that, like Blogger, gives you free blogging facilities. Unlike Blogger, it's fully featured. For a start, the interface for editing is far, far more user-friendly. You don't have to play with html coding and templates unless you want to do things like add banners etc (in which case, all the things you've learned through Blogger will be of great help!). You can create categories, allowing you to save your posts under different subject headings. You can add music and books (put in the ISBN number and you get an image of the book from Amazon). You can also put photo albums on the site, with a delightful slideshow feature. Basically, you get all the sorts of features that you'll usually have to go to a hosted provider like TypePad for - and all for free! One natty feature is that you can put a link on your site to another blog, and if you fill in their RSS feed URL (ie for syndication), people can read their blog without leaving your site.

I'm in the throes of constructing a blog there on reflections on the lectionary. I was asked some time ago if I'd do that for URC ministers and lay preachers, so I'm getting round to it now. It's called disclosing new worlds. It's very much under construction, but if you want to have a look at what blogSpirit offers, you're welcome to have a look. I'd welcome comments and suggestions, anyway!

for what it's worth ...

2005-08-28T17:12:00.000Z

I wrote this as a responsive prayer of adoration and confession, leaving a short silence after each response before beginning the next petition. Fell free ...

Our Father in heaven
Come and meet with your children.
Hallowed be your name.
You alone are worthy of our praise and worship.
Your Kingdom come; your will be done on earth as in heaven.
Open our eyes and hearts to your world!
Give us today our daily bread
Nourish our faith as you have nourished our bodies with good things.
Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.
Renew us. Restore us. Release us as we release those who have hurt us.
Save us from the time of trial, and deliver us from evil
Lead us to your green pastures and still waters. Restore our souls.
For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, now and forever.
Amen.

read this and be very, very afraid ...

2005-08-24T15:44:00.000Z

Go and look at this page, called The American Taliban. It's a page of quotes from prominent Americans. A number of them are church leaders. Others are politicians, serving in the Bush Administration.

Take James Watt, Secretary for the Interior. He says, "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand." Way to go, James! So the Church is released from its mandate under the 5th Mark of Mission to preserve the environment!

How about George Bush snr: "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." One neation, George? Not if you can help it! And which God? Not mine!

But some of the really chilling stuff is about an appropriate Christian response to terrorism. Now I've always bought into the notion that, if women ran the world - particularly mothers - we'd probably have no war. And of course, if they were all Christian mothers, well, that would clinch it! Ann Coulter, a prominent Christian mother who is an attorney, a syndicated columnist and author who would like to run the world, has shown me the error of my ways:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."
"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"

So is Tony planning to bar all these people from entering Britain too because of preaching racial hatred? And will rightwing foreign Christians also face deportation? Or is it only if you happen to be Muslim?

rock & redemption

2005-08-24T14:28:00.000Z

Some of the most suggestive and creative theology is to be found outside religious texts. It's certainly where some of the most insightful and surprisingly rich reflections can be found. Those of us whose professional tools include the Bible and the tradition need to recognise that our theological imaginations are shaped and limited by these tools. That isn't to say anything bad or critical - it is to acknowledge reality. We look through a lens which has been polished by the medium in which we work. Musicians look through a different lens. Theirs is the lens of lyrics, the symbol systems of musical traditions, rhythms, sound, cadence and rhyme. And it colours their theology. That's why find the theology in certain songs to be far more exciting and creative than much of the very worthy stuff I read in theological text books. It's not usually the content so much as the vehicle. There are startling things to be discovered.I reckon few do it better than the (not-very-holy) trinity of Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen and Bruce Springsteen. That's why I'm running a course at the Windermere Centre on Rock & Redemption (21-24 November). It's an opportunity to do some very serious theological exploration - but also to listen to some good music on the way. I'm not doing it alone.I'll do 3 sessions on Cohen's music. It will be a straightforward case of using songs as an entry into theological areas. So we will look at brokenness & grace ("Anthem"), sex & sacramentality ("Hallelujah") and kingdom & eschatology ("Democracy"). Peter Noble, Moderator of the URC Wales Synod, is looking at Springsteen as a way of exploring the gospel and evangelism. He will look at Bruce's treatment of the American Dream (see my post "The Boss & Gethsemane") as an example of how to understand the gospel and evangelism. He will look at the construction of a redemption narrative which first of all exposes and confronts the present "bad news" prophetically, moves through the evocation of an alternative reality of promise (Hope & Dreams?) and then to a summons to discipleship. It yields an understanding of gospel and evangelism that is prophetic and passionate but not pietistic. It is radically communal rather than individualistic, yet utterly self-involving.Lance Stone, former lecturer at Westminster College, Cambridge, and soon-to-be minister of Emmanuel URC, Cambridge, is looking at Dylan's music as providing an interesting window in the nature and function of the Bible in preaching and faith. Taking some of Brueggemann's insights into post modern, postliberal views of the Bible, Lance sees the open-endedness of Dylan's lyrics and their ever-retranslatable quality as an important parallel to understanding the Bible's function. Because the songs never allow closure, their meaning can never be frozen buit is always able to open new vistas in a different time and place.So if you want to do some serious theology, or if you like the music, or the Lake District, you can't go far wrong. If all three of those are your "thing", you can't fail. Meatloaf was right when he said that "Two out of three ain't bad"), but I reckon any one thing on its own will be a good enough reason to be here! So download the Booking Form and get registered while there are still spaces ...