An ethic of reciprocity

The Golden Rule is a fundamental ethical principle adopted by many cultures, religions and philosophies.   It states, as a positive statement:  treat others as you would wish to be treated.  It may also be expressed negatively: do not treat others as you would not wish to be treated.

The Rev. Mark Sandlin, a leading progressive christian has this to say:

"We've missed the point of the Golden Rule. It's not to treat people as we would like to be treated.  It's to treat people as we would like to be treated if we were in their shoes. It's a subtle difference that makes a massive difference."

It is a radical change of emphasis and, of course, a difficult one to comprehend.  Just how can be know what it means to be in their shoes unless we have experienced the circumstances and issues face by the other person(s)?  With difficulty.  It does not mean we should not try. On the contrary, if we are to truly love our neighbour the ability to empathise is a first order imperative.  

Sermons

I have listened to Church of England clergy and authorised laity  deliver hundreds of sermons: long, short, boring, interesting, challenging, sleep inducing, droning, erudite, stupid, informative, unintelligle ones.  The one thing they have in common is that I barely remember the content or argument of any of them, sometimes before I have left the church after the service.

I am delighted to note that some preachers commit their sermons to paper and thus it is possible to read and re-read at leisure without the discomfort of hard pews, distractions or poor sound amplification systems. 

I don't know the extent to which budding priests are exposed to methods of delivering a speech.  My experience is it must be very little. No matter  how well researched and crafted the sermon it will be waste  of time if poorly delivered.  

Paradigm shift.

Are we living in a period of paradigm shifts in christian theology and church dogma and doctrine?  It is my opinion that we are.  A word of caution: I am not a  theologian and make no claim to either originality of thought or academic rigour in my writing.  

For many years I accepted the notion that the bible was the infallible word of God, albeit written by humans inspired by God.  I went along with church dogma and, for example,  believed in the literal truth of the Nicean Creed. I was content with the wider doctrines of the denomination I 'belonged' to.   It was all very comforting and simple to understand: keep to the teaching of bible and church and your place in heaven was assured.  

Then doubt set in.   I came to consider the bible to be simply the writings of people of judaic communities (Old Testament) and the New Testament of what were to later be known as christian communities. The books of the bible were attempts by people in those communities to  understand the nature and working of 'god'.  The bible is specific to those times and not a statement of absolute, unalterable truths to be applied to current society. Cloak a human concept with the veneer of the infallible word of God and you have the framework for the guardians of truth to impose their beliefs on others and to exercise discipline on any who demur.  

There are those who believe the words of the bible to be literally those of  God and to be applied accordingly.  Over time other schools of interpretation emerged to take the 'edge' off literal interpretation.  Neverthess for many the centrality of scripture and the various creeds remain at the core of church teaching and application of christian faith and belief. 

Major influences of my theological thoughts have been the ideas of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jacques Derrida,  John  Robinson,  Don Cupitt and Richard Holloway.  Slowly I have been weaned off bible literalism and cosmic creeds and moved in the direction of applying myself to the  task of assisting others.   The influence of Gustavo Gutierrez, Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, Leonardo Boff and Jurgen Moltmann has been decisive. (As an aside there are philosophical, political and economic writers who have influenced me: as they should as one should not consider theology in a silo but recognise and embrace the interplay of many disciplines.  Thus Karl Popper, Tony Benn and John Kenneth Galbraith among others, have coloured my thinking.)

The influence of postmodernism on my thinking has been profound. Should one accept the idea that there are no over-arching, absolute, metaphysically determined,  unchanging concepts then the basis of belief in the bible as the infallible word  of God is shot through.  It follows that the truth of dogma and doctrine is demoted (or deconstructed if you prefer) to subjective concepts of human origin.

And yet..doubt remains.  Those who embrace liberation or feminist theology or other expressions of fairness and equality often seek to express concepts within the old framework of biblical interpretation and church dogma  It's all a question of interpretation of scripture we are informed.  But, is it?

I do not consider there to be inalienable human rights. Rights, powers and duties are of human origin and rely on assent to be followed, often accompanied by peer pressure and in some cases political enforcement.  It follows that there is no requirement to follow the teaching of religion in order to ascertain metaphysical human rights.  And yet...many state that their desire to assist others is the working out of the commandment of Jesus to love your neighbour.  Let's be brutally clear, everyone is capable to loving neighbours.  It is not the sole preserve of religion.

I consider the teaching attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels  persuasive as an indication of how we should behave.  It does not matter if Jesus actually said what is attributed to him or if the text is a melange of myth, other writings, custom or folklore.  It is the message to be ascertained from the text that matters and how we understand its relevance and application (or not) today.

It may strike you that all this is frightfully humanistic and a long way from christian biblical understanding and church dogma. It is, nevertheless once we have deconstructed the accretions of dogma and literalist interpretation of scripture (a  paradigm shift personal to us) we can reconstruct our ideas on a new platform.

It is my opinion that we should show love and kindness to our neighbour.  But what source triggers us to  act in such a way?  Is the call from a source beyond name, description, symbol or metaphor? The new paradigm rejects understanding bible literally and church dogma to secure our passport to heaven. The new paradigm supports neighbours with love, aimed at poor, excluded, and marginalised  individuals. 

Prophetic or pathetic?

Take your pick. Hardline conservative, fundamentalist, literalist evangelicals have a very low opinion of me and maybe pray for my release from heresy and to be born again.  Liberals, progressives, de/reconstructivists on the other hand cheer me on.  I am one very tiny insignificant voice in the journey along the path set by Jesus to love your neighbour and engage in practical support of the poor, the marginalised and the excluded.  

Soren Kierkegaard put it this way:  There are two types of Christians: those who imitate Jesus and those who are just content to admire him.  A sentiment echoed by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his concept of cheap and costly grace. 

At times I become depressed by the failure of government to take action and remove systemic failings in our society that have the effect of ensuring the continuation of social injustice.  I am depressed further by the lack of radical action by the churches to tackle government on the issues.  

But then I cheer up and determine to press on, fortified by comments such as the following:

Don’t stop being a radical, liberal, progressive reconstructionist. In other words don’t stop being curious about people and faith, then you will continue to be the relevant voice of the church  that you are.

And then I go back into my shell and wonder: why bother?

Looking forward.......

Many people regard the New Year as the time to make wishes concerning their hopes for the year ahead.  It's an advent, a determination to change for the better, for a new beginning, for a sea-change in attitude. Whilst emphasis is placed by many on personal factors,  we may hope for changes in the  political, economic and social status quo to remedy what we perceive as systemic failings in our society. What will 2026 bring in terms of challenging the causes of poverty, destitution, homelessness, addiction, discrimination, marginalisation, exclusion?   Or will we enter 2027 wringing our hands at lack of progress in achieving even a modicum of social justice?

It is for individuals to organise into pressure groups to educate the electorate on the systemic failure to deal with the issues noted above and to confront government with the reality of the situation and argue forcefully for change, engaging in direct action if need be.  Such pressure groups are at work and need to be supported to advance their causes. 

I concur with the opinions expressed by Stuart Delony:

“I’m not here to defend doctrines or claim certainty. That boat’s sailed. These days, I live in the tension—between belief and doubt, silence and signal. But even from that space, the way of Jesus still haunts me. Not the theology. Not the miracles. Just the audacity of loving enemies and elevating the broken as if they weren’t disposable. That stays with me. Saints—at least the ones polished up by modern faith—are exhausting. They smile too much. They sell certainty like it’s clearance-priced salvation. And if you spend enough time with them, you realize that sainthood is often just repression in a choir robe. Give me a skeptic. Someone who doubts clean answers and still shows up. Someone who doesn’t need a theology to justify their compassion. Someone who knows the world’s broken but hasn’t hardened into apathy. That’s the kind of person I’d rather walk with. Or drink with. Or follow through the dark. These days, I’m not looking for a belief system. I’m looking for a way to live. Something that smells like honesty. Something that honors doubt without drowning in it. Something that still dares to love, even without the cosmic reward points. Call it post-evangelical. Call it spiritual agnosticism. Call it “still figuring it out.” I don’t care. Just don’t try to sell me certainty. Because at this point, I’ll take a worn-out skeptic over a polished saint any day.”

The challenge for me is not to debate theological ideas, doctrine or dogma, but to become more involved in the task of seeking to promote the idea that all individuals are to be treated equitably and not marginalised, excluded or discriminated against.  We have to challenge the causes of poverty, of multiple deprivation and counter the peddlers of hate.  It is called loving your neighbour. 

Spot on!

For your consideration.... two posts with which I concur for the simple reason that they accord with my current theological opinions.

Jim Rigby

ON LOSING ONE’S FAITH

Losing faith in the religion we were taught as children is not a failure, but a sign of courage and growth.

We would consider it pathetic if an adult felt the need to fit into the same clothes they wore as children. It is even sadder to limit our adult minds to the beliefs given us before we developed the capacity for reason.

Someone is not “lost” just because they have outgrown the rules and beliefs they were given in nursery school. The ideas of a mature worldview cannot fit in the categories of understanding we had when we were younger. Just as some animals grow by shedding their skin and shells, so do humans grow by “losing faith” in earlier world views and discovering new understandings. As Jesus said, new wine must go into new wineskins. Sometimes, in order not to lose faith in life, we must lose faith in any religion that does not allow us to honestly think and feel.

A religion that will not permit us to outgrow earlier understandings is already embalmed. A religion that limits itself to the teachings of the dead already has pennies over its eyes.

The main thing I want to say to people who feel they have lost their faith, is “thank you for your honesty and courage.” Do not lose faith in life and love and something beautiful will be born out of this time of confusion. There are some treasures we can only find by getting lost. There are some values we can only hold onto by breaking the rules. There are some profound truths we can only hear after we have lost faith in the simplistic teachings of our youth.

“Faith” is not holding onto the beliefs someone else taught us when we were children. “Faith” is simply the trust to go through the sense of confusion and doubt that honest thinking sometimes demands. Ultimately, faith is not belief in religion, but trust in life. “Faith” is the trust to let go of old beliefs until we eventually discover a larger and more illuminating framework for living.

Stuart Delony

“I’m not here to defend doctrines or claim certainty. That boat’s sailed. These days, I live in the tension—between belief and doubt, silence and signal. But even from that space, the way of Jesus still haunts me. Not the theology. Not the miracles. Just the audacity of loving enemies and elevating the broken as if they weren’t disposable. That stays with me. Saints—at least the ones polished up by modern faith—are exhausting. They smile too much. They sell certainty like it’s clearance-priced salvation. And if you spend enough time with them, you realize that sainthood is often just repression in a choir robe. Give me a skeptic. Someone who doubts clean answers and still shows up. Someone who doesn’t need a theology to justify their compassion. Someone who knows the world’s broken but hasn’t hardened into apathy. That’s the kind of person I’d rather walk with. Or drink with. Or follow through the dark. These days, I’m not looking for a belief system. I’m looking for a way to live. Something that smells like honesty. Something that honors doubt without drowning in it. Something that still dares to love, even without the cosmic reward points. Call it post-evangelical. Call it spiritual agnosticism. Call it “still figuring it out.” I don’t care. Just don’t try to sell me certainty. Because at this point, I’ll take a worn-out skeptic over a polished saint any day.”

Good News - Random Acts of Kindness

The title of this post is taken from a Facebook Group. Below are quotations from the group's page.  Kindness is an endeavour all may engage in: people of religious faith and those of none.  

The more in the world you encounter kindness, and cheerfulness (which is kind of its amiable uncle or aunt), the better the world always is -and all the big words: virtue, justice, truth, are dwarfed by the greatness of kindness.

Stephen Fry

                                         =====

Leave footprints of kindness wherever you go.

                                         =====

Some believe it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found.  It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love.

J.R.R. Tolkien

                                         =====

You may not always see the results of your kindness but every bit of positive energy you contribute to the world makes it a better place for us all

Lisa Currie

                                         =====

Do things for people not because of who they are or what they do in return, but because of who you are.

Ronald S Kushner

                                         =====

If you're helping someone and expecting something in return, you're doing business not kindness.

                                         =====

When life lifts you high, let your kindness rise even higher. For one day, the winds may shift, and you might find yourself needing the very compassion you once showed to someone when they were low.

In the end, it’s not your status people remember—it’s how you loved them, how you treated them when they had none.

Eitan Bar

                                         =====

We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.

Charlie Chaplin

                                          =====

It is a little embarrassing that, after forty-five years of research and study, the best advice I can give people is to be a little kinder to each other.

Aldous Huxley

Philosophical and theological influences and more......

When I was studying for a law degree the subject I enjoyed most was jurisprudence & legal theory.  Most universities simply named it 'jurisprudence' but my alma mater chose to adopt a rather grander title!  Dipping into the schools of jurisprudence engaged me in a study of the ideas of numerous philosophers and provided me with an understanding of the symbiotic relationship of ethics, legal theory, political philosophy, theology, sociology and economics. It taught me also to view propositions with skepticism, even cynicism,  traits I have retained for the past sixty years, but above all it enlightened me as to how the processes for moving from theory to action work. 

I took a particular interest in the ideas of Karl Popper, John Kenneth Galbraith, John Robinson, Martin Luther King Jnr. and Jacques Derrida.  Later I would be influenced by the works of Don Cupitt, Richard Holloway, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Richard Rohr, Jurgen Moltmann and Gustavo Gutierrez.  An eclectic mix of ideas.  

There are many other writers who also have been influential. I describe my theological position as being a melange of the ideas of others: there is nothing original in my thinking.  Currently I lean towards humanism and away from theism, pantheism and panentheism.  

What has been a constant opinion of mine for many years is that we must provide help and support to those in need and be totally inclusive in so doing.  Also, we must challenge systemic injustice  through campaigns for social justice.

Looking back it is clear to me how my exposure to so many ideas, and the sifting process I have undertaken, has led me to my current theological and political outlook.   Politically I describe myself as a democratic socialist.  

In the end all the theory and philosophy is meaningless.  What matters are not concepts but how you engage in practical action to help others, to show love and kindness and concern for people,  indeed for the whole of creation.  Dear reader, the challenge we should set ourselves is to engage in practical action to the best of our resources and ability.

Cooperatives should be supported by churches.

Last week, to celebrate my eightieth birthday,  we went on a coach trip to Sheerness to visit the Criterion Theatre and Museum located in the shadow of the massive dock boundary wall. Excellent fish and chips and a great variety show.  The Criterion is entirely volunteer run and the person in charge emphasised that the Bluetown part of Sheerness, where the theatre is located was, and is, one of great poverty.  We were told there is documentary evidence of a cooperative in Bluetown predating the Rochdale Pioneers.

I support the concept of cooperatives and making them a reality.  Below are four of my blog posts from 2023 expressing the opinion that faith groups and cooperatives should collaborate to a far great extent.  After all, there are examples of cooperative working in the bible.

1.

I am of the opinion that Christians should support cooperatives and I intend to explain why in this and future posts.  Cooperatives exist in a number of settings  so it may be helpful to start with a definition. The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) defines a cooperative as:

an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. 

The ICA states cooperatives values are based on values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness  social responsibility and caring for others.

The ICA states cooperatives are open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender,  social, racial or religious discrimination.

All sentiments to be applauded, but are they descriptions of the reality world-wide? Probably not.

2.

Cooperatives are owned and controlled by its members. Each member has one vote. They are democratic organisations. Not like many churches.

The Salvation Army does not have elections except for its General who is elected by territorial leaders. It is run like an army with a top-down structure.

The Church of England has a limited democratic structure.  There are elections, not all open to every member, for parochial church councils, churchwardens, deanery and diocesan synods and General Synod. The bishops in General Synod can block motions. Archbishops, bishops and cathedral deans are appointed by the Sovereign on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Control is vested in the top hierarchy.

Many self-standng free churches are controlled by Elders who appoint new Elders.

Doubtless there are denominations with sound democratic credentials and some that are not so blessed.  The important point is that formal structures do not reflect always the reality of the functional operation of power and control. Cooperatives have democratic control  'wired in' and this is sadly lacking in many churches where power rests with the gatekeepers. Christians should support cooperatives,  learn about democratic processes and seek to have them applied by their own churches.

3.

A declaration of interest. I have promoted credit unions for many years, engaging with housing associations, local government, churches, community groups and secular charities. 

Credit unions are cooperatives, one member one vote organisations. A person investing £5.00 has the same voting rights as a person investing £1,000.00. One important feature of credit unions is a willingness to consider on a case by case basis lending to individuals with a poor credit history. However much more needs to be done to reach individuals at risk of, or having been, ensnared by loansharks charging astronomical interest rates.

As Christians we can assist credit unions by saving with them. Deposits are protected in like manner to bank and building society deposits. The more that is saved enables a credit union to expand its lending. We can encourage individuals in need of financial help to apply to credit unions and support applications.

Credit unions and churches are parts of the infrastructure of support for people suffering poverty, deprivation and marginalisation. They should work in collaboration with each other.

4.

I noted the need for foodbanks over fifteen years ago and helped form a community interest company to promote their development. The speed of the growth in the number of foodbanks has surprised me, although the need for them and the causes of that need are clear. Too many people live in abject poverty and need help.  Society should will the means to take individuals out of poverty. Instead government pays lip service to overcoming poverty and leaves it to the voluntary sector to pick up the pieces of broken lives. It is a tragedy.

There is no quick fix solution. What is required is better education, better health and wellbeing provision, better housing,  better public transport, better job opportunities, better care for the elderly and so on. People have been saying this for many years but government is bedevilled by short-termism and the realisation that there are not many votes to be gained by promoting policies to bring about improvement. And so the causes of poverty continue. We have sink schools, a health service on its knees, poor quality and quantity of social housing, declining public transport etc.

Christians are providing bandages. We need to campaign more for fundamental  changes in  policy and expenditure priorities of government. 

Foodbanks are either self-standing organisations or part of a larger organisation. They may be community interest companies, or unincorporated associations or limited companies with or without charitable status.They are not operating as cooperatives. The clients of foodbanks usually  are not members with equal voting rights. The Rochdale Pioneers saw self-help as the key to improving their lives.  This is an approach churches should encourage and support. 

A position statement

 My initial post was in 2022.  Looking over the collection of postings it is clear to me that my ideas have become far more radical, liberal, progressive, deconstructivist over this period to the extent that now I regard myself as humanistic in outlook, but driven by the concepts attributed to  Jesus of fully inclusive love and justice.  I understand the ideas contained in the synoptic gospels are to be found in other faiths and non-faith sources, but as my background is one of involvement in christianity they are my main source of inspiration.

The messages of helping individuals at point of need on a fully inclusive basis and challenging systemic injustice to achieve social justice for all, have been the influential factors in recent years in determining my theological thinking and practical action.  My deep regret is that I have achieved little by way of lasting success.

The sweeping principles of love and justice are human concepts to be promoted as a counter to narrow, restrictive rules of a text of human creation.  'Bible based christianity' beloved of fundamentalists is an oxymoron.  To understand love and justice does not require  dissection and poring over words in an ancient book of entirely human origin for literal meaning: it is an attitude of mind free from such incumbrance.  

I appreciate my christian heritage and understand the creeds as symbolic/metaphorical statements of humanity's seeking to understand our world and purpose in life.  Creeds identify a way of travel in life,  an idea well expressed by Revd Don Cupitt.  Christianity has to be dragged, screaming or otherwise, into our 21st century understanding of the world and purpose in it, not left to be an irrelevant relic from a far-off time.   

What a shambles.

Many people had hoped the appointment of the current Bishop of London as the new Archbishop would herald closure of the issues fermenting during Justine Welby's time  at Canterbury.  Fat chance.  Sarah Mullally brings with her a cartload of safeguarding baggage. Issues around Living in Love and Faith and GAFCON's  decision to break away from the Anglican Communion will be in her pending tray.

There has been an upsurge in questions concerning her role in handling safeguarding issues in the London diocese.  A television programme and commentary on social media by clerics in the diocese raised important issues that cannot be swept away by apologies and bland PR statements.  There is something rotten at the core of the diocese and there needs to be an independent investigation into the role of senior clerics and administrators to identify what is wrong with the process of handling safeguarding concerns.  Until this matter is resolved safeguarding will continue to dog Mullally, as it did her predecessor.

The decision by the House of Bishops to 'pause' a decision on what to present on the issue of Living in Love and Faith (LLF) to the next meeting of the General Synod had caused anger and angst among those supportive of same-sex blessings and permitting same-sex marriage for clergy.  The House stated this week that a decision will be made in January and proposals presented to the next General Synod meeting in February 2026.  The question is: what will be proposed?  

The House stated in October 2025 what in principle it was likely to firm up on at its December meeting.  Following the October meeting there has been a concerted effort by supporters of the same-sex proposals to counter the opinion of the House that a complicated process of decision to change canon law is required which effectively would kill the proposals as two-thirds majorities are required in each of the three Houses of the General Synod: bishops, clergy and laity, with little chance of success.  Instead, it is argued that current powers of bishops and canon law enable the changes to go forward and be implemented without recourse to General Synod.

Opponents of LLF have noted the continued procrastination by the House of Bishops and probably had hoped for a decision to go ahead with the October proposals.  Whatever is decided it will be a tricky situation for Mullally as she is the lead on LLF and has supported the proposals for change.  Will she and like-minded bishops cave in to the bullying tactics of those opposed to change who have set up the Ephesian Fund, alternative oversight and made threats to establish a third province?  Or will she and her supportive bishops show courage and fortitude and press on with change?  Or is unity at any cost the mantra and hard luck to those in the LGBTQ+ communities who are  to be treated as second class individuals?

GAFCON basically are Anglican provinces holding to a fundamentalist, bible based, conservative, evangelical theology.  It places emphasis on the authority of the bible, over and above the dictates, of reason and tradition.  Female clerics are regarded with suspicion, indeed outright opposition, and it would be anathema to have a female head of the Anglican Communion.  To this may be added a rejection of any moves towards same-sex  relationships being condoned or suppported by the church.  Therefore it is little wonder that some provinces has decided to part with the Anglican Communion and establish their own organisation - even to the point of claiming that they are the true Anglican Communion and that progressive provinces have left them!  

What surprises me is that in England those opposed to change have not sought to join GAFCON.  But then it would lead to loss of buildings, homes, salaries and pensions so possibly that is disincentive to act.  Time to call the bluff of CEEC, Forward in Faith, HTB and the Alliance.

Targeted intervention

 A charity I supported over many years is about to close on account of financial fragility.  It has fallen victim to reduced income from individual and corporate donors, charitable trusts and contracts with statutory bodies.  The charity in question is Mental Health Resource based in Tunbridge Wells offering a wide range of services for individuals with mental health issues.  It is a good example of targeted intervention.  Lives of individuals will be diminished by the effects of closure and doubtless there will be additional calls for assistance directed to statutory agencies: probably at greater cost than continuing to fund the charity.

A charity that did close was the Panda Playgroup located in an area of multiple deprivation,  Established by a local councillor it provided support for  pre-school children living in high rise flats.  Pre-school members of families in the area living in poverty or destitution were referred by the local authority's social services department.  The charity had a high staff/child ratio.  Children enrolled by the playgroup were often not potty trained, well behind in language development, lacked social skills relevant to their age and a few were prone to violence.  The charity employed a family liaison officer (FLO) who provided assistance to parents on a wide range of matters.  The FLO work was commended by OFSTED as an example of excellent practice.  The charity was mentioned in a House of Common debate as being an excellent example of targeted intervention.  And then the wheels fell off.......

The borough council decided to close the community centre in which the charity was based.  The county council library housed in the building also was closed.  The library and community based activities were moved to a new building that unfortunately was not playgroup friendly in that there were no security arrangements to isolate the playgroup from the rest of the centre.  But not to worry, the county council was to open a new Surestart and the playgroup might transfer to that location.  However the Surestart staff/child ratio was low and the children Panda catered for would be mixed in with children from more affluent backgrounds.  The staff and the trustees of the charity determined it would not work and so it was decided to close the charity.  Thus a valuable resource was lost and that showed through in the years that followed by increased pupil  behaviour problems at the local primary school.

Targeted intervention works.  It assists individuals in need of support and is far cheaper that the long-term costs occasioned by non-intervention.  

If the concepts of love your neighbour and human rights mean anything it must mean that assistance is given to to those in need of additional support, not having to rely on the capricious nature of funding or the vagaries of political projects notable for their short-termism.  In other words systemic change to achieve social justice. It is a mantra of Liberation Theology and of progressive theology but sadly there is little evidence of successful achievement.  We are all too busy scrabbling about for funding to keep going activities  assisting individuals at point of need.  Rarely do we consider the wider picture.  Yes, there are learned reports gathering dust:  but where is the action?  Where and who are the influential effective proponents of systemic change today?  We are lost in an sea of managerialism and fiscal policy, fudges round the edges.  We fail to root out the deep causes of inequality, poverty, discrimination and marginalisation and plant something better.  

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (4)

An organisation I had the privilege of being a member of what was the Tunbridge Wells Churches' Social Responsibility Group (TWCSRG), a charity with a board of trustees consisting of nominees from churches.  Trustees came from evangelical, liberal and traditional wings of  parishes of the Church of England, Baptist, United Reformed,  Roman Catholic and Methodist churches.  The Salvation Army was represented by the local corps' officer and there was a trustee nominated by Tunbridge Wells Evangelical Fellowship congregation: a cross-section of doctrinal and theological positions united in the pursuit of social justice.  

As a charity TWCSRG was completely independent of all denominations and this eventually led to some friction and the winding up of the charity, its work subsumed in the local Churches Together organisation.  

TWCSRG sought to assist individual churches engaged in, or proposing to engage in, activities to provide assistance to individuals at point of need or to develop community outreach. It supported non-church organisations with a christian ethos and worked in collaboration with secular organisations.  

Church in Society, a venture of the Joint Canterbury and Rochester Diocesan Board of Social Responsibility of the Church of England, provided invaluable advice and counsel.

TWCSRG took upon itself the role of discussing issues with the borough and county councils.  Specific areas of work were:

* Gaining recognition for Tunbridge Wells as a Fairtrade town.

* Campaigning for the establishment of a credit union, eventually set up by the county council with a big injection of seed funding.

*Contributing to the development of the borough Community Plan. TWCSRG succeeded in gaining a place of the steering group charged with publishing the plan and its representative became the chair of the steering group. 

The role of faith organisations in providing resources for the community is underrated by the public and the statutory sector. It is important that churches publicise the range of services they provide and its effects on communities.  I  believe it is vital to have a local directory of services managed by faith groups and use it to impress on statutory bodies in particular the value they represent both financially and to individuals and communities. Where we think the policy of a statutory organisation is misconceived or not working as intended efforts should be made to draw attention to the issues involved and press for change.  In other words we need to engage with those with power and seek to influence them but in a spirit of collaboration and when appropriate compromise.  

Engaging with politicians can be rewarding, but politics is a very rough mileu, not noted for tranquility, and we must be prepared to be tossed about and shaken, but not downtrodden nor dismayed. The pursuit of social justice takes us out of our comfort zone. We need to build resilience and confidence in ourselves and others to engage with those who may not share our values or concerns. 

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (3)

 I feel impelled to tackle issues of poverty, deprivation, exclusion and marginalisation, not because I desire to follow the teaching of Jesus, but as I consider it the correct thing to do. Neverthless the teaching attributed to Jesus is persuasive so I accept that the relationship between what I believe and the message of Jesus is a symbiotic one that determines my action.  I, along with many others, tackle issues not because we are followers of Jesus but simply because we consider it imperative  to engage in such issues.  Engaging in activities simply to promote your faith betrays an ulterior and ultimately unworthy motive.

An example of such a background is to be found in a community interest company formed by three individuals, two of whom were of an atheistic disposition and the third from a faith background.  Orginally the plan was to develop foodbanks but in the event something quite different developed: a community cafe in a healthy living centre!

Capital costs were met by an interest free loan from a local authority and revenue costs from a small number of charitable trusts.  The cafe opened for business with a paid manager/chef and an assistant.  Food was secured from Fareshare, an organisation distributing surplus food donated by food manufacturers, wholesalers and supermarkets. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) provided individuals on long-term benefits to work at the cafe and the cafe organised a 13 week day-release course at a local further education college. Individuals completing the course successfully were guaranteed a job interview at a major shopping centre.  The DWP was delighted with the success of the venture and there was hope that it might be rolled out to other locations: sadly this did not happen.  The cafe manager supported course members and customers with a signposting service to agencies.

Although the DWP was a major beneficiary of the project it offered no financial assistance.  The cafe income did not meet running costs, so after repayment of the loan to the local authority, it was decided the struggle to secure revenue grants from charitable trusts was too much and the project closed, a fate that has befallen many local charities.  

As I was an independent contractor working for a churches' social responsibility group I was in a position to assist with the formation of the company and its early work.  However, there was no other faith organisation involvement.

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (2)

 The Eldonian dream: Inside the fight for Liverpool’s community housing utopia | Liverpool | The Guardian

‘Posh-poor divide’: the rise in areas of England where wealth and deprivation appear side by side | Inequality | The Guardian

Both links above refer to issues of deprivation and the problems faced by voluntary organisations and individuals wishing to be drivers of change for the better, however 'better' is defined.  Although not specific to faith organisations the issues raised are of relevance to all organisations, including faith organisations, intent on 'improving' the lives of people living in areas of multiple deprivation. Before engaging in any activity please read the two articles and understand the issues and problems to be faced.  Together they are salutory lessons in what does go wrong and how slow the process of beneficial change (if any) can be: unremitting toil.

I declare an interest: I was active in one of the areas mentioned in the reports, ultimately unsuccessfully.

An example of what went wrong where a faith organisation was involved follows.  Again, a cautionary tale:

The Church of England parish church on the top of the hill has a large well-heeled congregation ministered to by a vicar and a curate. At the bottom of the hill is a council estate built in the 1960s. There are rows of terraced houses, blocks of flats and a shopping parade. At one end of the parade is a doctor's surgery, at the other a library. In-between one retail outlet is trading,  the others are empty. The church had no presence on the estate and very few residents made the trek up the steep hill to the  church.

The people living on the estate had a typical socio-economic profile. The church decided to take a lease from the borough council  on two of the retail units and turn them into a cafe, an activities area and a skills training workshop. The new centre was managed and run entirely by church volunteers.  Although the centre is busy it was noticeable that most of the clientele is not from the estate.

After the initial enthusiasm interest started to wane.  Then a 'big hitter' joined the congregation. An independent charity was formed as a limited company to run the centre. Trustees were nominated by the church along with representives of the borough and county councils, but no local residents either nominated or identified for future nomination. The borough sold the retail units and the county the library to the charity for nominal sums.  In return the charity raised a large capital sum from major philanthropic trusts and the Lottery. A complicated binding agreement was drawn up between the Lottery, councils and charity.

The money was used to renovate the buildings, build an extension and repurpose the library with the use of movable shelving thus enabling the space to be used for church services,  childrens' parties and other events. Part of the building was developed as a secure area for nursery provision. A small meeting room enables residents to meet councillors,  housing association managers and the like to discuss problems.

The new centre provides a range of services and activities for all age groups. The downside was the reluctance of the vast majority of people on the estate to become involved. This sadly is a feature of many secular and faith based community centres. The roots of the problem were first a failure to engage at the planning stage with the local community using appropriate methodology: secondly a failure to encourage real and not token ongoing community participation in running the centre. There was no sense of community ownership.  There was no community association to engage in dialogue, nor were opinion formers on the estate identified.  And there was no pub!

Inevitably there has been a reduction in activities.  The cafe closed, the nursery shut down and the library is under possible threat of closure as the county council seeks to cut discretionary budget expenditure.  Added to this the demolition of social housing flats is leading to a change in the socio-economic profile of the estate and the need and demand for community services and activities is declining.

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (1)

In 1942 the Beveridge Report, commissioned by the United Kingdom government, was published.  It laid out in detail the social/class distinctions and distribution of wealth brought about by the social and economic conditions in the 1930s, exacerbated by the effects of the Second World War.  It set out a vision for a post war UK that would at the very least mitigate the effect of the major causes of disadvantage.

Five 'giants' were identified in the Report:

Want: to be addressed through a comprehesive scheme of national insurance building on the National Insurance Act 1911, the brainchild of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George.

Disease: To be addressed by the formation of a state-owned National Health Service, free at point of need.

Ignorance: Lack of education and educational opportunity.  The Education Act 1945 introduced a new pattern of education provision.

Squalor: A post war house building boom, partly as a conseqence of rebuilding after bomb damage in the war, but also to tackle slum properties and issues surrounding the close juxtaposition of heavy industry and housing.

Idleness:  Forced unemployment in the 1930s led the Report to argue that policies should seek to secure full employment.

The Education Act preceded the Labour government under Clement Attlee elected after the end of the war.  The new government set about implementing the provisions of the Beveridge Report along with legislation to nationalise heavy industries and utilities.

The relative success or failure of successive governments to achieve the vision set out in the Beveridge Report  is illustrated starkly by the reports published in 1984 by the Church of England: Faith in the City and Faith in the Countryside.  They painted a depressing picture.

Fast forward forty years and read reports by organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and it becomes apparent quickly that whilst some of the issues identified by Beveridge have been addressed there is much still to do to tackle poverty and its causes, as well as issues of discrimination.

One of the problems is that there is little appetite by a majority of the electorate to demand change to eradicate disadvantage, a point well-made by JK Galbraith who argued (in a USA context) that there exist the economic means to effect change but self-interest means there is no will to do so.

The gap between government provision and individual need has been met in part by the work of numerous faith and secular organisations, both locally and nationally based. Some go beyond providing help and campaign for systemic change to achieve social justice. This non-statutory sector includes charities and community interest companies.  Some charities are limited companies, other unincorporated associations.  The sector is chaotic, there is overlapping, gaps in provision but one factor coming to dominate is financial fragility as funding from individual donors and companies, statutory bodies commissioning work and charitable trusts slows down or dries up.  It makes longer-term planning impossible as organisations struggle to survive in a threatening economic climate and onerus regulatory control.

Religious bodies  and other faith based organisations have a long history of participation in the charitable sector.  They are not immune to the problems faced by secular organisations.

For my part I have been convicted of the ideas attributed to Jesus as set out in the synoptic gospels and in particular the Sermon on the Mount, the parables and the injunction to love your neighbour.   The ideas of Liberation Theology and progressive theology have had a major impact on my attitudes, particularly the work of Gustavo Gutierrez, Jurgen Moltmann and Martin Luther King Jnr.

How to bring theory to bear on the ground, to drive action at local level, is the subject of my next post.

 

Such a shame

Small charities (less than £1m a year income) are having a difficult time, particularly those at the lower income levels. Falling revenue and rising costs means many are becoming even more financially fragile.  Taken together with the onerous regulatory regime of charity law and, if the charity is a limited company; company law, is it any wonder trustees/directors retire from the unending battle to keep their charities afloat.

Employment costs are increasing, prices are rising across the board: all outside the control of charities.  Income levels are falling, either through lack of donations from individuals and companies,  reductions in grants from charitable trusts, or through cutbacks in contracts for services commissioned by central and local government and statutory agencies.

This week Mental Health Resource (MHR), a charity and limited company based in Tunbridge Wells, announced that after 32 years of providing services it is closing in January 2026 citing financial fragility as the cause.  

I declare an interest.  I was a director of MHR between 2003-2012, invited to join as I was chairman of Tunbridge Wells Churches' Social Responsibility group.  The charity owns The Hub, a building housing the charity's offices, a kitchen/cafe/lounge area,  a craft area and meeting area.  The charity has a garden.  MHR has an outreach service in locations outside Tunbridge Wells offering a safe environment for clients to meet.  An advocacy service provides support for patients in NHS facilities, there are programmes for young people and courses for employers on how to handle matters regarding employees with mental health issues.

Overall MHR is playing a significant role in the health and wellbeing of vulnerable individuals.  The expertise within MHR is to be jettisoned - at cost to the clients, to the wider community and to statutory bodies.  Clients are to lose a lifeline, and it is probable that statutory bodies will have to intervene and that will cost a lot more to address than the services provided by MHR.

Sadly what is happening to MHR is not an isolated instance of the problems facing well run charities.  Foodbanks are closing, community facilities closed, services reduced.  For many individuals there is a substantial deterioration in quality of life.  How can we as a purportedly caring society allow this to happen?

There are serious political issues on the allocation of resources to consider, but where is the pressure demanding change to come from?  Faith organisations themselves have invested heavily in providing services to communities but they need to do more to demand of government systemic change to a rotten system facilitating social injustice.

At the micro level faith groups should be looking to assist local charities, providing accommodation, administrative support etc as well as entering into collaborative arrangements to raise funds.  The alternative is hand-wringing, shrugging of shoulders and sympathetic sighs.  

Individuals are being damaged.  It is a disgrace and a tragedy. 

Why do we do it?

Why do we do it?  The 'it' refers to assisting individuals at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.  Why do some individuals participate in such activities but not others?  In other words, what motivates some  people to be altruistic?  

Over the years I have met many people engaged in activities helping others.  Some clearly are inspired by their faith; many are agnostic or atheistic in outlook, some are poor, some rich, of all sexual orientations and races.  Some people are motivated by the circumstances of their lives, or by experience.  Is there something innate that leads some people to be altruistic, but not all?  Is being non-altruistic related to selfishness, bigotry, greed, peer pressure, experience, background, expectation?  It is tempting to think so but is it a false assumption?  Many engaged in helping others themselves live in deprived circumstances. Is the pursuit of material possession a distinguishing factor?   My thinking is that there are so many variables  and caveats that it is not worth seeking to understand why people are altruistic: just be thankful that many are.

Why do I do 'it'.  What motivates me to seek to assist people to enjoy 'better' lives?  It's not as though I woke up one morning and declared I was going to engage in charitable work!  I was raised in a family that had a caring ethos, my experiences as a child and a teenager influenced my thinking as did the reading material available to me.  University education at an institution renowned for leftist thinking led me to embrace the political philosophy of democratic socialism and that has stayed with me (with some aberrations) for the last sixty years.  

My early adult life was free of any faith interest.  I was keen on advancing my career and the material benefits it brought.  Then I met an individual of strong conservative evangelical persuasion that led me to read the bible.  Over a period of five years I came to the conclusion that the teaching attributed to Jesus was compelling, but not the writings attributed to Paul.  I came to accept there is no metaphysical or anthropomorphic god and the bible is of human origin.  

It would be incorrect to state my helping individuals and campaigning was, and is, motivated solely by the example of Jesus nor that my activity led me inevitably to follow the teaching attributed to Jesus.  There is undoubtedly a symbiosis between the two but this has to be set in the context of my life experience.  

Some say that the bible should be read through the lens of love, that Jesus is love.  But to show kindness, concern etc for others is not dependent on any faith based source.  We are all capable of love, by choice, independent of any faith considerations.  For me the teaching attributed to Jesus acts as a source of inspiration and motivation for what I do.  Others find motivation elsewhere.  Put simply: you don't have to be a person of faith as a prerequisite to showing love by practical action to assist others. 

 

Recap Two

In accepting the premis that all scripture is of human conception/inspiration the question arises as to how it should be read.  Should we use the methodology of literary criticism applied to the writings of Shakespeare, Twain etc.?  What is the impact of postmodernism on our understanding and application of texts?  As I struggled to answer these questions I published the following blog post.

Hello. Have you read all my posts? You have. Congratulations, or should that be commiserations? A set of disjointed ramblings they may be, but I trust I conveyed my empathy for an approach to Christianity rooted in postmodernism and deconstructivism with strong elements of liberation theology, liberalism and progressivism thrown in. I call it a melange of strands of theological ideas, although others may not be so polite.

My background is in law as a student and a lecturer in jurisprudence and legal theory. In this post I plan to concentrate on how judges in common law legal systems in the UK and USA decide cases and how the process has parallels to assist our understanding scripture.

Apart from statutes English law is based on the common law as ameliorated by equitable jurisdiction as will be explained later.   

 Common law is so-called because it applies across England and Wales. It consists of judicial decisions in legal cases known appropriately as case law. Case law consists of published reports that set out the facts of a case, the consideration by the judge(s) of the relevant law (as they perceive it), the reason(s) for the decision and judgment. We have a system based on precedent which means later cases with similar facts should be decided in like fashion to earlier cases in order to produce 'certainty'. Simple really, but no, judges will distinguish cases on the facts so as not to have to follow the decisions in earlier cases. 

Judaism had, and has, professions engaged in interpreting the Law, not just to circumvent a specific rule but also to apply it in vastly changed societies. It is the age old battle between either rigorous rigid adherence to the original rules or applying fluid and flexible interpretive methods: in Christian circles a battle continuing to this day in interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.

The judiciary may find another way round decisions in earlier cases by applying their equitable jurisdiction. There are a number of maxims or principles of equity which set out the parameters within which judges may exercise this jurisdiction. Equitable jurisdiction acts as a supplement, not as a replacement to common law. It seeks to produce fair and just outcomes for individuals in the circumstances where equitable maxims may be applied. 

Concepts of fairness and justice are central to Christianity yet sadly there are those who interpret the bible in a narrow rigid manner and would exclude other interpretive methods which seek to apply the broad concepts articulated by Jesus.

 It is said that in England judges do not make law. Law making is for the Crown in Parliament through legislation. The judiciary is a mere interpreter of statutes and subordinate legislation. There are clear rules of statutory interpretation.

But what are we to make of the common law? After all, it is not made by the legislature but exists in law reports over which Parliament has no authority. Legislation may be passed to overrule or amend the common law. The myth is that judges do not make the common law, they merely interpret it. This is nonsense intended to divert attention away from the ability of an unelected body of judges to make law. 

A simple illustration of the myth. Regard the common law as a lump of potters clay. The clay may be made into all manner of shapes but it stays a lump of clay. No new clay has been created, it has simply been moulded into a new shape. The common law is shaped and moulded by the judiciary, but nothing new is created. The common law is being applied to the facts in cases, not being changed by novel judicial ideas. Nonsense.

Instead of common law think Old and New Testaments. Think of these as a lump of clay. How is this clay shaped and moulded? How is it applied to modern society? Who is responsible for determining the meaning of scripture and its application? Who indeed?

Do you consider the meaning of a passage of scripture without any preconceptions? Highly unlikely. We do not act and think in a vacuum: in the background or foreground there are influences at work as a consequence of our knowledge, experience and motivation. Family, economics, politics, social policy, educational attainment, employment, class, income, hobbies, faith, newspapers, television et al all conspire to shape our opinions, our thinking, our action. Whether it is a judge deciding a case, a bishop commenting on a theological issue, or the man at the bar in the pub holding forth there is a complicated potpourri of factors shaping their thinking.  

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was a long- serving judge of the USA Supreme Court and a distinguished jurist. He coined the phrase inarticulate major premises as a description of how in deciding cases judges take into consideration factors outside the facts of a case and a logical application of the law to the facts, sometimes knowingly, sometimes unconsciously. In other words, a cartload of baggage. What baggage do we bring to our interpretation of scripture? When reading opinions on the meaning of scripture we should ask what agenda the author is promoting. Consider this statement by John Piper a USA Baptist minister and theologian. 

"If you alter or obscure the Biblical portrait of God in order to attract converts, you don't get converts to God, you get converts to an illusion. This is not evangelism but deception."

In other words, if you don't accept Piper's interpretation of scripture you are deluded and deceived. Piper bring his inarticulste premise to bear on biblical interpretation.

Holmes was a prolific writer. Below I have summarised three points he made concerning his understanding of the law, points which may be equally applicable to our understanding of scripture.

* The life of the law has not been logic it has been experience.

* Law is a set of generalisations of what judges did in earlier cases.

* Words are the skin of living thought.

I proffer the thought that our understanding of scripture should be akin to that of Holmes in respect of the common law. Postmodernism has drawn out the fluidity of words. Faith is not based on pure logic but on hope and experience. We should not interpret scripture as a set of static, rigid, fixed rules but as fluid and dynamic guides to faith.

According to Oliver Wendell Holmes the law has no metaphysical or natural law basis. It is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky.

 "The prophecies of what a court will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law."

Such an approach applied to scripture would not commend itself to bible literalist fundamentalists, but should pose no problems for those whose doctrinal belief is that scripture is human inspired.

We may take inspiration on how scripture should be read by referring to Holmes observations on the method that should be adopted to applying the provisions of the USA Constitution. Unlike the UK the USA has a written Constitution. Holmes argues that the Constitution should not be read as a statute is but as the common law is read.

"The provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas that have their essence in form: they are organic and living institutions. Their significance is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and line of growth."

When interpreting scripture I commend the approach outlined above. We have a living document relevant to our time. Therefore, we must interpret scripture accordingly. Our understanding and application must not be hampered by interpreting scripture as we would a statute. 

Beware those who seek to control, or guide us towards a static exclusive introspective faith/belief/opinion. Embrace those who guide us towards a dynamic, outgoing and inclusive understanding. Throw out legalism, welcome reading scripture through the lens of love.  

The twin tyrannies of literalism and legalism continue to haunt our understanding of and acting on the dynamic principles of Christian faith as stated by Jesus in the two great commandments. Two simple yet profound principles urging us to take action: to love God and to follow him in the pursuit of justice. The synoptic gospels contain numerous examples of Jesus tackling literalism and legalism as well as their purveyors. It serves us well to consider how Jesus challenged the gatekeepers of his time and in so doing equip us to counter present day proponents of literal interpretation and narrow legalism.

In Matthew 5 there is a phrase used as a formula to contrast a rule and the interpretation placed on it by Jesus:

"You have heard that it was said......But I tell you."

In each case Jesus develops a broad principle out of a narrow rule.

Matthew 23 and Luke 11 expound the views of Jesus on the attitudes and behaviour of the Pharisees and the experts in the law. It is an exposition of all that Jesus considered to be wrong with the law and its interpreters and practitioners. It is unremittingly harsh. Two examples:

"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practised the latter without leaving the former undone." Luke 11:42

Justice and the love of God: the two great commandments. A move from rules to principles.

"You experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not Lift one finger to help them." Luke 11:46

Jesus freed us from the burden of the law by fulfilling it in the two great commandments. The restrictive narrow rules are swept away on the wave of dynamic enabling principles.

A further illustration. In Mark 3 we read of a man with a shrivelled hand who was healed by Jesus on the Sabbath contrary to the law. Jesus said: 

"Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?"

Jesus challenged the religious leaders of his time. He challenges us to do likewise, to confront those who would seek to deny and exclude individuals from Christian communities by hiding behind doctrine, legalistic or literal interpretation of scripture. Instead, read scripture through the lens of love.

Recap One

When I commenced my blog it was with the intention that it would subject my musings to public gaze and comment.  Also, it was a convenient way to put my reflections into a format that is easily accessible. For your delectation is one of my earlier posts that I think is indicative of my current thinking.

Deconstruction Ramble

Well here we are in the world of Don Cupitt, Friedrich Nietzsche and Jacques Derrida. All challenging philosophers for a Christian. It is not my intention to write summaries of the main arguments of the aforementioned. Rather, there follows observations there to be shot at. It is a series of jottings and certainly not a dissertation. 

So, take a deep breath and plunge into the subject, well at least dip a toe in the water. Is there a god or God? Does God exist and if so where and how? Is God a creation of human imagination and non-existent beyond that? Is scripture divinely inspired or simply the product of the ponderings of humanity? Is religion an opiate of the masses, a means of social control, or is it a vehicle for freeing people from the chains of enslavemen and oppression, or something else? Take your pick. You can argue with people until you are exhausted but it is impossible to 'prove' one opinion to be correct and others wrong. You cannot make a fact out of an opinion or an 'is' out of an 'ought".

So what turns an individual into a person of faith? A damascene conversion, a feeling of being 'strangely warmed' (John Wesley), knowing and seeing Christians in action, convinced by reading scripture, or some other experience?

A definition of faith is to be found in Hebrews: 11.1

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (NIV)

"Thus we have confidence in what we hope for. Faith is not proof or evidence of what is unseen. Rather it is the mode by which invisible realities become real for humanity. Faith is not inferior to knowledge, it is the proper mode of knowledge in relation to unseen realities." (Montefiore)

Catholics stress the importance of three strands identified in the writing of Hooker: scripture, reason and tradition. Protestants emphasise the primacy of scripture, although sadly interpretation is sometimes marked by an absence of reason or plain commonsense. Possibly the motivation for this is a longing for certainty and proof, which of course is illusory. The fundamentalist literalist approach to biblical interpretation is driven by this yearning for certainty and proof. Any suggestion of alternative interpretation is anathema to such a mindset, a mindset inimical to a better understanding of the Good News of Jesus. Such an approach makes its followers slaves to a text, not free to enjoy the fullness of God's love.

However whilst a person may lack faith nihilists such as Nietzsche claim it is a wasted effort to seek God. God does not exist, so faith is useless. There are no overarching metaphysical entities that are the source of objective truth. To claim otherwise is to be deluded. Of course this is merely an assertion and we may choose to ignore it, indeed as Christians we reject it, or don't we?

Charles 1 head was chopped off and thus ended the application of the concept of the divine right of a monarch to rule unfettered, at least in England. With him died the application of the concept that a sovereign is pre-destined by God, receives his/her authority from God and has no duties or responsibilites for the citizens of the realm. 

 In its stead a new concept. A sovereign could only rule with the consent of and within limitations imposed by Parliament, there being a contract, express or implied between the sovereign and the people. A metaphysical concept replaced by a human concept. The link between God and the sovereign had been severed and replaced by a contract between the sovereign and the people to rule in the interest of the latter. It is a transfer of power. Is such a transfer contrary to scripture and worthy of literalist fundamentalists angst? Doubtless they will contrive an unconvincing response.

Can we be Christians without a belief in a metaphysical god? The Sea of Faith movement has it that we can. I know Church of England clergy who hold this view. The old joke is that when the Creed is recited at a service such a minister says 'I believe' then crosses his/her fingers!

Deconstructivism is a postmodernist development attributable to Jacques Derrida. Concepts are based on the subjective meaning ascribed to words by the reader and in understanding this meaning we use words which in turn are understood by other words ad infinitum. Therefore the meaning of words is fluid and this makes it difficult to have a clear definition of concepts such as justice, faith and truth. It follows that meaning is subjective and of human origin and not objective and of metaphysical origin. All objects have meaning only through being defined by language. The implications of this for biblical interpretation have been mentioned in earlier parts of this blog.

The Sea of Faith movement is deconstructivist and akin to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's concept of 'religionless Christianity'. Such Christianity is a way of life based on subjective understanding of the meaning of the words of Jesus: not on systems of belief, doctrines, dogmas and rules: nor on the rites and rituals of churches falsely cloaked in supposed objectivity. 

But is this all this postmodernism too bleak for Christians to contemplate? Does it reduce Christianity to a secular prospectus? I shall explore this in more detail in future posts. I am outside my comfort zone, so for me it will an interesting journey.

Are the phrases 'Religionless Christianity' and 'Secular Christianity' oxymorons? Do labels matter given the baggage attached to them?

Postmodernism eschews all metaphysical concepts. There is no God laying down absolute rules. All rules are made by humans, are subjective and fluid as they are interpreted as to their import through language. Postmodernism argues that claims to objectivity by the church are a means of its securing power and control over people, in other words guardians and gatekeepers of the only truth. The literalist Christian mindset endorses and promotes the objectivity approach.

The Progressive Christianity approach may offer a way forward as well as making sense of Bonhoeffer's phrase 'Religionless Christianity'. 

Religion is not a synonym for faith. We considered in an earlier the meaning of faith as set out in Hebrews 11:1. Religion is bound up in church doctrine, dogmas, creeds, rules, regulations and approved scriptural interpretation. You join the club and agree to obey the rules. Religionless Christianity simply rejects these hindrances to faith.

According to this approach Christians should concentrate on action to apply the teaching of Jesus. Jesus is the focus of an active faith. What this means for individual Christians and the hoped for impact of the approach will be teased out in future parts.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer coined the phrase 'religionless Christianity' to encapsulate his understanding of christian theology. His ideas are of relevance in the postmodernist world. The two key concepts are:

1. The need for intercessionary prayer, bringing before God those suffering injustice, identifying with them and praying for power and strength to stand up for what is right and just, not leaving nor expecting God to act.

2. We should seek to follow Jesus by engaging in action to promote justice for the marginalised and oppressed in our world.

In other words we should pick up our cross and follow Jesus into battle for the poor in society, not by mere intellectual assent, but by our actions.

Our focus should be on Jesus, not the religious trappings of doctrine, creeds, dogma and gatekeepers.

Bonhoeffer is promoting the centrality of the two Great Commandments and the imperative of our engagement through action, costly though it is.

Love God, love others. Don't just think it, do it.

Just musing......

I do not discuss or argue as to the existence of god as all debate is speculation, opinion, not based on verifiable facts.  What is the point of engaging in such fruitless activity?  Following on from this is my opinion that all scripture is of human origin: not the word of god, not inspired by god.  

Scripture is useful in that it sets out human ideas about the nature of society and suggests roles for us.   It is not a set of statements by a metaphysical entity laying down objective truths.  We may choose to follow the recommended behaviour set out, but we are not bound by it.  There are no god given rights, only rights humanity, or sections of it, lay down and seek to achieve adherence to through moral/ethical persuasion, or by the use of legal force.

Individuals may have faith, belief or be of the opinion that there is a god and that god inspires scripture.  So be it.  A person is entitled to their religious views so long as there is no attempt to impose it on others, again by persuasion or force. Freedom of religion is freedom to hold one's opinions: it is not freedom to force them on others.

I choose to follow the teaching of Jesus on social issues by helping people at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.  I do not do this because of the teaching of Jesus, nor is it the case that my activities have led me to follow the teaching as set out in the synoptic gospels.  Insofar as a label is helpful I describe my political philosophy as democratic socialist.  In reality the matrix or melange of political, social and religious opinions, allied to experience in complicated and multi-layered to the extent that I find it hopeless to attempt to discern a predominant factor in my thinking and behaving.  

I have abandoned the study of  philosophies and theories, whether of the political, religious, social or economic varieties, in a search for 'truth' or enlightenment.  Instead I am set on the practical work of assisting, directly or indirectly,  people  at point of need along with supporting national campaigns on issues that interest me.