Part 371. Omnipotent, not on your Nelly.

'God is Love' it is said. Let's be clear: this is an assertion, a clsim; it is not a fact. The divine right of kings simply was a means to claim authority to rule supposedly granted by an omniscient supernatural entity.  It is nothing of the sort. It is entirely a human construct to justify claiming and retaining power.

In the teaching ascribed by the authors of the synoptic gospels to Jesus the writers determined to give authority to their work by claiming it was of God.  To my mind the message of Jesus does not need a supernatural underpinning to shore up its authority.  It is compelling in its own right.

I recognise the message of Jesus is but one of a range of philosophical ideas concerning how humanity might think and live as individuals and collectively. I dispute the idea that god is love is somehow hardwired into us. We choose to love, or not to.  There is no supernatural imperative to love.  We do so as a consequence of our experience in life, not because we are obliged to by the bidding of a supernatural being.

Part 370. Let us not bray

We are not donkeys to be treated  by a stick and carrot approach to encourage us to be true believers.  The stick is the threat of hell, damnation and eternal torment.  The carrot is eternal life in heaven. Many churches prey on fears of death and its finality.  Such churches seek to control lives through peddling promises of a happy eternity in return for controlling the lives of people.  It is time to dispose of superstition, doctrine, dogma and regulation and get a life. It is time to ditch ideas of bible inerrancy and that it is the true word of a metaphysical entity.

The above probably is a statement that many who have deconstructed would be content to concur. However, it begs the question: what do you believe, what leads you to think and act as you do?  

My starting point is that I do not believe in a god that is a metaphysical entity to which we can speak and be heard,  that can answer prayer and can directly control events.  Nor do I believe god can be defined by symbolism or metaphor.  If there is a god it is an unknown beyond our comprehension.  A major failing of Christian religion is to anthropomorphize an undefinable 'creator'.

To my mind prayer is not to god.  Rather it is asking of ourselves what is causing us concern, how we would wish the matter to be resolved and the strength to go out and achieve what we can.

It is possible that Jesus was a real person, but it doesn't matter is this is not the case.  The synoptic gospels are a melange of  myths, metaphor, symbols, folk stories and documents written  through the lens of the intentions of the authors.  What does matter is our interpretation of the messages contained in the synoptic gospels.

It is difficult to believe in a holy spirit if one has doubts concerning the reality of god.  I think there are internal human processes that produce our thoughts and ideas thus determining how and why we act as we do.  An individual is influenced by many factors: gender, ethnicity, health, sexuality, education, knowledge, family, relationships, religion, events, environment etc. all of which are processed internally to determine responses of thought and action.  

So, the two main factors for me are:  

 * How to interpret the synoptic gospels

* How, I am to give effect to my interpretation.

The conclusion I have reached is to follow the way of love in thought and action.  This is not a  defining Christian approach.  Individuals with other faith or secular beliefs,  are committed to the principle or doctrine of love. The teaching ascribed to Jesus provides a framework for my thoughts and actions. Others take a different source for their determination of a course of action. 

I could expand interminably on these thoughts but I prefer to keep my posts short

  

Part 369. Another poverty report.

 The abject failure of our society and governments to deal with the causes of poverty is laid out in the report published today by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation entitled: UK Poverty 2025: The essential guide to understanding poverty in the UK.

Sadly one conclusion that may be drawn from the appalling situation described in the report is that despite their posturing, hand-wringing and campaigning secular and faith organisations have achieved very little.  Yes, they have alleviated conditions for some at point of need, but have failed miserably to persuade the public and government of the need for systemic change.   

The voluntary sector has to get its act together, work much more closely in partnership and collaboration with each other and campaign with much more vigour to the point of direct action.  Will they?  Don't hold your breath.

 

Part 368. A very basic and simplified introduction to campaigning for social justice.

The following quotations are indicative of the central importance of social justice for followers of the teaching attributed to Jesus. Social justice is only achievable by campaigning for systemic change, in other words by political action. Truth must speak to power.  

The heart of all worthwhile religion is justice for the marginalised.

Mark Sandlin 

The poverty of the poor is not a call to generous relief action, but a demand that we go out and build a new social order

Gustavo Gutiérrez 

Charity is necessary.  But charity without justice is complicit in supporting systems that create the need for charity.

Mark Sandlin 

Whilst it is important that the state, secular and religious organisations assist people at point of need it should not be an end in itself.  Simply perpetuating failing systems will not do.  The systems occasioning social injustice must be changed.  What is the process to achieve change?  In democracies political decisions are determined by governments mindful of the electoral process.   Changing attitudes in society is a prerequisite to political/governmental action.  But, given vested interests society has in maintaining the status quo, significant change is unlikely. Politicians lack the will to reorder priorities to meet the needs of social justice.  

It really is no good the churches making polite noises.  Peaceful direct action is called for.  Most churches are not equipped theologically to take such a step. 

Part 365. Don Cupitt

The obituary below states that one day Don Cupitt may be regarded as a major figure in 20th-century religious thought.  I agree.  

From The Daily Telegraph 

The Reverend Don Cupitt, who has died aged 90, taught theology at Cambridge for more than 30 years and was Britain’s most radical theologian.

Between 1971 and his death he wrote more than 50 books and contributed to a great number of symposiums, while in 1984 he presented a widely acclaimed television series, The Sea of Faith, a landmark in religious broadcasting. The title was taken from Matthew Arnold’s poem ‘Dover Beach’ and its lines “The Sea of Faith/ Was once, too, at the full.../ But now I only hear/ Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar.”

Although Cupitt was a devout man and remained a priest of the Church of England, he moved from a position of firm, though by no means uncritical, orthodoxy to one of what he called Christian atheism.

During the 1980s he came to the conclusion that the word God had no objective reality and was best regarded as “a necessary myth”. In his book After God: The Future of Religion (1997) he foresaw the end of all traditional religion, with imagination substituted for faith, and religion regarded as a kind of experimental art form.

Even by the standards of the late 20th century this was unusual thinking by a professional theologian and Cupitt believed that he had taken Western philosophical theology to the very limits of its integrity. Some of his colleagues thought he had gone well beyond these limits and should have resigned from the priesthood, but Cupitt would not accept this.

Cupitt was a brilliant communicator, as his large television audiences testified.

He declared that his purpose was essentially religious, for he aimed to “rescue Jesus from dogmatic captivity and God from metaphysical captivity”, both of which had been imposed by the church. In The New Christian Ethics (1988), he wrote: “We can today be Christians only at the price of saying that there wasn’t any Christianity to speak of before the later 18th century.”

This dogmatic, provocative assertion was a typical example of his style. He was a brilliant communicator, as his large television audiences testified, and he combined intellectual gifts with moral passion in a manner that compelled attention. His appearance, too, suggested an unusual combination of strength and sensitivity – a long face, huge ears, a vertical cleft on his forehead and a wry smile radiating from his lips.

Cupitt pulled no punches when discussing the Church. In Taking Leave of God (1980) he accused it of exercising “psychological terrorism”, and went on to describe the monastic ideal as “a hospice for those who are terminally sick of life and a standing denial of the Christian Gospel”.

An evening meeting during the General Synod of 1984, designed to enable its members to discuss The Sea of Faith with Cupitt, was cancelled at the request of “higher authority” and in 1993 a young priest who declared himself to be a follower of Cupitt was dismissed from his clergy teaching post in Chichester diocese.

The Sea of Faith: the BBC invested in Cupitt making a television series (a book followed) surveying the main world religions, the title taken from the line in Matthew Arnold's poem 'Dover Beach'

Academics tended to treat him less seriously, regarding him as no more than an eccentric who had strayed into their field. His books, which achieved regular sales of 5-6,000 copies – many more than most volumes of serious theology – were more polemical tracts than measured works of scholarship and it was not unknown for him to misrepresent his opponents’ positions.

He was in fact conducting a crusade and seeking to win converts to his point of view because he believed that the future of Christianity depended on the recovery of vital and dynamic elements which had been lost under “the debris of dogma”.

Cupitt was therefore accorded little academic recognition. Bristol University awarded him an honorary DLitt in 1985, but Cambridge was unwilling for him to rise above the rank of lecturer.

Those who appreciated him most were disaffected Christian intellectuals, among them the novelist and philosopher Iris Murdoch, who found a great deal of traditional Christianity incredible yet recognised in Jesus valid religious insights.

Whatever the final verdict on his answers, many theologians recognised that Cupitt was asking the right questions about the credibility of Christianity in the modern world, and it is not impossible that he may one day be regarded as a major figure in 20th-century religious thought.

Don Cupitt was born on May 22 1934. He went from Charterhouse to Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and, having taken a second in natural sciences, switched to theology, in which he secured a first. By now he was destined for Holy Orders and trained at Westcott House, Cambridge.

In Taking Leave of God he accused the Church of exercising ‘psychological terrorism’.

Temperamentally he was very religious, though he never believed in miracles, answers to prayer or the supernatural. Three years as a curate in Salford (1959-62) showed him how far removed the traditional presentations of the Christian faith were from the lives of people living in the back streets of an industrial city.

Yet at this time he shared the belief of Bishop John Robinson and other 1960s theologians that the generally accepted tenets of Christianity were capable of re-interpretation.

In 1962 Cupitt returned to Cambridge as vice-principal of Westcott House and three years later became a Fellow of Emmanuel College, serving as Dean of the College from 1966 to 1991 and as a lecturer in the university Divinity School until 1996.

He then resigned because he did not believe his colleagues were treating him with sufficient seriousness. He was none the less a popular member of the college and revered by his students; they found themselves in the company of a revolutionary thinker who was also a sensitive pastor and a radical churchman who insisted on the importance of the traditional worship offered in the chapel.

His first book, Christ and the Hiddenness of God (1971), was well-received and caused no raised eyebrows, but The Crisis of Moral Authority (1971) registered objections to the doctrine of original sin and the idea of atonement. The Leap of Reason (1976), which was one of his best books, argued powerfully for the reality of God, but pleaded for the separation of religious experience from dogma.

A documentary, Who Was Jesus?, broadcast in 1977, revealed Cupitt to be a television “natural” and encouraged the BBC to invest a great deal of money later in The Sea of Faith (1984), a critical survey of all the main world religions.

By this time Cupitt was coming under the influence of Jacques Derrida and other French deconstructionist philosophers, and The Long-Legged Fly (1987) indicated just how far he had moved into the realm of non-realistic theology.

His books, which continued to appear at more or less yearly intervals, provided up-to-date accounts of his own religious pilgrimage, and the pace of movement was so swift that his critics found it almost impossible to pin him down.

A summing-up of his personal faith was provided in After All: Religion Without Alienation (1994): “We should live as the Sun does. The process by which it lives and the process by which it dies are one and the same. It hasn’t a care. It simply expends itself gloriously, and in so doing gives life to us all.”

His last book, Ethics in the Last Days of Humanity, was published in 2016.

In 1963 Don Cupitt married Susan Day, with whom he had two daughters and a son.

The Rev Don Cupitt, born May 22 1934, died January 18 2025

Part 367. Speaking truth to power.

A brilliant sermon by The Right Revd. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC.  Her guts and determination deserve wider recognition within the Anglican Communion. Invite her to the next General Synod of the Church of England. 

“Let me make one final plea, Mr. President. Millions have put their trust in you, and as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and independent families, some who fear for their lives. The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meatpacking plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals, they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues, gurdwara, and temples.

I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear their parents will be taken away, and that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were all once strangers in this land. May God grant us the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, to speak the truth to one another in love, and walk humbly with each other and our God, for the good of all people, the good of all people in this nation and the world. Amen.”

                           xxxxx

From Yachats Community Presbyterian Church Facebook page:

To all my friends who are hurting.

I couldn’t bring myself to watch the inauguration—couldn’t bear to listen to the inaugural address. But I couldn’t avoid the fallout either: the pain and anguish radiating from so many people I love. So many who heard their President say they don’t matter. That they don’t belong. That they must retreat into the shadows.

And I asked myself: Where do we even begin?

We begin with love.

We start with the unshakeable, pulsating truth that every human being—every immigrant, every trans person, every soul on the margins—bears the imprint of the Divine. 

This is our foundation. 

This is our starting point.

As we stand here, in the wake of an inaugural address that chose division over inclusion, fear over empathy, rejection over embrace, let us remember…

Words matter. 

It hurts to see them used like weapons against those already vulnerable—because words shape how we see ourselves, how we see others, and how we understand what is real, what is possible in this world.

Some of us heard that address and felt the sting of condemnation, watching neighbors, friends, and loved ones singled out as scapegoats—labeled “threats” or “others.” Some of us sat in disbelief, hearts breaking at the harshness of it all. 

I can’t imagine the pain.

And I wish that I could take it away.

But I can’t.

But please hear this… although at times, it may feel that way, you are not alone.

There is a love that holds all things together, transcending borders and boundaries, infinitely larger and more creative than any limiting words we heard. A love that never demands you squeeze yourself into someone else’s narrow definition of worthiness.

We cannot ignore the images of people denied opportunities simply because of where they were born. We cannot turn away from trans siblings stripped of their dignity by another’s insistence on who they ought to be. These are our neighbors, our friends, our families. Your stories matter. Your voices matter. Your flourishing matters.

Jesus spoke of a Kingdom—a new creation—where the hungry are fed, the oppressed are liberated, and the stranger is welcomed. Today, we might say: It’s a place where trans folks are celebrated, where immigrants find home and hope, and where no one is forced to hide in the shadows.

This is God’s dream for humanity, as ancient and alive as the breath in your lungs. If we claim to follow Jesus, we are called to help bring that Kingdom to life right here, right now. 

So, when those in power speak words meant to slam doors and erect walls, we respond by opening our hearts even wider. When they try to silence or shame, we lift up the voices at the margins. When they want to label, exclude, and divide, we form circles of compassion—welcoming, celebrating, protecting.

Why? Because love compels us. Because fear has had the microphone for far too long. Because it is both our sacred responsibility and our deepest joy to insist on a world where everyone is drawn into the ever-widening circle of God’s grace.

May you refuse to let harsh words define you—or your neighbor. May you stay wide awake to love, grounded in the holy truth that everyone belongs at the table. And may we, together, usher in a new day where no one stands outside the beloved community.

Grace and peace.

pastor bob

                                 xxxxx

From I'm Not That Kind of Christian Facebook page. 

A Plea for Compassion

One final plea…

“Mr. President, millions have put their trust in you. And as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now.”

In a world that often feels divided and tumultuous, the words of The Right Rev. Mariann Budde resonate deeply within our hearts. As the Episcopal bishop of Washington, D.C., she has been a steadfast voice for justice, compassion, and unity. Her recent sermon serves as a powerful reminder of our shared humanity and the teachings of Jesus.

A plea for marginalized communities… 

"There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and Independent families — some who fear for their lives."

Bishop Budde's work has consistently focused on advocating for the marginalized and promoting social justice. Her leadership within the Episcopal Church has been marked by a commitment to inclusivity and a dedication to addressing the pressing issues of our time. In her sermons, she often draws upon the teachings of Jesus, emphasizing the importance of love, mercy, and compassion.

A plea for the stranger…

"They may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques, gurdwara and temples."

While she was directly addressing the President, the plea for mercy in her sermon is a call to action for all Christians. It is a reminder that in times of fear and uncertainty, we must turn to the teachings of Jesus for guidance. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to show kindness to the stranger, and to offer comfort to those in distress. In the face of adversity, we are called to embody these principles and extend a hand of compassion to those who are suffering.

Bishop Budde's words echo the sentiments found in the book of Hosea, where God says, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6). Jesus Himself quotes this passage in the Gospel of Matthew, saying, "But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:13). This verse underscores the priority of mercy and love in our actions over ritualistic or sacrificial practices. It reminds us that mercy is not just a passive feeling but an active expression of our faith. It is through acts of mercy that we can bring healing and hope to a world in need.

"Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were all once strangers in this land."

As Christians, we are called to be the light in the darkness, to offer hope where there is despair, and to be a source of strength for those who are scared. Bishop Budde's sermon challenges us to rise above our fears and to be instruments of God's love and mercy. It is a call to live out our faith in tangible ways, to stand in solidarity with the oppressed, and to work towards a more just and compassionate world.

Let us be the hands and feet of Jesus, bringing mercy and hope to a world in need.

🤟 Royce

Part 366. On theology and social justice.

My theological position, or if you prefer my belief, is very simple to state: love God, love others.  In other words the two great commandments set out in the synoptic gospels. However I do not regard God as being a metaphysical entity.  God is the great unknown beyond human imagination, beyond metaphor, beyond symbolism.  Can such a God be loved?  I find the following statements immensely helpful.

The moment I seek to understand God, I limit God.  The moment I seek to love myself, I enter into God. The moment I seek to love people unconditionally, I become God.

Chris Kratzer

                                         xxx

You are never more like God than when you are helping hurting people, lifting up the fallen, and restoring the broken.

                                         xxx

Stop searching for god in the farthest corners of the universe.  He is in you.  You are it.

                                         xxx

We are all God in disguise.

Alan Watts

Give up searching, god is with us, in us.  Well that is my belief.  Doubtless many disagree but so be it. Our faith is a personal matter, not one to be foisted on us by others.

Was Jesus a real historical person?  Or is he a concept, a myth, a legend?  It doesn't matter.  What does matter is the message of love conveyed by the authors of the synoptic gospels that should be read to understand the ideas the words are conveying, not literally as an instruction manual.

The thrust of the gospels is the requirement to love unconditionally.  The following statements have assisted me in coming to the views I hold.

"I accept Jesus Christ as my saviour" diminishes the Gospel into an introverted and self-centred individualism.

Jurgen Moltmann

People have differing opinions of what the term 'social justice' means and how the term is used, but nobody should be opposed to the goal of improving societal systems for the well-being of others.

Stephen Mattson

Charity is necessary.  But charity without justice is complicit in supporting systems that create the need for charity.

Rev Dr Mark Sandlin

Christian theology need to speak of social revolution, not reform; of liberation, not development; of socialism, not modernization of the prevailing system.

Gustavo Gutierrez 

The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a redistribution of political and economic power.

Martin Luther King Jr.

 

Part 364. A trinity of social justice giants.

Today in Martin Luther King Jr Day in the USA, a federal holiday celebrating his birthday and achievements.

King  along with Jurgen Moltmann and Gustavo Gutiérrez have bequeathed a vast body of theological ideas and praxis on social justice issues. Three theological giants. 

For further appreciation of the work of Gutiérrez and Moltmann please refer to my blog posts. 329, 327 and 286.

Part 363. My theology.

Two very similar posts of mine on a private group on Facebook The Lasting Supper.

There was a time when I was recently divorced, penniless, homeless, unemployed and living many miles from my home town. I was sofa-surfing in properties situated in an area of multiple deprivation. Eventually I secured employment, accommodation and rebuilt my life. It was a torrid time but I had some advantages: a degree, a driving licence and determination to climb out of the morass I had walked into.

For me poverty and destitution are not concepts. They are a reality I have experienced. The desperation, despair, fear and depression that comes with poverty is very real. Many in such a situation perceive no way out or end to their misery or misfortune. It is a life sentence with little prospect of parole. It is a life in chains created by a society that cares little for them. Mitigation may be available in the form of foodbanks, warm areas, soup kitchens and free clothing. But such provision does not resolve the causes of the factors leading to poverty and destitution. The so-called safety net is not fit for purpose.

For followers of Jesus the imperative must be for systemic change to achieve social justice and indeed bring his kingdom on earth.

11th December 2024

the 1980s I was divorced, unemployed, homeless and living in poverty, all at the same time. My locality was an area of multiple deprivation. The worst feature was uncertainty; when would the nightmare end, if ever?

My experiences during this time influenced strongly my theological thinking and steered me in the direction of progressive and liberation theology. These experiences were the driving force to my involvement as a trustee with homelessness and mental health charities as well as supporting community groups in areas of multiple deprivation campaigning for change. It led also to my campaigning for new credit unions and foodbanks.

Helping individuals at point of need is palliative: it does not promote the required systemic change in the policies of government and attitudes in society.

As I deconstructed I was drawn to the conclusion that all that matters really is the concept: love your neighbour. This is all the theology I need. What interests me is how the concept is understood and acted on. 

18th January 2025

Part 362. A theological journey.

Over two years ago I started my blog and set off on a journey that has taken me into the realms of liberal, progressive, radical, deconstructivist and reconstructionivist theology. Underpinning my journey has been a commitment to promoting social justice by deed and thought.

My blog has never asked, expected or encouraged individuals to agree with my opinions. I have aimed to write straightforward expositions free of theological jargon. Simple, not I hope simplistic.

I think I might find a home in the Society of Friends. However I have a great affection for the services of Matins and Evening Prayer (Evensong) in the Church of England  according to the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). Choral Evensong is a particular joy. Though I do not subscribe to the theology and doctrine of the BCP, nor to the Articles of Religion, I appreciate Choral Evensong in much the same way one may enjoy an opera performed in a foreign language. The libretto of an opera may be nonsense: the performance sublime. i enjoy also listening to The Salvation Army's brass bands,  but that is a different story.

Part 361. Love your neighbour is all the theology you need.

The sentiment expressed in the statement 'the moral test of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members'  has been uttered by many.  For followers of Jesus it is an expression couched in social justice language of the injunction to love your neighbour. A long line of theologians and Christian activists has espoused the social gospel including Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jurgen Moltmann, Martin Luther King Jnr, Leonardo Boff, Oscar Romeo, Gustavo Gutierrez and Desmond Tutu.  Doubtless dear reader you can name others.

It simply is not enough to assist vulnerable individuals at point of need, vital though this is. It is essental to discern the causes of vulnerability, propose solutions and then campaign for change. In other words to achieve social justice through systemic change. I have assisted and campaigned for over thirty years in the course of which I have met many people committed to helping others in whatever way they can. There are many battles fought and many still to be won.

Understanding, assisting and campaigning to help our neighbour is more important to me than discussing bible inerrancy, the nature of god, the existence of heaven or hell, or the need for salvation to protect us after death.  For me what is important is how we make the concept of heaven on earth a reality.

Part 360. Musical Chairs

 Next week the Territorial Appointments Conference of the United Kingdom and Ireland Territory of The Salvation Army meets to decide on the disposition of commissioned officers and territorial envoys in 2025/26.  There will be played out an odd game of musical chairs as there will be more seats that participants. Last year some corps became unofficered.  Closures and mergers have happened. Will this trend continue?

The Salvationist this week published an article by a participant in the process of appointments:

"Divisional leaders have been asked to look where appointed leadership will have the most impact.  I discern a greater sense of collaboration where corps and centres are in geographical proximity and are building on each other's strengths in a shared understanding of mission.   Sometimes this is in a cluster and at other times within a local authority borough, so that the Army can speak into local issues with greater clarity and share resources."

I thought integration was a major policy decision anyway.  Talk of collaboration, shared understanding and clusters is for me management-speak for more shared officers, mergers and closures.  It is managed decline.

But is the cavalry riding to the rescue in the form of employed spiritual leaders?  Such individuals will have contracts of employment and could be made redundant.  Commissioned officers are not employed by the Army and cannot be made redundant, although they are subject to dismissal if they run foul of the Army's regulations.  The iron fist in the iron glove.   How these two classes of leaders will interact should prove interesting.

It looks as though there will be an increased emphasis placed on the role of local corps leaders who have been described in the Salvationist as having "stepped up" to take on more significant roles.

In the Church of England the resignation  of the Archbishop of Canterbury has led to his work being undertaken mostly by the Archbishop of York and to a lesser degree the Bishop of London.  The replacement will not be voted on until the latter end of 2025 and it is not a forgone conclusion that a decision will be made.  The successful candidate must command a two thirds majority and given the current strife within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion a stalemate is a distinct possibility, particularly as a stalemate exists currently in the appointment of two diocesan bishops.

Part 359. Experiences of churches.

 Many year ago I attended a theology course organised by the Church of England.  The CofE is diverse, not only in its theology, but in the nature of its services.  Course members were invited to visit CofE churches with different theology and churchmanship from the one we attended.  We were asked to visit also churches of other denominations.

 Thus it was that I stepped out one Sunday morning and attended a service at my local Salvation Army Corps' Citadel.  The people were friendly, nearly all wore uniforms.  We were regaled with singing by the choir (known as Songsters) and a piece by the brass band.  The sermon was conservative evangelical in content.  Hymns, choruses and prayers as well.  Overall it was a typical evangelical hymn sandwich service, but not happy-clappy.

The following Sunday I ventured to the meeting room of the local Society of Friends.  Basically an hour of silence; no music, no singing, no prayer.  Time for contemplation.  At the end of the hour two individuals shook hands to signify the termination of the proceedings.  Tea and biscuits and polite conversation followed. A pleasant group of Quakers.

On the third Sunday I presented myself at the local Anglo-Catholic Church of England Mass.  Greeted with a number of pieces of paper from which one was left to one's own devices to navigate the service content.  Billowing incense and ringing bells as I expected.  The priest's apparel was exotic.  I half expected  him to speak in Latin. It was different certainly to my experience of Prayer Book Holy Communion.   The people were friendly but very few were from the immediate locality.

Some years later I began attending The Salvation Army meetings on a regular basis as I was impressed by the social work the Army engages in, although its evangelical stance grated somewhat.  However more recently, as I went through a period of deconstruction and also dismay at the lack of inclusivity on sexual orientation matters, I decided to leave.

Where to go now?  I dislike being isolated and seek fellowship with like-minded people.  Possibly the Quakers are my best option?

Part 358. Fellow travellers on the deconstruction road.

 I am lucky.  When I left my religious fellowship I retained my friendship with many of my former colleagues, but we do not discuss theological matters.  I was fortunate to meet up with a local group, Radical Pilgrims, that is part of Progressive Christian Network Britain.  The group meets monthly, is eclectic - and that is good for discussions on a variety of topics.

I find the Facebook Group The Lasting Supper most helpful in keeping me engaged with fellow deconstructionists.

I am at the stage where I  have given up attempting to understand 'god'.  My interest is in loving neighbours whether by helping at point of need or campaigning for social justice. Indeed I have pursued this path for many years, but now I am free of the shackles of bible inerrancy, doctrine, dogma and regulation.  It is so liberating, yet there are times when I feel isolated and lonely and almost wish I could undo my deconstruction.   Perhaps I am  seeking comfort over challenge. 

Part 357. More interesting articles.

I commend the following short articles.

--‐-----         ‐-------      -------     --------

You say you're a Christian.

That Christianity is where it's at.

That your Bible is real, and your Gospel is life.

You want me to trust your faith.

You want me to believe and act as you do.

You say it's the only thing that will bring true joy, meaning, and peace to my life. You say it's the only path that will solve all my problems and give purpose to all my sufferings.

Yet, with all due love and respect, based on what you actually do and not just on what you say, if I'm to believe that your Christianity knows the truth, has the truth, and shares the truth like no other religion or belief can, then in all honesty, the one and only thing you've convinced me of is that your truth is not Jesus, and it's certainly not love.

Because, until you start acting as Jesus and living as love, your words, your worship, your buildings, your bumper stickers, and your bloviating are but clanging shrieking cymbals out of beat in a cult parade bannered with filthy rags.

Jesus once told me, “by their fruits you will know them.”

I do know.

I do see. 

You.

That's why I resist.

Chris Kratzer

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE CONSERVATIVE IN A TIME OF INJUSTICE?

I am used to people implying that, as a liberal, I am not a good Christian. 

It no longer bothers me to be called a heretic just because I believe religion should not be a shackle to the loving heart nor to the honest mind. But, I also know that some of you are just now stepping out of toxic Christianity and are enduring the charge of being second rate Christians or worse. I would like to say several thoughts to you.

First of all, I want to thank you for your courage. It is not easy to step out of the institutional bullying that holds abusive sectarian religion in place. I hope you are giving yourself credit for the enormous bravery it took just to get out of the metaphysical prison into which you were born.

Second of all, I want to congratulate you. The life of love is a much more joyful and truthful of a path than that of dogmatism, ritualism, or moralism. You have chosen the Sermon on the Mount, and more importantly, you have chosen love as the heart of your path. You will not be sorry but you will have much to endure. 

"Liberal" or "conservative" are not ethical categories. We all seek a balance between what needs to be liberated and what needs to be conserved. But liberalism can disguise a superficiality in our values and conservatism can disguise an unwillingness to change systems that are unfair.

Obery Hendricks Jr. is a wonderful religious scholar who has tried to show how extremist forms of right wing Christianity can get stuck defending the indefensible. People can end up defending "God, Guns and the Flag" in a way that shows no commitment to the religion of love and justice. What some people of think as "apolitical" is often a defense of the status quo for power and wealth. Here are three of Hendricks' sayings you may find encouraging as you endure criticism: 

“First, the good professor tells us how to spot false prophets. He says there are two telltale criteria: 

“(1) they are silent about issues of social justice, and (2) they function as uncritical supporters of rulers and politicians, rather than as their moral conscience and dedicated arbiters of biblical justice.”

Secondly, he warns us: 

“Right-wing evangelicals have evolved what might be called a “Jesus personality cult” that is obsessed with the person of Jesus as spiritual savior rather than with the principles for justly living in the world that he taught and died for.”

Finally, Hendricks points out that, in scripture, prophets are never called to conserve unfair systems of power and wealth. Almost by definition Prophets are calling us to change. 

He says:

“In our time, when many seem to think that Christianity goes hand in hand with right-wing visions of the world. It is important to remember that there has never been a conservative prophet. Prophets have never been called to conserve social orders that have stratified inequities of power and privilege and wealth; prophets have always been called to change them so all can have access to the fullest fruits of life. In fact, it was the conservative forces—those who wanted to keep things as they were—that in every instance were the most bitter opponents of the prophets and their missions for justice.” 

Again, thank you for having the courage to choose the awkward and unpopular path of universal love over the popular status quo of bullying in the name of sectarian religion and narcissistic patriotism.  

Jim Rigby

Self care is the seed from which love, compassion, generosity, humility, and kindness grows. 

Self care is not selfish, it is the hard, painful, and sacred work of learning to love ourselves so that love can flow from us, as us, and through us onto others. 

True love is a release of self from self to another. It has action, but is not action or an act alone. It is the self given to another because the self has first loved itself and can therefore fully love another.

Self care is the first, and foremost act of loving others. 

Self care is the cross that leads to the resurrection of self for the giving of life to others.Self care is the seed from which love, compassion, generosity, humility, and kindness grows. 

Self care is not selfish, it is the hard, painful, and sacred work of learning to love ourselves so that love can flow from us, as us, and through us onto others. 

True love is a release of self from self to another. It has action, but is not action or an act alone. It is the self given to another because the self has first loved itself and can therefore fully love another.

Self care is the first, and foremost act of loving others. 

Self care is the cross that leads to the resurrection of self for the giving of life to others.

Chris Kratzer

One of the most dangerous things in all the world is a Christian who reads the Bible in front of them who hasn't first learned to read the mind of Christ within them.

Nothing has freed my heart and soul more than the moment I realized that listening to the mind of Christ within me is far more important and trustworthy than reading the Bible ever could be. 

From that point on, I committed myself to seeking guidance from the Light within me, far more than the opinions around me.

Game changer.  

Chris Kratzer

A few thoughts about the Jesus story in the gospels: 

1. The gospels were written 70-90 years after the death of Jesus, and based upon oral traditions passed along over that period. The gospel writers used these oral traditions as the foundation of their texts. It’s likely they used the most common oral traditions as a starting point. 

2. There is scholarly debate about whether the gospel writers knew Jesus personally during his lifetime or the nature of their knowledge or relationship with Jesus. For example, there is debate if the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Matthew named as a disciple of Jesus. Overall, while it’s possible that some gospel writers had direct contact with Jesus, the exact nature of their relationship with him remains a subject of debate. 

3. The gospel writers were editors. They had to sift through a mountain of oral traditions and decide which stories to use and which ones to leave out. The gospel writers chose a limited number of Jesus stories and teachings so as to make the work manageable and of reasonable length. They also chose stories and teachings they felt most honored the legend, message and significance of Jesus (influenced by how they understood it), and conversely left out stories they felt were unbecoming to their idea of Jesus or teachings they didn’t understand. For example, if the gospel writers believed Jesus was the one and only God in the flesh, they would have edited and rewrote oral traditions accordingly. The gospels are barely a Cliff Notes version of the life of Jesus, and leave out the childhood, teen and young adult years of Jesus. 

4. It makes sense that the gospel writers would have not included the following possible stories in their work, either because they were not conveyed in the oral traditions or because the gospel writers felt these stories were not favorable to the story of Jesus they wanted to tell: 

- Jesus romantic interests or intimate relationships 

- Jesus taking part in everyday life, which includes parties and drinking a too much wine 

- Jesus becoming unhinged, pissed, or doing and saying things that would have raised eyebrows

- Jesus’ early years and all the things a normal teenager at that time/place would think, do, say or act 

- Jesus’ twisted humor and bad language 

Why we fault the gospel writers for this, I don’t understand. If I told the Cliff Notes version of your story to honor your memory, I wouldn’t include your two nightmare divorces, that trip to Vegas, or that time you went off on the cashier at Target. Right? 

For me, if Jesus had intimate relationships, got hammered at a wedding party, or cussed out a disciple for being stupid, I wouldn’t care. None of that would impact how or why I find meaning in the legend and story written about Jesus. Though I understand why, It’s odd to me that Jesus claimed to be divine and human, but the gospel writers left out the human part. It could simply be that they couldn’t figure out how to properly reconcile and integrate the two, and were conflicted about it. That’s fair, right? 2,000 years we are still trying to figure it out. Unfortunately ever since, we have had the idea that being human is a bad, which basically dominated Paul’s thinking about everything. 

I hold space for Jesus in my heart, not because he was more than human but because he sparked a tuneless conversation about what it could mean to be human. Of course Jesus was divine, but in the same way that we all are being rooted in the same, one and only ground of being. The real challenge Jesus left the world is not about why we can’t be as divine as he is, because we are. The real question is, why we can’t be as human as he was. 

Jim Palmer

One of the most pivotal things I have discovered in my spiritual journey is that if you believe in Love all the way, eventually so much of “church” becomes not only unnecessary and irrelevant, but a spiritual shackle restraining the soul.

Where so much of “church” is designed for us to land our faith and comply our lives, the universe is determined that our spirit forever flies and our faith continually evolves.

Everything one needs in order to be whole, holy, approved, and faithful to the Divine is already within them, no church or Christianity required. Period.

That's why for me, the earth is my sanctuary, humanity is my community, wholeness is my Gospel, and love is my worship.

Game changer.

Chris Kratzer 

Part 356. Known: Unknown

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.  There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things we know we don't know.  But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfed.

So how would you apply this to theological matters: in particular your personal understanding, of what is meant by  'god' or 'God'?  

Part 355. Interesting short articles. Well, I think so.

Below are a few short articles setting out opinions that may be of interest to individuals who have or in the throes of deconstructing their faith.  Unsurprisingly, I concur with much of the arguments, opinions, assertions made in the articles.  Hope you find the pieces of interest, maybe stimulating.

If the ego’s purpose is to protect itself—to shield from pain, avoid confrontation, and cling to comfort—then is it not possible, even likely, that our idea of God is its greatest projection? What better refuge for the fragile mind than a divine figure to provide answers, purpose, and the promise of something more? What better way to ease the torment of existence than to create a being who can rescue us from it?

Take heaven, for example. For an ego terrified of its own impermanence, what greater comfort than the promise of eternal bliss—a reward for enduring life’s chaos? Heaven becomes the ultimate escape, a way to make every hardship, every sacrifice feel worthwhile. But is it divine truth—or the ego’s desperate attempt to avoid the void?

Consider sin and repentance. The ego, weighed down by guilt, craves relief, and so we create pathways to absolution. Confession, penance, forgiveness—they give the ego a way to reclaim its worthiness, to avoid the crushing weight of its failures. But is this redemption from a higher power—or from the prison of our own shame?

And what of justice? The idea that a benevolent God will reward the good and punish the wicked aligns so perfectly with the ego’s need for fairness, for order in an otherwise chaotic world. But in a reality where suffering is often senseless, does this divine justice exist—or is it the ego’s refusal to confront the randomness of existence?

Then there is the notion of “chosen people.” What could be more appealing to the ego than the idea of being special, singled out by the divine? It soothes the fear of insignificance, granting not just meaning, but superiority. It transforms the ordinary into something sacred, and the struggles of life into proof of a higher calling. But does this chosenness reflect divine will—or the ego’s relentless desire to matter?

Even death itself is softened by the ego’s projections. Immortal souls, reincarnation, eternal unity with God—all of these ease the terror of finality. The ego cannot accept its own annihilation, and so it creates an identity that transcends the grave, an existence that cannot end. But is this eternity a truth of the divine—or the ultimate illusion of self-preservation?

These ideas—the promises of heaven, forgiveness, justice, chosenness, immortality—offer profound comfort. But they also raise an unsettling question: are they reflections of God, or are they reflections of us? Are we truly seeking the divine—or simply crafting an image that fulfills our deepest fears and desires?

I don’t necessarily reject religion. At its best, religion inspires love, compassion, and transformation; it provides a framework for understanding the mysteries of existence. But when religious doctrine lulls us into comfort and complacency—when it offers shortcuts that bypass the hard, necessary work of inner growth—I believe it becomes a barrier rather than a bridge to true spiritual and individual evolution. The promises of salvation or absolution can sometimes rob us of the raw, unfiltered confrontation with ourselves that is essential for growth.

So perhaps the hardest journey is not upward toward a God we’ve imagined, but inward—to confront the raw, unfiltered truths of existence. To sit with the uncertainty, the suffering, the ambiguity, and ask what remains when the ego lets go. What lies beyond our projections, in the silence where the mind can no longer construct its walls?

Maybe it is there—in that vast, terrifying, and beautiful emptiness—that we finally encounter something real. Something divine. Not crafted, not projected, but experienced. And maybe, just maybe, that truth is more extraordinary than anything the ego could ever imagine. 

Chris Johns

"The real work of deconstruction is not wheeling in a new-and-improved theology to replace your old discarded beliefs. Religion gets people all worked up over cultivating a better relationship with God, but what we most need is a healthier relationship with ourselves. 

People are suffering every day, not because of a deficient relationship with a deity in the sky, but because of a dysfunctional relationship with the person in the mirror. The root of this dysfunction are all the lies religion convinced you about yourself. A few of them are: 

I am inherently bad. 

I can't trust myself.

My heart is wicked. 

I deserve punishment. 

I don't measure up.

I am powerless. 

I need forgiveness for who I am.

I am worthless on my own.

I can never be good enough. 

I need saved from myself. 

The peace you lack is not with God, but with yourself. You are not separated from God, you are separated from you. Your challenge is not overcoming your original badness, but staking claim to your original goodness." 

Jim Palmer

My greatest revelation came in a moment of quiet clarity—a realization so simple yet so profound that it unraveled everything I thought I knew: I was the creator of my own reality. Every scar etched into my soul, every fleeting moment of joy, every rise and fall—it all traced back to me. It all stemmed from my choices, my perceptions, and my willingness to act or remain still.

For so long, I lived as though life were something happening to me, like a fallen leaf tossed by an indifferent wind. I blamed circumstances, other people, even fate itself, for the emptiness and dissatisfaction that consumed me. But then it struck me, like the first light piercing the darkness of a long night—I was the wind. I had always been the wind.

This realization was both humbling and liberating. It required me to face myself, not with judgment or shame, but with ownership. If I had created my suffering, I could also create my healing. If I had shaped my struggles, I could shape something better, something true. Life was not an unrelenting tide carrying me where it willed—it was a river, and I held the oar!

In that moment, I was no longer a victim of life’s chaos but its co-creator. And with that understanding came the most liberating truth of all: I have a choice. Not over every event that unfolds, nor over what others do or say, but over how I respond, how I grow, and how I use each moment to shape the days ahead. That truth set me free—not because it promised ease or comfort, but because it reminded me of what I had forgotten: I hold the power. I hold the choice. I always have.

Chris Johns

HAPPY BEGINNER’S DAY

Shunryu Suzuki said in Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind:

“In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few” 

“This is also the real secret of the arts: always be a beginner.” 

New Year’s is a secular version of enlightenment or being “born again.” New Year’s is an invitation to look out at the world through new eyes. 

May you wake up this day refusing to be defined by your past.

May you look at the mirror and see someone with a completely clean slate. 

May you forgive every mistake that you or others have made. May you untether from every grudge and accept this day as an invitation to a fresh start at living.

May you stop carrying the burden of a religion of memorized answers. May you be “baptized” in your own version of awareness, forgiveness and grace. 

May you wake up to this day with new eyes for beauty, a new mind unfettered by yesterday’s answers, and with a new heart unscarred by yesterday’s wounds. 

Most importantly, may you always be a beginner.

Jim Rigby

"Jesus was not a Christian. He is not the founder of Christianity. Jesus never encouraged people to worship him. Christianity is a religion created later, mostly by Paul and later church councils, in the name of Jesus, but is much different from the truth that Jesus taught and lived. Were Jesus alive today, he would not be a Christian. He would have no choice but to identify as an atheist if his only choice was the "God" of toxic religion. 

Jesus is still one of best-kept secrets because his truth has been grossly distorted by those who claim to speak for him. There is a religion-free Jesus who belongs to all of humankind. Christianity does not own or have first rights to Jesus. His truth has universal significance.

It's a mistake to make Jesus a religious figure or front man for Christianity. You have to disentangle Jesus from what you heard at church to find the truth he said would set you free."

Jim Palmer. 

I keep a list of absurd things people say about God. This morning I came across one that I added to my list. 

I saw a meme that read:

“God doesn’t give you the people you want, he gives you the people you need. To help you, to hurt you, to leave you, to love you, and to make you the person you were meant to be.”

Firstly, the part of the statement that reads “God doesn’t give you the people you want” is an insult. It might as well be translated as follows, “You are not capable of determining what is good for you. God knows better than to listen to your carnal and misguided desires.”

Secondly, God does not send people into your life to hurt you. The pain we inflict upon one another in this world is the result of our brokenness and the ignorance or denial of the essential truths that at the heart of our existence. But the idea that God sends hurtful and abusive people into our lives to teach us something or make us grow, is absurd and false. I certainly hope that all the adult survivors of child abuse, of which I am one, didn't see this meme.

Third, God does not handpick and shuffle an assortment of people in and out of 8+ billion people's individual lives. The people with whom we encounter, interact, and form relationships with is determined by a multitude of factors, conditions, circumstances, and choices, and not divine intervention. 

An aspect of every human being's lived experience and personal growth involves learning the skills to cultivate meaningful, constructive, intimate, and mutually fulfilling and loving relationships. This includes learning to set boundaries in our connections with others who are detrimental to our mental, emotional, and spiritual health and well-being. We all have a history that includes a few or more relationship shitstorms. Right? We learn from them, do our personal work, become healthier human beings, and do relationships better as more whole people. 

It is you, not God, who is at the helm of orchestrating your relational world. Of course, wisdom and spirituality is a component of this, but God is not parading specific people into your life for a divine purpose. 

Lastly, the idea that God is doing all this to "make you the person you were meant to be" is a false premise. You were born the person you were meant to be. You always are the person you were meant to be in every moment, and always will be the person you were meant to be. It's not possible for you to not be the person you were meant to be. 

Your primordial and fundamental essence, nature and Self lacks nothing. How can you be an expression or manifestation of the "image of God", which is the supreme, absolute, timeless, infinite, complete, whole, ultimate reality, and need to be made into something more???

So, I decided to reword the statement as follows:

"Your fundamental nature or essence is the ultimate reality often referred to as "God". As such, your journey is about discovering, being, and expressing what you are in the context of the lived human experience. This includes partaking in the interdependent web of connectivity with all human beings, and participating in all these interactions, associations, and relationships in a way that calls forth the truth of what you are." 

Jim Palmer