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. 

Nostalgia

I penned what follows in 2010. Then I was accused of being a bloody -minded, pain in the backside, argumentative agitator. Some think I am still...surely not.

"I have written to the Bishop of Tonbridge and the Archdeacon for Tonbridge as follows:

'Dear Bishop Brian and Archdeacon

Below is an article I put on my blog a few weeks ago:

‘The imminent demise of Church in Society (an independent charity underwritten by the Church of England Canterbury and Rochester Dioceses) is a sad development. It calls into question the commitment of the Church of England to tackle social responsibility issues at a strategic level. In the 1980s the Church of England published Faith in the City and Faith in the Countryside both of which were devastating critiques of the failure of government to tackle problems of social exclusion.

At a time when a draconian cut in public expenditure over a long period is inevitable it will be the voluntary sector (including faith organisations) that will have to pick up the pieces. The disappearance of an infrastructure organisation that could (a) support front-line work by churches, (b) campaign for policy changes, and (c) represent the Church on strategic partnerships in Kent, is an absolute disgrace.

The two dioceses have shunted social responsibility into a siding. So far nothing has appeared in the public domain about how the two dioceses will ensure the continuation of the work of Church in Society. My guess is that the work will be farmed out, be fragmented and ineffectual.’

I spent the best part of fourteen years as either secretary, chairman or project developer for Tunbridge Wells Churches Social Responsibility Group and during all that time the organisation received support from CIS, in particular David Grimwood, Jane Winter and John Cunningham. To whom will TWCSRG (soon to be part of Tunbridge Wells Churches Together) turn for support, and in particular support that is authoritative and experienced in social responsibility matters?

The Group achieved a great deal in recent years including:

· A leading role in the development of Tunbridge Wells Community Plan

· A significant role in Tunbridge Wells becoming a Fairtrade town

· Worked hard to develop a credit union. The fruit of that work has been the very recent formation of Kent Savers Credit Union

· Helped establish the Good Neighbour Project in Tunbridge Wells

· Brought together churches of different denominations to work together on social responsibility issues

· Has supported Number One Community Trust, Sherwood Peoples Action, Tunbridge Wells Mental Health Resource, the Bridge Trust and Tunbridge Wells Street Teams.

· Played a leading role in the West Kent Community Legal Services Partnership

Had it not been for the support of CIS much of what has been achieved would not have happened.

I am appalled at the behaviour of the Rochester Diocese towards Tony Cross.

Currently I work in the voluntary sector and the sector has adapted to meet the challenges of reduced statutory funding. My feeling is that CIS should have been given the opportunity to produce a new business model to ensure its continuation.

Last September I was sounded out as to my availability to become a director of CIS. I assented to my name going forward, but heard no more. I have many years experience in the voluntary sector, including being chair of Voluntary Action West Kent, Vice-Chair of the Bridge Trust, Chair of Crossroads Carers, Chair of Number One Community Trust, Chair Allsorts Edenbridge Holiday Club, Chair Panda pre-School Playgroup and much more besides.

What I find objectionable is that no consultation has taken place with organisations or individuals who could have come up with a workable model.'"

My opinion........

My opinions change as I am exposed to new experiences and, new to me, ideas, concepts and facts.  In other words, an ongoing reassessment.   Currently in matters theological my ideas are a mix, mishmash, melange, of the ideas developed by a wide range of theologians and others. I cannot lay claim to any original thought (very few can).  The 'fun' is to discern from where elements of my current thinking come.

I gave up the quest for objective truth many years ago: recognising the difference between 'is' and 'ought', that facts and opinions are distinct and the latter cannot become the former despite the efforts of those who seek to convince us otherwise.  I have developed a sense of scepticism, particularly in regard to statements claiming to know the truth and seeking to inculcate it in others.

An opinion: we do not know if there is a god: if there is we have no knowledge as to its nature.   I do not have faith, belief or hold to the opinion that god is a metaphysical entity, nor that god is metamorphic and can be spoken to, listens to us, responds to us or directs us.

It follows from this that a religious text is neither the literal word of god, nor inspired by god nor infallible  Religious tracts are entirely human constructs conveying the thinking of the authors as interpreted by the reader. Ascribing a text to god does not make it a sacred document.  The fact that an idea is expressed in a religious  text does not make it an objective truth laid down by a metaphysical source. Simply claiming an idea is of divine origin does not make it divine.  Think of the ongoing damage suffered by women and  LGBTQIA+ individuals by claims of divine guidance or objective authority in the scriptures.

The idea that words have one fixed meaning is false.  We can only use our own interpretation as to the meaning of words.  Does the context of the time in which it is set render the words meaningless or inapplicable in today's context, or are the ideas the words convey relevant today?  

I do not know if Jesus was a real person or the creation of the authors of the synoptic gospels bringing together custom, myth, fable, metaphor, symbolism etc.  What its important are the ideas conveyed in the gospels and attributed to Jesus: concepts of kindness, love, service, justice, care for the marginalised and downtrodden.  One does not have to be a Christian to live in accord with these concepts: humanist, atheist, agnostic, follower of other faiths may all, and do, subscribe to these ideals.  But they are a matter of choice, not some objective truth from a metaphysical source.  Others choose to live in other ways.  Ethical choices are made: sometimes society in the form of legislation or peer pressure intervenes.  Choices are made: it is subjective, there are no objective standards or norms outside those either we as individuals or society decide to impose.

I seek to follow the teaching ascribed to Jesus because I find it compelling.  It is my choice arrived at in light of my experience, understanding and current lifestyle.  It is mental acceptance that I seek to turn into action.  

The story of Jesus is that of a radical rebel, a revolutionary, who challenged the religious, legal and political establishments.   His concern was for the have nots: women, children, the poor, the imprisoned, the marginalised, the disadvantaged.  Today there are many who seek to help those in need and to tackle the causes of individual and social injustice.  Some take their inspiration from the message attributed to Jesus, some motivated by other sources.

Of love, kindness, justice and community

 It is a long-held opinion of mine that the belief system as encapsulated in the Nicene Creed is far removed from the teaching of Jesus with its emphasis on loving your neighbour, kindness, helping, justice and sense of community.  The following articles express in excellent fashion these themes and I commend them to you for your attention.  

Progressive Christian Network Britain  (PCN Britain):

CHURCHES, WAKE UP! Carl Krieg, Ph.D. who describes himself as “progressive mainline”, offers a critique of the Church and a vision for the future. https://progressivechristianity.org/res.../churches-wake-up/ He suggest the following: “Change the message, returning it to what Jesus actually taught and did. That change is basic, and it conforms to what people need and want to hear because everyone understands love. The current images of what the church represents- sacrifice on a cross, walking on water, even hell- must be replaced by images of love and community, images that represent who God is and who we are. A non-dogmatic approach is mandatory and would open the doors to people who come from different backgrounds and are at differing stages of life and faith formation. There must be no room for a fundamentalist attitude of “here it is, take it or leave it”. It is that attitude, masquerading as faith, that made the pews empty in the first place. The purpose of the church is not to convert, not to get people to join. The purpose of the congregation is to continually grow in awareness and fellowship within itself, while also providing for society at large a welcoming place where spirituality, love, and justice are practiced. Should those efforts prove successful, growth will come naturally”.

Kris Kratzer:

Salvation only becomes real in your heart the moment you realize that you were never lost to begin with. Everything else is religious poison pimped as the cure.

Because God doesn't give us a new heart, God reveals the beauty and goodness that was always and already there.

So, the Gospel isn't about getting people into heaven, it's about bringing wholeness to the earth and all humanity, here and now.

That's why Jesus was never focused on believing a set of beliefs, but on loving extravagantly. Actions mean everything, so much that, for Jesus, he counts them all as belief.

For Jesus, lip service is nothing, human service is everything.

Therefore, heaven or hell was what you brought to earth and its people, before it ever became your eternity.

Because, when it's all said and done, your heart is where you spend forever.

Jim Rigby:

WAS THE EARLY CHURCH "SOCIALIST?"

I know it can be a jolt to hear anti-capitalist sermons at a Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas. I understand some people assume I am projecting modern leftist thoughts onto a first century religion that was focused on a pie in the sky heaven, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

The early church was a clarion call for economic justice for all people. The economic justice called for by the Jewish prophets may not have been Marxist, but it WAS a call to value universal human rights over regional property rights. The early church called followers to serve our ENTIRE human family, not just our own nation or culture. We do not have to use the words “socialism” or “capitalism” to understand the early church but we do have to weigh ANY economic system by how it cares for the poor and sojourner.

Judaism and the early church weren’t persecuted by Rome because of their theology. They were persecuted for political reasons, namely because they refused to participate in the violence and hoarding required by any empire, including the American Empire today. When the bishops were brought together by the Roman emperor and told to reduce Christianity to creeds and rituals, they were were actually being told to renounce the the core teachings of Jesus and to take up the hymns and creeds to a dead savior. Defined by rituals and theology instead of ethics, the church could now violate everything Jesus taught and still call themselves “Christian.” By removing the Sermon of the Mount from the center of Christianity the church could now praise Christ and serve Caesar.

Obviously, capitalism was not a developed system in Jesus’ day, but the Jewish religion was incredibly clear about not enriching oneself through charging interest. The practice was called “usury” and it would include unregulated capitalism as a source of evil. Here are some quotes from the early church that can help us better understand the heresy of MAGA Christian Nationalism.

Saint Basil the Great condemned using property rights as a justification for economic inequality. He compared it to someone who claims seats in a theatre and will not let late comers have them. Basil said, “That’s what the rich are like; having seized what belongs to all, they claim it as their own on the basis of having got there first.” Saint Basil is also quoted as saying, “When people strip others of their clothes, they are called “thieves.” Should not those who have the power to clothe the naked but do not be called the same? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry. The cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked. The shoes you allow to rot belong to the barefoot. The money in your vaults belongs to the destitute. You do injustice to everyone whom you could help but do not.”

Saint John Chrysostom said, “Mine” and “thine” – these chilling words which introduce innumerable wars into the world – should be eliminated from the church. Then the poor would not envy the rich, because there would be no rich. Neither would the poor be despised by the rich, for there would be no poor. All things would be in common. He also said, “I am a Christian. One who answers thus has declared everything at once—their country, their profession, their family; the believer belongs to no city on earth but to the heavenly Jerusalem.” (St. John Chrysostom 347CE – 407CE)

Many early church screen converts based more on justice than piety. Hippolytus (170AD – 236AD) wrote: “The professions and trades of those who are going to be accepted into the community must be examined. The nature and type of each must be established… brothel, sculptors of idols, charioteer, athlete, gladiator…give it up or be rejected. A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected. A proconsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God.”

Christian Nationalism may feel very pious, but what kind of peacemaker will kill other people because they were born on the other side of an imaginary line? The early church was also clear that the new faith needed to be international if it was going to be an answer to war. “Shall we carry a flag? It is a rival to Christ.” (Tertullian 160CE – 220CE).

Jesus lived long before Marx or Adam Smith. No one really knows what he would think about either system, but what is clear is that no economic system is a justification for economic injustice. What is clear is that Jesus was not talking about pie in the sky salvation so much as making it on earth as we want it to be in heaven. It seems to me Christian nationalism is a heresy completely repudiated by the early church.

Article by Colin Coward

A call to action by Colin Coward 

Unadulterated Love

Changing Attitude England’s campaign goal: Full equality for LGBTQIA+ people in relationships and ministry

Colin Coward November 4, 2025

In 2017 Changing Attitude England proposed a simple goal for the outcome of the Living in Love and Faith process for LGBTQIA+ people. It is for us the synthesis of the Archbishops’ proclaimed ambition to achieve a Radical New Christian Inclusion: 

Full equality for LGBTQIA+ people in relationships and ministry

At a recent Conversation on Race and Faith, a Black History Month event held at SAINT church, Shoreditch, Professor Robert Beckford, theologian at the Queen’s Foundation Birmingham outlined steps towards the action people of colour should be taking and named LGBTQIA+ people as needing to take the same steps.

In Theology

We need to understand that grace means everyone is made in the image and likeness of God according to the Bible. We bear the image of a multitude in God.

We need to understand that the divine nature of God and the model of the Trinity means showing respect, making room for each other, creating inclusiveness and freedom.

Christians are called to follow the sanctified life, loving the stranger and the enemy.

We have to translate the sanctified life into actions to achieve radical structural change.

By Action

We go to work, organising ourselves to challenge the Christian Nationalist discourse.

Those of us wanting to oppose and change the narrative have got to be an active part of the solution.

We need to form communities of resistance offering counter-cultural models in the Church.

We need to develop our moral courage. Are we prepared to stand up and be visible and audible, doing and saying the right things?

The Implications

Changing the structures mean changing how people are trained for ministry, integrating black and liberation theology in courses. The curriculum has to be changed because at the moment the theology taught results in racism. [Robert would say the same about LGBTQIA+ Queer theology]

Those who are doing the teaching have to be scrutinised to ensure the theology is inclusive, radical and interventionist.

We have to ask the question: what would the heavenly radical Kingdom of God look like with LGBTQIA+ folk on the Board?

In conversation with Robert at the end of the event, he wondered what the attitude of the SAINT churches was to LGBTQIA equality since the mood turned notably cold when he’d referred to us. They are not pro-gay equality, I said. A few moments later I asked one of the SAINT church leaders what their policy about LGBTQIA+ inclusion was. He declined to answer. I have received the same response in every SAINT and HTB church plant.

History and Context:

The Rev Malcolm Johnson, in his time as Rector of St Botolph’s Aldgate, 1974-1993, conducted over three hundred blessings of lesbian and gay couples.

If Changing Attitude England were still a registered charity with a legally constituted Board and I still had an active support network I would be circulating them and discussing with them an action plan based on and developing Robert Beckford’s suggestions. We, together, would be forming ideas to put to local groups and the national network presenting ideas for people to ‘go to work’ on.

Being at the table

If we were at the table of the House of Bishops, open, visible and articulate pro-full inclusion LGBTQIA+ people, then our voices would be heard and the experience of many of us being sexual people in lifetime intimate relationships would be recorded alongside the voices of conservative evangelical anti-full inclusion bishops.

We would be able to argue for the best path to follow to achieve the radical new inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people implied by the Archbishops.

Canons

Professor Helen King recently set out with clarity the routes for change possible under Canons B 2, B 4.2, B 4.3 and B 5.

Canon B 5 was used to commend the used to commend the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith in the context of existing services.

Canon B 2 could/would be used by means of the full synodical legal mechanism to allow the use of stand-alone services of blessing anywhere.

Canon B 4.3 would allow individual diocesan bishops to authorise the use of stand-alone services in their diocese.

Canon B 4.2 could be used by the Archbishops to authorise the use of stand-alone services anywhere and everywhere.

Using Canons B 4.2 or B 4.3 would raise the possibility of a legal challenge from the Alliance conservative forces. My research over the past three months in the dioceses of London, Winchester and Chichester has unearthed information about what is going in the contemporary HTB/Alliance/Church Revitalisation Trust axis. Their clergy and congregations can be subjected to a counter legal challenge by us because of their failure to worship using orthodox, approved forms of service.

We, progressive, inclusive movements and individuals in the church seem to be unaware of the extreme danger to the kind of Christian life that has been normative for us, let alone the kind of radically new inclusive Christian live we dream of for the future.

Thirty years of transformation and resistance

In the past thirty years England has enshrined in law transformational legal changes affecting the status and lives of LGBQIA+ people. The same cannot confidently be said for Trans people, sadly.

Over the same period the Church of England has failed to undergo a similar transformation, traumatised by the 1998 Lambeth Conference, Resolution 1.10, the failure to appoint Jeffrey John as bishop of Reading, the election of Gene Robinson as a bishop and the creation of GAFCON.

The optimism raised by the Archbishops with their vision of a new radical Christian inclusion, responding to the transformations enacted in civic society of which the Church of England is an integral part, has been hugely disappointing. Counter-revolutionary forces have been allowed to slow and derail progress towards full and equal inclusion for LGBTQIA+ people in the CofE that matches our inclusion in wider English society.

It’s time to go to work

It’s time to organise ourselves, challenging status quo narrative, forming communities of resistance, offering counter-cultural models in the Church, develop our moral courage, standing up visibly and audibly, being active agents in pursuing the full equality of LGBTQIA+ people in the Kingdom of God.

You are part of the solution

You, reading this blog, have a voice and a conviction. You can do things to create the change we envision. Engage with your local clergy, congregation, friends, PCC, Churchwardens and allies. Ask them to join you in committing your local church to as fully inclusive agenda as is possible, including the public blessing of same-sex relationships, CPs and marriages.

Encourage the other progressive organisations, Together, Inclusive Church, Equal, Open Table, Network to find the courage to work for transformation by challenging the failure of the House of Bishops to commit to a radical new Christian inclusion for LGBTQIA+ people. Affirm lesbian and gay clergy in their relationships, in a civil partnership, and those dreaming of marriage.

Take courage yourselves from the courage shown by the Deans of Canterbury, Southwark and Salisbury in writing and preaching about the transformative vision we share and the isolation and abuse we endure.

Please repost this blog; copy and paste the text if you wish.

You are part of the greatest resource in the Church of England – people with vision and a passion for the Gospel proclaiming the inclusive good news of life in all its fulness.

To transform our vision into reality I’m going to need help and we are all going to need help. Join the Changing Attitude Facebook Group and engage with each other there. 

Contact me directly if you want to volunteer to help: ccmcoward@aol.com

 

Influences

In my early childhood there were no pre-school play groups.  When you reached a certain age you attended the local state primary school.  Unlike today there was no choice involved: live in the catchment area of a school, then it was the one you had to go to.

There were no school uniforms and it became apparent to me that some of my peers came from well-to-do families, others from financially poor families. This showed itself in how pupils dressed, toys and lifestyle.  Some kids had holidays at the seaside, or even abroad, others had no holidays away from home.  Thus it was that I came to understand that not all have equal opportunities and ambitions.

I passed the 11 Plus examination and was rewarded with a place at the local state boys' grammar school. The demarcation of kids at this age was stark.  Grammar schools opened opportunites for an education leading to university, the professions, senior positions in government etc.  Secondary modern schools were for those society expected to undertake 'other' work: labourers,  factory workers, janitors, miners,  etc.  

My understanding of how 'the system' worked was brought home to me by the streaming system at my school,  The top stream had all the better teachers and pupils were pressed to study harder.  Top stream pupils were the ones expected to do well in examinations and gain entry to top universities. I noted that pupils in the top stream were not there on intellectual ability. Places were reserved for the sons of the local establishment: sons of vicars, local government officers and councillors, doctors, solicitors, accountants, local trade union leaders, business leaders etc.  Selection based on class and status.

Thus it was that my embryonic ideas formed that we were not equal, that society was geared to maintaining advantages for some.  In other words what I came to know as systemic injustice.

I was fortunate to make it to university.  My studies for a law degree led me to understand how politics and law could be used to either protect those with privilege in society, or as a vehicle for change.

I  read "The Affluent Society" by John Kenneth Galbraith.  He argued that economics was not, as I had studied at school, a set of self-standing, inviolable, unchanging rules.  Rather the rules are a complex product of the cultural, economic, social and political context in which they are applied. 

Galbraith identified what he described as the 'underclass' by which he did not mean the criminal classes: rather he meant individuals who undertake poorly paid work, live in bad housing, have poor health provision, poor working conditions, poor public transport, poor education etc.  This underclass sustains the living styles of the affluent classes.  Society has it within its power the resources to remove systems that produce this disparity: but chooses not to.  

It was against this background that I came to support the political philosophy of democratic socialism.  Many years later I found myself penniless, homeless, jobless and divorced.  It was this experience that turned me towards reading the Christian bible:  in particular to the teaching of Jesus.  What I read resonated with my political opinions.  So, my understanding of the message of Jesus reinforced my support for democratic socialism whilst at the same time I was understanding the message of Jesus through the lens of democratic socialism.