Love in action

This article draws together items I have placed on my Progressive and Deconstructivist Theology  Facebook page. The theme is clear.

1.

"The "Christ Mystery" is much bigger than Christianity as an organized religion. If we don't understand this, Christians will have little ability to make friends with, build bridges to, understand, or respect other religions or the planet. Jesus did not come to create a country club or a tribe of people who could say, "We're in and you're out. We've got the truth and you don't." Jesus came to reveal something that was true everywhere, for everyone, and all the time." ~ Father Richard Rohr

"from a progressive Christian perspective, Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life,” and all who follow Jesus’ way, teachings, and example — the way of unconditional love, of radical hospitality, of loving-kindness, of compassion, of mercy, of prophetic speaking truth to power, the way of forgiveness, of reconciliation, and the pursuit of restorative justice – by whatever name, and even if they’ve never even heard of Jesus, are fellow brothers & sisters in Christ and his Way.

To the extent that other world religions are about instilling, fostering, and nurturing those universal values – we see Christ in them." ~ Roger Wolsey

2.

If you want to know who God is, look at Jesus. If you want to know what it means to be human, look at Jesus.  If you want to know what grief is, look at Jesus.  And go on looking until you are not just a spectator, but you're actually part of the drama which has him as the central character. - NT Wright

3.

To follow Jesus is to conspire in love against every system that crushes the poor and silences the weak.  It is to stand up, speak out, and resist all injustice and oppression. - Kurt Struckmeyer

4.

Every time the Body of Christ prays, "thy kingdom, thy will be done on earth as it is heaven", we are verbally complicit in the subversive agenda of Jesus. - Ben Bergren

5.

Discipleship is not a destination but a journey of learning to love as Jesus loved, every day in every way. - Kurt Struckmeyer.

Finally, a quotation from Rev. Dr. Mark Sandlin:

"I try to follow the teachings of Jesus not the teachings of the men who formed a religion around him."

 Readers of this blog or my Facebook page (see above) will understand that I consider Don Cupitt to be correct: God was a human construct, and human beliefs were human creations.  It follows from this that the bible is not the infallible word of God, literally, symbolically or metaphorically.  Marcus Borg emphasises the bible is of human creation.  It is valuable insofar as it sets out the teaching attributed to Jesus as that time. But, it is not fixed in the time it was written, it is for us to determine our understanding of the teaching in and for our own time.  The teaching is not a set of rigid, fixed, unchangeable rules, rather it sets out broad, general principles capable of adaptation to changing cirumstances.  The teaching is not some musty, old, dead document rotting away in the mire of irrelevance, no, it is a living document assisting us to show the basic concept of love by our actions.

Theology and praxis

Over the years I have witnessed many examples of love, compassion, kindness,  care, concern, call it what you will, in action.  Not only is such activity to be seen in helping individuals at point of need: it is witnessed also in campaigns for systemic change, for social justice, for action to deal with causes of poverty, deprivation,  discrimination, marginalisation and exclusion.  It is the doing that matters, not the thinking about doing.  Doing good is not the preserve of any one group, all can assist and campaign: it doesn't matter if you are white, black, male, female, gay, straight, poor, rich, atheist, humanist, Christian, Muslim etc.

What motivates an individual to show love etc. for others? What is the trigger or experience of an individual that calls them to respond to the needs of others?  What ethical/moral considerations come into play?   

Some Christians tell us that God is love and this, along with the teachings of Jesus, informs their actions.  For them, theology determines praxis.  Until very recently I thought along similar lines, now I have my doubts that this is an accurate reflection of how things are.  For many people of faith helping others is not determined by prior theological reflection, rather they read back from action to discern theological support for what they are doing.  Is the relationship between theology and praxis symbiotic?  I believe it is.

We need to free ourselves from the constraint of a theology informing us what we should or should not do when it is based on fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of ancient texts.  We need a theology that reflects and responds pro-actively to situations in the world of today, otherwise it will be ignored as being irrelevant. We should understand our theology and scripture through the lens of love.

What the Church of England requires  has been well expressed by Revd. Colin Coward, the founder of Changing Attitude England. The CofE should be:  

"A Church that refocuses its' teaching and life on the essence of Jesus' life and teaching - 'life in all its fulness'."

So what are my conclusions? Anything I write is provisional as neither I nor anyone else can discern  'truth'. Writing in a Church of England context I consider the church should ditch its fundamentalist, literalist, conservative, evangelical baggage. Instead we should be seeking a church with a theology and praxis that is firmly fixed on the principle of love. A church that seeks to preach and act out the teaching attributed to Jesus to be found in the great commandments, the parables, the Sermon on the Mount and sundry other places in the gospels and  understood in the context of their  meaning and application in today's world.

What matters is not a set of beliefs. What does matter is behaviour, action, loving neighbour, not as theory but as practical action; helping individuals at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.

Texas Theologian

Jim Rigby is a Minister of the Presbyterian Church in Austin Texas. Along with fellow Americans viz Chris  Kratzer, Caleb J Lines and Mark Sandlin he presents progressive Christian theological thought and praxis at a particularly difficult time in the USA.  They are not alone in their opposition to the Make America Great Again politics that are supported by many of a conservative evangelical  persuasion.

Below are four of Jim Rigby's recent posts on Facebook.  I commend them to you.

1. BEING NICE IS NOT NECESSARILY KIND

There was a time early in my ministry where no one had a bad word to say about me. I didn’t realize that my supposed popularity was based on blending into the hierarchies of oppression and not standing up for anyone. 

My silence in the pulpit about controversial issues meant I was a guilty bystander to the church’s abuse of women, the LGBTQ community, and to non-Christians in general. 

Eventually, I learned if you truly love others you have to be honest enough to risk losing their approval. Being nice is not necessarily being kind.

2. BET IT ALL ON LOVE

I love the kind of religion where people can gather to ask the great questions of life, but detest the forms of religion that pretend they have found all the answers.

I detest the kind of religion that place the sandaled foot of the Savior on the throat of the culture's scapegoats, but I love the forms of religion that humbly serve the world without needing to preach.

I love the forms of religion where people can come together to celebrate ordinary life as a miraculous gift, but detest the forms of religion that can only find the sacred in the supernatural.

I detest the kinds of religion that bribe us with promises of a gated heaven, but love the forms of religion that bet it all on love.

3. BIBLE BULLIES

Christians who join in the persecution of religious or gender minorities may quote Paul, but they have not understood that Paul’s ultimate punchline is almost always that we are all in need of grace. Paul said a lot of unhelpful things, but his summary statement was almost always that the law is only fulfilled by love. Paul expected us to outgrow his limited understanding. Even if we find verses in Paul’s writings that directly contradict Jesus’ ever expanding message of love, Paul himself taught we are to follow love, not religion, and not Paul.

And, let’s be clear, when someone says they take the bible literally it means they take it superficially. To persecute people because they do not fit your religious stereotypes based on a superficial understandings of ancient texts is not piety- it is spiritual ignorance and political fascism. Spiritual piety is not appointing ourselves as God’s bouncers. Spiritual piety is living our own lives as sacrificial offerings for others whether we think they are worthy or not. 

Judgement finds no place in the Sermon on the Mount and it should have no place in the church today. It is strange indeed for Christians to claim that providing food and housing is government overreach, but that imposing our own sectarian moralism on everyone else is not. 

To the LGBTQ siblings in our human family, I offer my deepest apologies for those members of the Christian faith who have offered you judgment instead of grace, rejection instead of hospitality, and ancient moralisms instead of love in our own place and time. Please know If a Christian cannot look beyond your genitals and see your loving heart, it is they who are trapped in perversion, not you.

4. THE MOST DANGEROUS WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

The word “God” is perhaps the most dangerous word in the English language. I can’t think of another word that so completely makes a room full of people believe they are sharing the same beliefs when, in fact, every person in the room means something different.

I do not believe the symbol “God” is essential to the life of reverence. When people do use that word, it seems to me, the symbol “God” usually refers either to one’s own quest for love or one’s own pursuit of power.

If some some people in this culture use the word “God” to refer to an imagined white male on a golden throne, their religion may consist of little more than a theological mask for the sins of racism, sexism and classism. Religion that worships God as power may simply lift national and cultural injustices to a divine status.

But if, by “God” one means a personification of the tie that binds us ALL together, the word can give emotional texture to an abstract idea of unity. If one finds the sacred, not the the crafted idols of theology, but in the living faces of imperfect and struggling people, and in the frenzied pulse of nature, then the symbol "God" can be a poetic representation of the felt “heart” of a life lived in love.

What is important in any symbol is not the image it conjures in our heads, but the experience of reverence and interconnectedness it reveals in our hearts. The iconoclastic destruction of our religious images is almost as important to the life of love as is the creativity that crafts religious imagery in the first place.

More on rules and principles

 Here I go, again.  In all probability this will be a disjointed ramble through a topic I have considered before. It will lack academic substance, rigour and depth, but then why should I worry?

This article has been sparked by meetings and long conversations with a Church of England Licensed Lay Minister (LLM).  LLM has replaced Reader in the nomenclature of the CofE.  The subject of our most recent discussion was what is meant by the phrase 'love your neighbour' and how it is/should be applied in parishes.

Our discussion teased out the need for consideration of  competing theological positions that have created deep divides within the CoE in both theory and praxis.

I subscribe to the postmodernist ideas of Jacques Derrida: in particular his thesis that words mean what the reader or hearer decides they mean.  Such understanding may or may not accord with the intention of the author. Language is fluid, not rigid nor fixed in any timeframe.  Thus ideas and concepts may mean one thing to their author: their interpretation and understanding is entirely within the domain of the recipient. It is not contexual within a specific timeframe.  This suggests to me that seeking to understand scripture by reference to its historical context is a fruitless exercise, as is the quest for the historical Jesus, or in what is named by Christians as the Old Testament.

Unsurprisingly there is diversity of opinion as to the import of passages of scripture.  Can there be a literal meaning?  How can we know the intention of the orginal author?  Is the bible a sound, unchanging, repository of theological 'truth'.  Or is it evidence of past thinking, worthy of study to assist us in grappling with the issues of belief and faith?

Added to the mix is disputation as to style. Is it metaphor, literal, narrative, poetry, prose, allusion, symbolism etc.?

A few quotations:

The Christian story does not drop from heaven fully written. It grew and developed over a period of forty-two to seventy years. This is not what most Christians have been to taught to think...Christianity is an evolving  story.  It was never, even in the New Testament, a finished story.

JOHN SHELBY SPONG.

I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product.  I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity.  As such it contained their understandings and affirmations.

MARCUS J BORG

An observation byJohn Dominic Crossan:

My point is not that these ancient people told literal stories and we are not smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.

I turn to consideration of rules and principles.  Both seek to determine behaviour and may interact.  We are all governed by rules.  There is hardly any aspect of our lives not the subject of rules, regulations, canons etc., driving, marrying, employment, claiming benefits, club membership...the list in almost endless.  Adherence to the rules is achieved by the potential for sanctions, punishment etc. imposed by  the organisation responsible for monitoring and applying the rules.  There are those who will seek to circumvent rules by finding loopholes or lacunae.  Thus tax evasion is illegal, but tax avoidance by means of a gap or loophole in the rules is legal. In the Old Testament the Law was circumvented by tortuous interpretation of rules to justify actions that on the face of literal interpretation were not permitted. The overall effect of rules is limiting and, unless altered, are not susceptible  easily to reflect societal changes in the areas they cover.  As society changes the rules may not be in step, appear anchronistic and eventually become the subject of ridicule and desuetude.  

The CofE is pulling itself apart over the issue of same-sex marriage blessings, never mind same sex marriage. There are those who assert biblical teaching on marriage forbids any recognition of same-sex relationships.  Thus the CoE is out of step with secular law and opinion that permits same-sex civil marriage. The Church is having great difficutly in changing its rules (canons) on this matter as its internal rules on adopting change make it extremely difficult to achieve.  Has impasse been reached? Is the Living in Love and Faith process dead in the water?

Those favouring acceptance by the Church of same-sex marriage etc point to the principle that God's love extends to all in a committed relationship.  Following this principle would enable the current restrictive rules to be abolished.  

The command attributed to Jesus to 'love your neighbour' is a principle.  Indeed the bible states Jesus as claiming that all the law and prophets are subsumed by this and the commandment to love God.  The bible is to be read and understood through the lens of love and this principle overrides earlier rules and regulations.  Principles usually are broad statements and capable of fluid interpretation and application.  They enable escape from narrow restrictive rules, in theory.

In English law once a principle is established there are those lawyers who will beaver away to apply rules to the principle in order to limit its application.  Others will seek to expand the principle beyond what might have been the original intention of them formulating the principle.  It becomes an ongoing battle, hence the fluidity of principles.

There are denominations that ignore the command to love your neighbour,  choosing instead to preach the carrot of eternal life and the stick of hell as part of their doctrine, dogma and custom. There are Christians who will accept the principle of love your neighbour but hedge it with the dreaded 'but', thereby not being inclusive but excluding and marginalising particular individuals or groups. 

So what are my conclusions? Anything I write is provisional as neither I nor anyone else can be certain of the 'truth'. Do I have faith, belief or opinion? Probably the last of these.  Writing in a CofE context I consider the church should ditch it fundamentalist, literalist, conservative, evangelical baggage.  Instead we should be seeking a church with a theology and praxis that is firmly fixed on the principle of love.  A church that seeks to preach and act out the teaching attributed to Jesus to be found in the great commandments, the parables, the Sermon on the Mount and sundry other places in the gospels but understood in the context of their application in the context of our world.  Praxis should be grounded in theology.

Note the difference

Note the failure of individuals to distinguish between what they have a right to do from what it is right to do. Politicians have shown themselves adept at claiming their actions are within the rules and disregarding the ethical consideration of what it is right to do, particularly when it comes to invoicing the public purse for expenses.

The issue is one of distinguishing rules from principles.  In following rules it is possible to fail to appreciate underlying principles.  The ethical principle may well cast a wider net than encompassed by the rules.  The danger is that a literal interpretation of rules may ignore the principles behind them.

In the synoptic gospels the Pharisees are noted for applying the law whereas Jesus is attributed with drawing out the ethical basis undergirding the rules.  

Rules may be contained in legislation, but wherever they come from it is likely they are attributable to a source.  The source of ethical principles may be harder to define, indeed in a multi-cultural society, or one ridden with class, racial or sexual  discrimination, there is likely to be a plurality of ethical beliefs competing with each other. Rules may be imposed in an attempt to secure adherence to a particular set of ethical beliefs and thereby lead to conflict within society.

I know

Yes, I know I stated I had finished posting on this blog. Ah well. A report this week in The Times informs us that three candidates are going forward for consideration as the next Archbishop of Canterbury. One assumes each candidate has consented to being considered and is prepared to accept the poisoned chalice should it be offered.  The Crown Nominations Commitee has to select a candidate by a two thirds majority which may not be achievable if the experience of the vacant sees of Ely and Carlisle is anything to go by.  The cause of the deadlock is disputation between conservative evangelicals/traditionalists and liberals/progressives.  The Canterbury position is further complicated by the introduction of five members from outside the Church of England but within the Anglican Communion.  

My main reason for writing  has nothing to do with the above.  Reading through my posts I am struck by the realisation that my opinions place me squarely in the philosophical realm of existentialist nihilism with pepperings of absurdism.  I won't bore you with the distinctions between absurdism, existentialism and nihilism.  The internet is awash with information.  I have read the book of Ecclesiastes with renewed vigour and enthusiasm.  An antidote to pious humbug, doctrines and creeds.  

Beware!

 Beware sentinels, sentries, guardians, gatekeepers protecting the 'truth' and those peddling opinions claiming authority for their statements: politicians, journalists, theologians.  This is not to say one should ignore opinions or claims of truth but be wary, do not accept them without careful consideration.  Be watchful of misinformation published on social media. If my university education was of any value it was that it  taught me to firstly evaluate evidence and then consider opinions drawn from the evidence.  In other words be questioning, critical but open-minded.  

Those who have gone through, or started on the road, to deconstuction have questioned the protectors of the truth, have evaluated evidence and have drawn their own conclusions, or are in the process of so doing.  For me the journey to deconstruction started with my blog.  As I wrote down my thoughts I published them.  My conclusions have changed as I progressed through over 400 blog posts.  Having set off as a doubting liberal evangelical I am now a humanistic atheist in my opinions.  The message attributed to Jesus and my long-standing support for liberation theology has confirmed my political standpoint of being a socialist.  

Now I am firmly of the opinion that what matters is not a set of beliefs.   What matters is behaviour, action, loving neighbour, not just as theory but as practical action, helping individuals at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.

So, dear friends, this is where I am.  A good juncture to sign off my blog. Should you be so minded my blog posts are available on Facebook at John Hopkinson Personal Theology Blog.

More reading

In addition to the two books referred to in my previous post I am reading again the seminal work of Gustavo Gutierrez: A Theology of Liberation. I acquired the book having read a reference to liberation theology in the Church of England's report Faith in the City that was published forty years ago. 

The report and the book had a profound effect on my thinking and action. Since those far off days other theologians have been influential in my evolving ideas of God, Jesus and Christian living.  To name a few: Bonhoeffer, Moltmann, Boff, Borg, Bruegemann, King, Romeo, Meyers, Rohr, Holloway and Cupitt.  More recently I have been exploring anew postmodernism and secular theology.  Caputo's book: What to believe? Twelve brief lessons in radical theology  has set me thinking in new directions.

Above all I am interested  in what it means to follow the way of Jesus, both in theory and in praxis. My reading has included a book by Aaron Stauffer: Listening to the Spirit: The Radical Social Gospel, Sacred Value, and Broad-based Community Organisations. Set in a USA context it nevertheless has much of value applicable in other contexts.

I digress. Returning to Gutierrez.  He places an emphasis on the preferrential option for the poor, the gospel's demand for social justice and the need for liberation to come from within and articulated by poor communities.  It is this latter point that he uses to distinguish liberation theology from progressive theology. Liberation theology is not "the radical, political wing of European progressive theology."

Gutierrez writes of an 'irruption of the poor' by which he means 'the poor turning into active agents of their own destiny and beginning a resolute process that is changing the condition of the poor and oppressed in this world'.  Liberation theology is concerned not only with economic poverty: it is concerned with social poverty, racial and feminist discrimination and sexual discrimination.  

He emphasises the holistic approach. It is not enough to describe poverty and oppression: its causes must be determined.  "Structural analysis has played an important part in building up the picture of the world to which liberation theology addresses itself."  It is important, Gutierrez tells us, that being poor (or oppressed) is a way of thinking, loving, praying, believing, hoping, spending leisure time and struggling for a livelihood". It is about health, environmeent, housing, education, social norms, bigotry and ignorance.

Once the causes of poverty and oppression have been identified there should arise calls from the poor and oppressed for social justice. Our praxis should be solidarity with the poor and oppressed, encouraging them to find a voice.   However such calls, or demands, will be resisted by those who benefit or have an interest in retaining existing structures, a point well argued by JK Galbraith.

The preferrential option for the poor denies exclusiveness.  It is vital to  express God's univeral love for all, as expressed in Jesus, and also his predilection for those on the lower rungs of society. The phrase indicates the first with whom Christians should be in solidarity but that, importantly, we must not lose sight of God's love for all.

I will conclude this very short and inadequte reflection on A Theology of Liberation with a few words from Gutierrez on praxis.

"The praxis on which liberation theology reflects is a praxis of solidarity in the interests of liberation and is inspired by the gospel."

Latest reading

 Two books have been gathering dust on my shelves for a number of years.  I have dusted them down and started re-reading them.

The first is 'Secular Theology - American radical theological thought' edited by Clayton Crockett.  It is a reader containing fourteen articles by a number of authors.  

The second book is 'The Postmodern God - A theological reader' edited by Graham Ward. Seventeen contributors. 

As I slowly plough my way through the books, seeking to understand what I am reading, it will mean inevitably that my Facebook posts will be reduced considerably.  

Saving Jesus from the Church.

 It has been a pleasure to read two books by Robin R Meyers: 

Saving Jesus from the Church, and

The Underground Church

The former is subtitled: How to stop worshiping Christ and start following Jesus.  The latter book is subtitled: Reclaiming the subversive way of Jesus.

For those with a liberal and/or progressive understanding of the bible and theology these two volumes give shape and clarity to non-fundamentalist understanding of doctine and non-literalist ways of reading the bible.  Along with Adrian Alker's: Is a radical church possible?, Marcus J Borg's: The Heart of Christianity and Richard Holloway's Doubts and Loves  they form an excellent exposition of what is entailed in following Jesus and how it relates to the organisations called 'church'. 

In Saving Jesus from the Church Meyers sets the tone by observing that in the Sermon on the Mount  there is not a single word about what to to believe, only words about what to do. "It is a  behavioural manifesto, not a a propositional one."   By the time of the Nicene Creed there is not a single word about what to do, only words about what to believe.  For Meyers Christianity has become a search for individual salvation, for a  passport to heaven, for individual victory over debt, obesity or low-esteem instead of being a radical movement for a collective victory over injustice, poverty, war or environmental degradation. In other words, the Kingdom on earth.

Following the Way of Jesus is not about individualistic, selfish, self-interest.  It is about community, tackling social issues of poverty, exclusion, marginalisation, all issues on which Jesus showed radical concern and action.

However I do have reservations.  Meyers explains the importance of seeking to discern in the bible the historical Jesus, the Jesus of the Way and differentiate him from the post-Easter Christ taken up in Pauline writings, a move away from doing to believing. A sensible differentation, but is it possble to identify the historical Jesus with any degree of clarity or centainty? I have my doubts.

As my blog readers well know I do not consider the bible to be a manual of behaviour to be followed slavishly. It is a guide to a body of thinking attributed inter alia to a person known as Jesus. That, I contend, is all we need to know.  What persuades individuals to seek to emulate the teaching of Jesus may, or may not, be by what some consider to be divine inspiration?  Is there an element of panentheism, is it purely a matter of biology, or the interplay of human experience and our minds? 

I wouldn't start from here.

 There is an old joke, one version goes like this:

A tourist lost in the countryside asks a local the way to the city. The answer: Well sir, if I were you, I wouldn't start from here.

I was reminded of this whilst reading a book by Adrian Alker: Is a radical church possible? Adrian has been a Church of England priest for over 35 years, founded the St Mark's Centre for Radical Christianity in my home city of Sheffield and was Chair of the Progressive Christianity Network Britain of which I am a member.

Whilst there is much to commend in the book I finished my reading with a sense that it failed to convince that a radical, as distinct from a liberal/progressive, church is possible.  The author accepts the thesis of Marcus Borg (amongst others) that the bible is a purely human construct.  The author engages in what I consider to be a forlorn and unnecessary attempt to scrutinise the bible to seek out the historical or 'real' Jesus. He draws out very well the way the books of Matthew and Luke state the central thesis of the teaching ascribed to Jesus, namely that the commandments to love God and love neighbour are the underlying principles of the Jewish scriptures and are to be followed in preference to the restrictive rules of the Law.  However the influence of postmodernism is not as evident as I expected, in particular the application of the ideas of  Jacques Derrida to reading, understanding and applying language.  Don Cupitt’s ideas in respect of Kingdom are considered.

For me, the starting point of my journey is not with an understanding of the historical Jesus, nor the intricacies of  the development of principles from rules. What matters are the principles themselves, how to apply them now and hope as to how they will be applied in the future.  Understanding the source and biblical commentary underlying the principles, whilst of interest, is not a prerequisite for their application. 

The Christian faith for many is no longer the stick of the fear of hell, nor the carrot of eternal joy in heaven. In its place is a desire to follow the principles ascribed to Jesus in a document called the bible.  Who Jesus was (is?) and who (plural) composed the text of the bible is interesting but it is not where I start my journey to the Kingdom.

A sense of disappointment.

 I have been reading The Heart of Christianity by Marcus J. Borg. His analysis of the two paradigms is interesting and persuasive.  The earlier paradigm sees Christianity as grounded in divine authority.  Divine authority for Protestants resides in the bible: for Catholics there is in addition the authority of the church.  The later or emerging paradigm sees the bible as  historical, metaphorical, sacramental, relational and transformational. 

Stark differences, central to which is the opinion (or belief) that the bible is a divine product with divine authority or,  contra, it is a human response to God.

Readers of my blog understand I am in the latter camp, the bible is not to be understood as statements of literal fact laid down by God or inspired by God, nor is faith a matter of living life  in the belief that we are saved for a heavenly afterlife. Instead the bible is a human guide to living our lives in service to humanity, to bring His kingdom on earth, a kingdom of love and support for the less fortunate, the deprived, the excluded and discriminated against.

My overall impression of the thesis advanced by Borg is one of admiration for a clear exposition of the emerging paradigm.  However, there is also a nagging doubt that manifests itself in  my sense of disappointment at the emphasis he places on the importance of the bible.  

Never heard a sermon on this.

The Church of England's Book of Common Prayer contains a service entitled Evening Prayer, although it may be known in some parishes as Evensong or Choral Evensong.  Readers of this blog understand that I do not subscribe to most of the doctrines of the CofE in their literal sense but recognise their value as metaphor, symbolism and myth.

Following the reading from the Old Testament the congregation say or sing Magnificat taken from Luke 1: 46-55.  I have never heard a sermon based on these verses either in the CofE or any other denomination.

The BCP states verses 52-53 as follows:

He hath put down the mighty from their seat: and exalted the humble and meek.

He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.

The New International Version of the bible has it thus:

He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.

He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.

The Message puts it like this:

He knocked tyrants off their high horses, pulled victims out of the mud.

The starving poor sat down to a banquet, the callous rich were left out in the cold.

Powerful stuff.  A call for inclusion, for justice.  Highly political and theatening to the established order of religion and state.  But it was not new, it reflects a major strand of thinking in what Christians call the Old Testament.  For those of us who seek systemic change in society to achieve social justice  the words quoted above are but one part of a range of teaching on inclusion and justice attributed to Jesus by the writers of the synoptic gospels. 

Nowt else t'say?

This is not an academic treatise, rather it is a pulling together of my theological opinions developed over a few years.  A law degree and a diploma in theology instilled in me the need to understand the difference between fact and opinion as well as a penchant for critical evaluation of theories and evidence.  I  am deeply suspicious and cynical concerning the motives and activities of politicians, economists, sociologists, philosophers, church leaders, theologians, judges and journalists.

Should you be seeking a learned theological exposition I advise you to clear off pronto. You won't find it here. What you will find are my personal thoughts on social justice leavened by the ideas of others: so as not to bore you rigid. 

It strikes me that in seeking to understand theological concepts, indeed any political, economic, social or legal ideas, we must escape from a silo mentality, or consideration of concepts in a subject-matter vacuum.  We have to understand the interaction of concepts from a broad range of disciplines. Above all we need to study the reality of the consequences of the application of concepts.  We must flee the halls of academia into the outside world. 

Be on the lookout for gatekeepers, sentries, sentinels and guardians of the 'truth'.  Treat them with caution, do not succumb to their blandishments or threats. Be wary of opinion formers on social media. It is your opinion that matters, not theirs.  

At the outset, cards on the table. I ascribe to postmodernism having considered the writings of Jacques Derrida and Don Cupitt amongst others.  Their ideas provided the spark leading me to review my understanding of the bible and thence my process of deconstruction.  The following quotations are ones with which I concur:

'The Christian story does not drop from heaven fully written. It grew and developed over a period of forty-two to seventy years. This is not what most Christians have been taught to think, but it is factual. Christianity has always been an evolving story. It was never, even in the New Testament, a finished story.'

JOHN SHELBY SPONG 

'I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, statements not coming directly or somewhat directly from God.....I realised that whatever "divine revelation" and the "inspiration of the Bible" meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority.'

MARCUS J BORG 

'Properly understood the Bible is a potential ally to the progressive Christian passion for transformation of ourselves and the world. It is our great heritage. Along with Jesus, to whom it is subordinate, it is our greatest treasure.'

MARCUS J BORG

'My point is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are not smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.'

JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN 

'The Bible is based upon the construct of theism and anthropomorphism as its primary literary vehicle for expressing the reality of "God." Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. 

The ultimate authority of one's life is not the Bible. The highest truth is not confined between the covers of a book. It is not something written by men and frozen in time. It is not from a source outside oneself. One's ultimate authority is the voice of truth within one's own innermost being.'

JIM PALMER 

'The danger that a mythology understood too literally, and as taught by the Church, will suddenly be repudiated lock, stock and barrel is today greater than ever. Is it not time that the Christian mythology, instead of being wiped out, was understood symbolically?'

CARL JUNG 

Do you believe in God?  It is impossible to prove the existence of God, whether of the theist, pantheist or panentheist varieties.  It is all conjecture.  For me, God is the trigger, the ultimate norm, the spark that set in train the process to form the universe, but I have no idea what the trigger is, or was. I have found the writings of John D Caputo helpful in forming my opinions.   I recommend his book What to believe?

It follows from the last paragraph that there is no point in praying to God in the hope or expectation of receiving a response.  Prayer has value in setting out an agenda of what we would like to happen and convince us of the need for us to act to bring the change prayed for about, insofar as it is within our power or capability so to do. Soren Kierkegaard puts it well:

'The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.'

Having demolished, sorry, deconstructed my belief system now is the time to move on to reconstruction. I find compelling the teaching attributed to Jesus in the bible. It doesn't matter if Jesus was a real person, or a symbol, or a metaphor, or a myth.  What counts is the message, a message of love. Throughout the Old and New Testaments there is a strand affirming the requirement for love, for justice for individuals, for societal change to improve the lives of the poor, the marginalised and the excluded.  The message of Jesus is not a book of rules: it is a set of principles applicable to all cultures, all societies, at all times. It is profound. It is a call to action.  Similar calls to action are to be found in the tenets of other faiths and those of no faith persuasion.

Since the 1990s I have engaged in the pursuit of social justice, as a councillor, as a member of a churches' social responsibility group and been active in the voluntary sector, driven by the desire to follow the teaching ascribed to Jesus and also the concept of liberation theology with particular reference to Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Gutierrez and Jurgen Moltmann. 

A quotation from Gutierrez:

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

This I read as a call for positive action. Compare and contrast with this statement by James H Cone:

'Liberation theology is not a the theology of revolution, but a theology of the cross that call for ongoing resistance against all forms of oppression'

My opinion is that liberation theology embraces both resisting oppression and demanding systemic change. 

The basis of Moltmann's theology was his conviction that theology must always be related to concrete human situations and that the teaching of Jesus about the Kingdom of God requires of his followers commitment to the overthrowing of everything in the social order that is contrary to its demands. No ivory tower, armchair theology. Moltmann was active in the field, participating in demonstrations. The task of the theologian he stated is not to promote the ideal of a distant utopia, rather to get on with seeking to effect change, to tackle current issues, an argument similar to one made by Karl Popper.

My theological 'position' therefore is to follow Jesus: for individuals to be assisted at point of need, and to campaign for social justice, for systemic social change. From a faith perspective I have deconstructed everything else.

I concur with the concepts set out in the following quotations.

His teachings and behaviour reflect an alternative social vision. Jesus was not not talking about how to be good and how to behave within the framework of a domination system. He was a critic of the domination system itself.

MARCUS BORG

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

GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ

Jesus called people to follow him in a way of living. He does not require his followers to accept a catalogue of religious beliefs or adopt a set of spiritual practices. Rather, he offered them a new way to live their daily lives. As a result, the earliest members of the Jesus movement were known as followers of the way.

 KURT STRUCKMEYER

God is calling the Church to something new, but we hold things back when we do things according to tradition as opposed to partnering with God in the new way.

DOUG ADDISON

The Church is not memories; we are not just looking in a rear-view mirror. The Church is moving forward and needs new perspectives. 

 OSCAR ROMEO

Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty, truth and compassion against injustice and tyranny and greed.

 WILLIAM FAULKNER

Always be sure that you struggle with Christian weapons. Never succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter. As you press on for justice, be sure you move with justice and discipline, using only the weapon of love.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JNR 

What is needed is a realisation that power without love is reckless and abusive, and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JNR

The Kingdom of God is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven. 

WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH 

Your 'yes' to God requires your 'no' to all injustice, to all evil, to all lies.

DIETRICH BONHOEFFER

We cannot profess our solidarity with those who are oppressed when we are unwilling to confront the oppressor.

HENRI NOUWEN

How can we be the church of Jesus unless we reflect the ministry of Jesus? Is the church a radical incarnation of the ministry of Jesus or a private social club?

YVETTE FLUNDER

The prophetic tasks of the Church are to tell the truth in a society that lives an illusion, grieve in a society that practices denial, and express hope in a society that lives in despair.

 WALTER BRUEGGEMANN

I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security.

POPE FRANCIS

We must talk about poverty, because people insulated by their own comfort lose sight of it.

DOROTHY DAY

If we try and have a Christianity without social justice, we cut out the beautiful beating heart of Jesus and we are left with only a lifeless corpse of religion to drag around.

JOHN PAVOLITZ

The measure of a society in found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens. 

JIMMY CARTER

Any talk about God that fails to make God's liberation of the oppressed as its starting point is not Christian.

JAMES CONE

When the Church hears the cry of the oppressed it cannot but denounce the social structures that give rise to and perpetuate the misery from which the cry arises.

OSCAR ROMEO

The rich and powerful should act with justice towards the poor, not oppress them. Faith calls us to lift the down-trodden, not to follow those who crush them.

POPE LEO X1V 

The eternal destiny of human beings will be measured by how much or how little solidarity we have displayed with the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, and the oppressed.  In the end we will be judged in terms of love.

LEONARDO BOFF

and finally....

Any religion that professes to be about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them, is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JNR

Well, dear reader, thank you for your patience and perseverance.  The fight for social justice continues..........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Into the long grass?

The Salvation Army's International Headquarters published material in 2018 entitled Let's Talk..About Sexuality and Relationships.   So here we are in 2025 and we are informed that in the United Kingdom & Ireland Territory there is to be an eighteen month period for faciliated conversations on the issues of bride price, dowry, divorce & remarriage, married life, partner abuse, pornography, same-sex relationships, sex outside marriage and singleness.

To what end is all this talking directed?  What action may ensue?  A clue from this week's Salvationist. 

"International policy isn't changing as a result of these conversations, but they have the power to change relationships at a local level, to impact how people live their lives and relate to each other."

No encourgement then for those seeking equality of treatment for LGBTQ+ individuals apart from let's be nice to each other. Shameful.

On faith and scripture

A Salvation Army officer holding a senior post in the UK stated recently:

"In terms of doctrine 1, which sets out The Salvation Army's understanding of the authority of Scripture as the divine rule of Christian faith and practice, it is completely irrelevant whether Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, or Ephesians and Colossians. It is completely irrelevant whether Moses wrote Genesis. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as we receive them from our forefathers, are understood as given by inspiration of God and are therefore the foundation of our faith."

Set against the above, the following from a number of theologians:

The Christian story does not drop from heaven fully written. It grew and developed over a period of forty-two to seventy years. This is not what most Christians have been taught to think, but it is factual. Christianity has always been an evolving story. It was never, even in the New Testament, a finished story.

JOHN SHELBY SPONG 

I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, statements not coming directly or somewhat directly from God.....I realised that whatever "divine revelation" and the "inspiration of the Bible" meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority.

MARCUS J BORG 

Properly understood the Bible is a potential ally to the progressive Christian passion for transformation of ourselves and the world. It is our great heritage. Along with Jesus, to whom it is subordinate, it is our greatest treasure.

MARCUS J BORG

My point is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are not smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.

JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN 

The Bible is based upon the construct of theism and anthropomorphism as its primary literary vehicle for expressing the reality of "God." Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. 

The ultimate authority of one's life is not the Bible. The highest truth is not confined between the covers of a book. It is not something written by men and frozen in time. It is not from a source outside oneself. One's ultimate authority is the voice of truth within one's own innermost being.

JIM PALMER 

Further to the quotation from John Dominic Crossan above,  this from CARL JUNG:

The danger that a mythology understood too literally, and as taught by the Church, will suddenly be repudiated lock, stock and barrel is today greater than ever.  Is it not time that the Christian mythology, instead of being wiped out, was understood symbolically?

   

Very sad

On another Facebook page it was stated that sex (heterosexual) outside of marriage is a sin. I had the temerity to suggest that this was not the case, nor was it a sin for same sex couples to have intimate relationships outside marriage. The anticipated avalanche of vituperative comments duly arrived along with the associated personal abuse.  

I know I shouldn't be surprised by these reactions from so-called Christians for whom the concept of love, and most certainly inclusive love, has escaped them at best or been rejected at worst. My overwhelming emotion is one of deep sadness that the message of Jesus is lost on them.

The bile I received has strengthened my resolve to call out homophobia.

The way of Jesus

The article below in quotations is by Stuart Delony.  It struck a chord, it mirrors much of the jottings in my blog.

"I’m not interested in theological gymnastics that try to explain how God is one essence and three persons without stepping into heresy. The Trinity, as doctrine, has been a church gatekeeping mechanism for centuries—but for me? It’s never been the thing that made faith feel real. What has? The way of Jesus. Not the “believe in Jesus” part. The walk like him part. You know, the inconvenient stuff: Confronting corrupt power. Standing with the outcast. Refusing to play religious games. Loving your enemy. Rejecting ego. Moving through the world with justice and humility. 

That’s the kind of “orthodoxy” I care about now. And if your belief in the Trinity doesn’t lead you to that kind of life? Then congrats—you’ve nailed the theology exam and missed the actual point. Arguing about doctrinal purity while people are being crushed by systems of violence, exclusion, and religious manipulation is just ecclesiastical masturbation. It’s for people who want to feel spiritually superior without getting their hands dirty in the real work of healing and justice”.

The way of Jesus is well-stated by Kurt Struckmeyer:  

"radical love

 lavish generosity

extravagant forgiveness

inclusive hospitality

compassionate action

selfless service

a passion for justice

creative nonviolence 

simple living."

Of course similar attributes are to be found in followers of other faiths and those of no faith.  They are not a Christian monopoly.

Love of neighbour is a call for social justice, for systemic change as required.  From a Christian perspective the writings of Martin Luther King Jnr, Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, Jurgen Moltmann, Desmond Tutu et. al call for justice for all, for inclusion, for love.  They are beacons of hope.

One can be a campaigner for social justice without being a Christian, or for that matter a follower of the way of Jesus.  For me the ideas attributed to Jesus provide a framework, an example, to follow.  The Jesus of scripture was a radical, a revolutionary, a challenger of entrenched attitudes held by the religious and state organisations of his day.  In other words, following a line of Old Testament prophets, he challenged a society to change.  He was a campaigner for the poor and marginalised, he took the battle to his opponents, face to face.  No armchair critic, not an academic in an ivory tower.  

The unsung army.

 Up and down the land there are thousands of individuals who are directors, trustees, governors, treasurers or secretaries of voluntary organisations.  All are unpaid, yet have major legal responsibilities for the organisations they administer, in some cases even standing to lose their personal assets should things go awry.  Many serve 'below the radar', receiving  little or no recognition for the work they do. Without them the voluntary sector would collapse.  They are an unsung army,  planning, organising, maintaining and monitoring services not provided by the statutory sector.  (In some instances, such as school governors, they are part of statute-based organisations. Some voluntary organisations are commissioned to undertake work on behalf of the statutory sector.)  Think of them who are responsible for sports clubs, foodbanks, lunch clubs, homelessness  charities, mental health charities, community groups, arts organisations, church councils to mention just a few.  

My focus is on the voluntary sector's engagement in issues of poverty, discrimination, marginalisation and exclusion, particularly in areas of multiple deprivation.

 At the outset I wish to point out the dangers of cultural appropriation whether in terms of ethnicity or class.    The UK is a multi-ethnic society and also one of rampant class distinction. Generalisations are easily made, but they do not reflect the mosaic, inter-connectedness and differences within society.  It is impossible to pin down a precise definition of working class, lower middle class, upper middle class and so forth.  We attach meaningless labels to individuals and groups.  

So, what is an area of multiple deprivation in England?  The country is divided into what are known as Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOA) and typically cover an area of between 400-1,200 households equating to between 1,000 and 3,000 residents.  The Indices of Deprivation applied to each area cover seven factors:

Income, Employment, Skills & Training, Health & Disability, Barriers to Housing and Services, Living Environment.  

LSOA's enable statutory and voluntary organisations to identify areas of need. They are not fool-proof, as very small pockets of deprivation in urban and especially rural areas may not be identified.

For faith groups and secular voluntary bodies wishing to engage in support for individuals in areas of multiple deprivation SLOA's provide an excellent basis for understanding the problems of an area and what services should be targeted towards them.  Foodbanks, lunch clubs, soup kitchens, clothes banks, advice, and so forth can be directed to areas of need.  However such provision is a mere palliative.  The real need is for faith and secular organisations to foster community engagement, for the people of an area to be encouraged to demand systemic change to policies affecting the deprivation scores in their area.  Whilst many of the necessary changes require decisions by central government nevertheless local government and health trusts have it within their power to redistribute funding to improve conditions in specific local areas.  Such changes do not have to be expensive.  Small gains can have significant impact.  

A lurch to the right. We should be worried.

Yesterday's local government elections in England witnessed a lurch to the right in British politics.  The Conservatives were virtually wiped out in areas where they had previously been strong.  Labour also suffered major losses, particularly in areas where until recently they had a stranglehold, areas such as the fomer mining and industrial areas of Northumberland, Durham, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Are the results a protest vote against the policies followed by the Conservative and Labour parties, or is there a much more deep-seated and possibly enduring reaction to years of failure by the parties to understand the concerns of people?

Sadly, both the Conservatives and Labour between them have ramped-up the anti-immigration rhetoric, have attacked those forced to survive on benefits, pensioners, LGBTQ+, homeless individuals.  In other words the vulnerable members of our society have become fair game for financial cuts whilst at the same time there is a failure to deal with the causes of poverty, discriminaton and marginalisation.  The right in British politics has not been slow to identify whom to blame, aided and abetted by the failure of Labour and Conservatives to tackle and remedy the causes of social injustice, a failure to initiate and carry through systemic change.

So, yes, I am worried about the future direction of political decision making in this country. Will the political parties pander to the false narrative that those suffering social injustice are to blame for the economic mess the country is in?  

I seek to follow the injunction of Jesus to love my neighbour  There is precious little love on display from the political right.  We need a sea-change in the policies of government, embracing systemic change, not seeking to outbid the right in its nastiness.  Now is the time for political bravery and also for faith groups to speak out.

Part 401. Finale

Well, I have had a good run. Four hundred posts on my blog since November 2022.  All available on Facebook at: 

John Hopkinson Personal Theology Blog

My Facebook group: Theology and Social Justice,

and

my Facebook page:  Progressive and Deconstructivist Theology 

have become an imposition on my time and energy. Time to retire methinks, so goodbye dear friends. 

Part 400. Simple, not simplistic

 When I started my blog in November 2022 the title of my first post was: A simple faith or a simplistic theology?  By 'simple faith' I sought to convey the idea that faith can be described in simple terms, without using theological jargon.  Simplistic theology was a reference to the  'it's in the bible so it must be correct' genre so beloved by bible literalists and fundamentalists.

In the intervening time I replaced faith, first with belief and now with opinion. I hold now to the simple or straightforward opinion that it is our duty to love our neighbour.  This equates to loving all humanity and caring for the environment, leading us to campaign for social justice and protection of the environment. In other words, activism.

My blog posts have referred on a number of occasions to the point that we should not consider issues in a vacuum or adopt a silo mentality. Our world, our understanding of the world, is a consequence of many factors interacting with each other. We should seek to understand the relationships between politics, economics,  law, religion, science, history, geography, etc. The interplay of these factor has shaped the world, our communities, our lives, our identity, our fears, our hopes, our expectations.  It is a matrix.

Do we understand the fluidity and ever-changing landscape we are part of?  How do we react?

Part 399. Theology and social justice.

 As I deconstructed my beliefs it became clear to me that what really mattered was how we treat humanity and the environment.  I was drawn to the teaching attributed to Jesus to love your neighbour.  Alongside that I concluded that the kingdom of god on earth required a commitment to promoting ideas of social justice. It is this that kindled my support for the concepts of liberation theology and  ideas to be found in feminist and black theology.  It led me to campaign also on poverty issues and issues creating and sustaining areas of multiple deprivation.

 It became obvious to me that Christianity has no claim to uniqueness in its concern for such matters. Other faiths, and those with no religious belief, hold similar concerns close to their hearts.  We journey together, our different starting points an irrelevancy.  Thus my Facebook Page: Theology and Social Justice, contains posts from purely secular organisations campaigning for social justice.  I admit to a paucity of posts from faiths other than Christianity.  It is not a deliberate choice: it is a reflection of the starting point of my journey.

Part 398. It's as easy as A, B, C (+D) isn't it?

 The concept of community development has been around for many years.  In the UK, to assist the process of making it a reality, there was published Achieving Better Community Development, a handbook setting out a framework for evaluating community development.  A stablemate is a framework  called Asset Based Community Development.  (Tons of material on the net.)

Faith groups should be encouraged to study the documents as they set out a blueprint for community engagement.  A word of caution.  What appears in plans, blueprints etc may not be reflected on the ground.  Long lasting sustainable community development requires very hard work, is beset by setbacks, and the whims of participating individuals and organisations.  However there is is no excuse for not seeking to empower individuals to improve their communities and lives.  Small gains are to be celebrated and setbacks a driver to do better.  

For faith groups, to follow the injunction of Jesus to love your neighbour should leave no doubt concerning the necessity for community engagement, both in seeking resolution of problems and building for a better future. Get out into the community, seek participation by individuals outside the faith group, identify issues and aspirations, but above all do something.   Build relationships and trust with individuals and public and voluntary organisations.  Go with the flow, do not seek to dominate or control.  

Above all, seek to engage in small projects with a reasonable chance of success.  It helps build street-cred no end.

Part 397. Distract and divert

Public bodies are required to consult the public, including voluntary organisations, on a range of issues. The consultations most often are on-line.  The presentation of the issue and the accompanying questionnaire may well be loaded.  A consultation is just that.  It is not binding and responses may be ignored.  It is often a cosmetic exercise to satisfy a legislative requirement.  

Some voluntary organisations spend money and effort in raising petitions to statutory bodies.  Again, they can be and are ignored: or simply receive condescending  responses from the organisations to whom they are addressed.

Sometimes aggrieved consultees and petition originators seek judicial review should they believe the public body concerned has failed to give sufficient weight to representations. However judicial review is very expensive and whilst it may be successful, the eventual outcome is usually simply to delay matters rather than overturn the decision of the public body.

A favourite wheeze is to set up a consultative body meeting on an on-going basis to consider issues.  Such bodies usually are talking shops  and have little effect on the eventual decision making process.  However churches waste, time, energy and resources in participating in such farces. 

A few examples from personal experience.

Connexions. 

PACT. Partners and Communities Together. In some areas known as Police and Communities Together.

CLSP. Community Legal Service Partnership

CP. Strategic community plans.

Compact.

Surf the internet for more information on these bodies. They all have in common the pretence of participation is the decision making process, of having significant influence on decision makers. At best they provide a safety valve for individuals and voluntary organisations to let off steam.

However there are two important beneficial aspects to such consultative arrangements. 

1. Networking and making contact with potential allies

2. Identifying key players in the organisations making decisions. 

This post may give the impression that I am a cynic.  Spot on, I have the scars to show from involvement in such bodies.  The conclusion I drew then is that for a church to  promote and campaign for change requires determination to secure allies and then to communicate directly and forcefully with the decision makers in an organisation.

On a different tack, I doubt the effectiveness of demonstrations as having any long-term major influence.  I marched on the huge anti Iraq war demonstrations in London that had nil effect on  the determination of the government to invade Iraq.  Direct action such as blocking roads, disrupting sporting events may well be counter-productive.

Part 396. Be pragmatic.

Following a long process of deconstruction my position is that I choose to follow the guidance ascribed to Jesus, namely: to love your neighbour. I choose to regard all people as equal, regardless of sex, race, political beliefs, wealth, status etc.  However, for society to achieve social justice systemic change is essential.

Others, with the objective of campaigning for social justice, may seek inspiration and guidance from other sources including political, faith, social and economic philosophies, or be firm adherents of mysticism, socialism, communism, capitalism, a faith and so forth.  Whatever route is adopted it is of human origin,  a consequence of the influence of ideas, perceptions, experience.

I do not hold the opinion. that the end justifies the means.  There are many different routes to achieve social justice but to my mind it is important to follow the principle of love.

There are no self-evident truths to impose on others.  I refuse to be controlled by any 'ism'.

Part 395. Parish woes and blessings

I have posted before on my dismay that the vicar and governors of our Church of England primary school resigned and ceded control to an outside agency, thereby breaking an important connection between the church and community. I write as a former governor of the infant aided and junior controlled schools that merged to create the primary school.

I note the parish is having difficulty filling the position of treasurer, a problem for many voluntary organisations.  Furthermore it would appear the parish has lost one of the churchwardens (no explanation in the parish magazine). The remaining warden took on the role, having retired previously, when her successor resigned.

There is some good news.  The choir continues to perform magnificently.  In May a parishioner will  receive his lay minister license from the diocesan bishop.  

The Annual Parochial Church Meeting should be interesting.

Part 394. Who needs scripture?

Who needs scripture?  Certainly those who believe the bible in the inerrant, infallible word of god.  They hang on every word.  One could go so far as to say that such individuals are more interested in the words of a book than living out the message of Jesus.   

I choose to follow the underlying message of the bible as summarised by Jesus: to love my neighbour. I read the bible as an aid to understanding, not as an instruction manual. Loving neighbours is not restricted to the Christian faith.  People of other faiths, or of no religious conviction,  act is similar fashion seeking to assist others and campaign for social justice.  

Love is expressed in the here and now.  It seeks to improve life on earth, not by waiting for some cosmic event to occur in the future, but by working for it now, by tackling concrete issues.  Love is not engaging in attempting to secure a place in the hereafter so beloved by the scripture fundamentalists.  

Part 393. How to protest for social justice.

 Social justice will most likely involve systemic change and therefore require action by government both in terms of legal provision and the granting of financial resources.  In other words, redistribution and changed priorities.  Truth must speak to power so it is useless to direct campaigns at those without  power.  Campaigns have to be honed to hit the target, usually ministers and members of the ruling political party.

The problem is that too many faith and secular organisations, passionate and dedicated as they are to advancing social justice, are too polite and ineffective in their campaigning.  You have to get under the skin, be a nuisance, keep pressing, to have any chance of success.  Polite letters, petitions, learned dissertations, social media, detailed reports of themselves do not produce change. There has to be a catalyst to persuade those in power to make changes. 

Work out who are the relevant ministers and members of parliament, demonstrate outside their constituency offices, go to their surgeries. Keep the local press and other social media informed of your campaign and the reactions you receive: keep them onside.  Above all be a confounded nuisance should early contact be unproductive.  Be prepared for the long haul.  Be seen, keep your campaign in the public eye.  

I wish national faith and secular organisations would work together and coordinate local action.  I do not hold much store by big national demonstrations: for the most part they do not result in the change desired by the demonstrators.

My final thought is make sure the campaign is positive: seek social justice for the people you wish to support.  What matters is what you are for, not what you are against.

  

Part 392. Peaceful civil disobedience.

 On 27th March 2025 twenty uniformed police officers, some equipped with tasers, forcibly entered the Quaker Friends Meeting House in Westminster and set about arresting six women holding a meeting in a hired room.  According to the Metropolitan Police the arrests were on the ground of suspicion of conspiring to cause a public nuisance.

The alleged crime relates to the activities of Youth Demand who are planning 'swarm roadblocks' in London as an element of opposition to the government supplying arms to Israel and also the need for urgent action to counter the climate change crisis, a crisis already causing the deaths of marginalised people worldwide.

Make no mistake, this police action is an attempt to stifle, hinder, threaten, call it what you will, the ability of people to publicly protest against government policies by peaceful acts of civil disobedience.  The state is using the police to deter criticism, backed up by legislation placing restrictions on meeting in public places.

The recent decisions of the government to reduce benefits for disabled people, the ending of the automatic winter fuel allowance and  failure to address the causes of poverty and destitution have fuelled discontent, not just with the current government, but with the political process.  Seeking to restrict civil protest plays into the hands of right wing political organisations, as witness the rise of Reform in the UK and the success of far right parties in Europe.

It is time for more civil disobedience, to show contempt for the failure of the political system to tackle social injustice.  It is not enough to pussyfoot around with petitions and hand-wringing letters.  Direct action is needed.