Part 332. Following Jesus: nothing more, nothing less.

Consider this remarkable fact: in the Sermon on the Mount there is not a single word about what to believe, only words about what to do 

and how to be.  By the time the Nicene Creed is written, only three centuries later, there is not a single word in it about what to do and how to be - only words about what to believe.

Robin Meyers

Sad, isn't it, developing myth and metaphysical concepts of God:  rather than following the way of Jesus. My theological journey has taken me from the former to the latter.

Marcus Borg expresses it thus:  

It is a way of being Christian in which beliefs are secondary, not primary.  Christianity is a "way" to be followed more than it is a set of beliefs to be believed. Practice is more important than "correct beliefs".  Beliefs are not irrelevant; they do matter.  But they are not the object of faith. God is the "object" of commitment - and for Christians, God is known as Jesus.

It is important to understand in reading the synoptic gospels that we are considering the concepts being advanced and should recognise the documents as being not infallible and/inerrant, but as a collection of myths, memories and other texts selectively edited by the authors.

I have argued before in this blog that the Bible is a human construct. Marcus Borg states it well:

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 understanding and affirmations, not statements 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.

Follow the way ofJesus, love your neighbour, campaign for social justice.

untitled

£5.00 wager on Bishop of Dover being next ABC. 

Part 331. The Canterbury Stakes

The process for selecting the next Archbishop of Canterbury is underway as potential candidates parade ready for the off. It is fruitless to speculate who the runners will be and certainly foolhardy to name an anticipated 'winner'.

The declared runners are individuals selected for a shortlist. The process of selection is opaque. Those on the shortlist are interviewed by a committee and a choice is made. The person selected must receive at least a two-thirds majority. Herein lies a potential problem.  Currently the committee charged with selecting the next Bishop of Ely has failed to reach a decision as it is hopelessly divided. Could this be repeated in the selection of the next Archbishop?

The Church of England currently is riven with disunity over the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process. Conservative Evangelicals are pressing for a new province within the Church and threatening to depart if it is not forthcoming. How will this affect the selection process both in terms of shortlisting and choice of the committee's preferred candidate?

Will all the shortlisted candidates be current diocesan bishops? Will any suffragen, area or flying bishops, or bishops outside the CofE make the list?

Will consideration be given to individuals outside the broader episcopacy such as university theologians, deans, canons, parish priests etc?

Will ethnicity or sex be a significant factor in the selection process?  Should the Church seek to move away from a managerialism emphasis by seeking an individual with extensive pastoral experience particularly in areas of deprivation?

So many imponderables. Speculation will be rife, suggestions for 'suitable' candidates promoted and negative publicity for 'unsuitable' individuals.  Whoever does become the next Archbishop will face seemingly intractable issues to deal with. It could be a poisoned chalice and it may be the daunting nature of the tasks ahead will deter some, if invited, from engaging in the selection circus.

Part 330. What a week that was!

On 5th November Donald Trump was elected to be the next President of the USA.  The Republican Party gained control of the Senate and looks likely to retain control of the House of Representatives.  The Supreme Court has a majority of judges of a conservative disposition.  So much for 'checks and balances'.  Faith groups are worried that the new administration will target deliberately and adversely deprived and marginalised individuals including migrants, LBGTQ, the ill, those seeking abortions and the poor.  Instead of supporting what Galbraith defined as the underclass they will be in the firing line for attack. Say goodbye to achieving social justice through systemic change.

Thursday saw the publication of the Makin Report.  It is an analysis of the shocking lack of action and disregard by the leadership of the Church of England into complaints, accusations and allegations concerning abuse of individuals.  The utter failure of the safeguarding system is exposed as is lack of meaningful response by the higher echelon of the church.  There is a petition circulating calling on the Archbishop of Canterbury to resign.

Finally some good news.  I attended my first meeting of Radical Pilgrims Kent and Sussex. A thoughtful, loving and caring group of individuals.  I 'discovered' this group through the Progressive Christian Network GB.

Part 329. Jurgen Moltmann and Gustavo Gutiérrez

This year has witnessed the death of two of the leading theologians in the field of social justice: Jurgen Moltmann and Gustavo Gutiérrez. 

In Part 286 I published the following:

In the 1990s I read Theology of Hope (1964) by Jurgen Moltmann. It was a major influence on my thinking as at the time I was studying for a diploma in theology.

His obituary published in The Daily Telegraph on10th June 2024 had this to say:

"Jurgen Moltmann was the most significant Protestant theologian of the 20th century.  

"The basis of Moltmann's work was his conviction that true 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. This led him to personal involvement in peace and other demonstrations.....and close association with the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America, where his work was specially valued by Catholic theologians.

"The message was of a God whose coming in the world lay not in some distant future but was a present reality, thus offering both hope and challenge."

The news of Martin Luther King Jnr's assassination propelled Moltmann into an interest in black theology and becoming a strong supporter of the USA civil rights movement. Moltmann's wife, Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendell was a prominent supporter of feminist theology.  

I published an obituary and appreciation of the theology of Gustavo Gutierrez in Part 327.

The theology of Moltmann and of Gutiérrez had a profound effect on my thinking at a time I was studying for a diploma in theology.  It led to my being active in secular and faith organisations promoting social justice  and also those providing support  individuals at point of need. 

Jesus told us to follow him and to love our neighbour. Action, not mere intellectual assent. We are called to action.

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

Gustavo Gutiérrez 

Part 328. Out of the silo.

I have posted before on the need to consider the interactions of politics, economics, law, cultural and social trends, ethics, and theology both in terms of practice and theory.  This post has been triggered by the recent death of Gustavo Gutierrez, the 'father' of Liberation Theology, and the following statement by  Noam Chomsky.

'I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and

domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.'

This statemen set off thoughts on the interplay of Liberation Theology, the Sociological School of Jurisprudence, and Marxist Theory. However before delving into this, a few words on gatekeepers, sentries and guardians.  People with power: politicians, senior state employees, leaders of business and trades unions, church leaders, media owners and others in positions of authority have a self interest in maintaining the status quo and using it to their advantage. It is in this context that those seeking to achieve systemic change have to engage and hopefully achieve positive results. The power of the state should not be underestimated.  The state doles out patronage and demands loyalty from the recipients.

Two potential allies of those seeking systemic change may be some faith organisations and the judiciary.  However this may well not be the case.  The rise of Liberation theology was triggered in part by the failure of the Roman Catholic Church to engage with the poor and instead to cosy up to government.  The judiciary cannot be regarded in some nations as truly independent and even when it is judges have, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes, 'inarticulate major premises' that basically are attitudes derived from their background and class.  In the United Kingdom the use of judicial review to oppose decisions of government and other statutory bodies enables challenges to authority.  However judicial review can only delay proposals, the courts have no power to instigate change. So the judiciary is not a driver of systemic change in this regard.

But let's not be too despondent.  In common law jurisdictions the principle of certainty and  being bound by decisions in earlier cases is enshrined in the statement that judges are bound by precedent. If that was what happens is true the common law would never have been shaped to deal with modern society. Judges do make law.  The major achievement of the Sociological School has been to inculcate the idea that the law must respond to current public, social and public interests and resolve cases where those interests do not coincide. Clearly this is in conflict with the concept of certainty. Adopting this approach may help alleviate the worst of systemic social injustice but usually governments have to legislate in order to effect change.

Marxist legal theory posits the opinion that law is the product of economic forces, the state and its laws are instruments of class oppression and wil wither away in the Marxist utopia.  The reality is somewhat different! However Marxism does bring to the forefront some of the causes of systemic injustice.

Gutierrez was wrongly lambasted by some in the Roman Catholic Church as promoting Marxist Theory.  It was a caricature of his position that is stated so well in the following article by Joseph Nangle OFM.

I came to know Gustavo in 1968, when he already was recognized as an outstanding scholar. He invited me with dozens of other ex-patriot priests working in Peru to weekly conversations centered on our pastoral work.

From the beginning Gustavo’s methodology gave evidence of what would become known as Liberation Theology, although at that time the phrase had not as yet been articulated.

He would invite us to share our day-to-day experiences as parish priests – the ordinary and sometimes dramatic events in our ministries. He was a great listener and for an hour or more at these meetings never interrupted us.

Toward the end of our sessions then, he would summarize what he had been hearing, but never correcting us or giving directions as to how we should be conducting our parish work. Instead, he would tell us that what we were sharing was the “raw material” of his theological reflections.

Looking back on these weekly meetings, it is clear, whether or not any of us realized it, that a new theological methodology was emerging, one that was simple and profound: an inductive, “reality to conclusions” process rather than the traditional deductive approach which repeated the tenets of the faith and applied them to every given situation.

A back story about this “new way” was one I heard years later. According to this account, several Latin American priests who had been sent to study theology in academic centers of Europe during the 1960s (the years of Second Vatican Council), returned home and began teaching. They quickly saw that “were answering questions no one was asking.” That gave rise to the obvious question: where does one begin to theologize in a way that is pertinent, appropriate, relevant to Latin America?

Gustavo Gutiérrez was a leading figure in this process. He discerned that lived experience, reality, what is going on, is a proper starting place for theological reflections which then had the task of wrestling with the follow up question, “What does God’s word have to say about each of these situations.” His questioning extended beyond personal matters to much broader issues. Much later he would put it this way: “What do the Scriptures have to say to ‘non human beings,’ impoverished people living in a world (Latin America in this case) where they are considered useless, nameless, even non-existent?”

Gustavo began expressing that what we were doing in our sessions was elaborating a “Theology of Development.” However, as I recall, he quickly laid aside that idea and suggested that our pastoral work with and for these “non-human beings” was connected with the Exodus story in the history of salvation; that our pastoral efforts were about that same movement – from slavery to freedom and dignity. A theology of liberation!

This concept and its consequences spread quickly through the post-Vatican II Latin American Catholic Church.* Thanks in great part to Gustavo’s influence and with the backing of the institutional Church, new kinds of pastoral practices began:

a preferential option for the poor guiding every aspect of our catechesis, sacramental life, bishops’ pastoral letters, lifestyles

an expanded spirituality based on a reading of the Gospel in the light of “structural, systemic, institutionalized injustices”

a growing awareness of the causes for the chasm between the “haves” and the “have nots,” both people and nations

preaching the “full Gospel”

I and millions more were fortunate beneficiaries of this, thanks to a spirit-filled thinker and firm believer in the Word Incarnate: Gustavo Gutiérrez, OP. Bless him now as he journeys home.

*It was not by any means universally accepted, however, but that is another story.

Joe Nangle OFM is a Pax Christi USA Ambassador of Peace and the 2023 Pax Christi USA Teacher of Peace. As a member of the Assisi Community in Washington, D.C., he is dedicated to simple living and social change. Joe also serves as the Pastoral Associate for the Latino community at Our Lady Queen of Peace, Arlington, Virginia.  

Part 327. Gustavo Gutiérrez

Edited version of The  Daily Telegraph obituary dated 24 October 2024. The Guardian obituary and other commentaries on the theology and impact of Liberation Theology may be read on the Facebook Group: Liberal, and and deconstructivist theology.

Father Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, seismic Catholic reformer who launched ‘liberation theology’

His movement was investigated by the modern equivalent of the Holy Inquisition under John Paul II, but his ideas entered the mainstream

Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino: taught that poverty is not something to be accepted, but a challenge to be overcome, and the structures that bring about poverty are 'structures of sin'

 

Father Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, who has died aged 96, was probably the most original and contested theologian of the 20th century, who made an enormous contribution to Catholic thought through liberation theology, a term he himself coined.

Though opposed by many within the Church itself, liberation theology still had a lasting effect on Catholic life as well as a profound influence well beyond the confines of Roman Catholicism.

Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino was born on June 8 1928 in Lima, Peru. He grew up in poverty, and in his teenage years was afflicted with osteomyelitis, a painful inflammation of the bone marrow, which meant that he was confined either to bed or to a wheelchair. He endured this thanks to prayer, reading, and the company of his family and friends, he later said. The poverty of his surroundings was to have a lasting effect on his thought.

Father Gutiérrez was small of stature, unassuming and humble in demeanour, and gifted with a sense of humour. His original ambition was to be a psychiatrist, and he first studied medicine and literature at the National University of Peru, while also being involved in Catholic Action, a group dedicated to spreading the ideals of Catholic social teaching. But he soon felt drawn to theology and the call of the priesthood. He was eventually ordained at the age of 30, by which time he had been to Europe, and studied at the Catholic University of Louvain, as well as the Catholic University of Lyon. 

During this period, he worked under or studied all the big names in contemporary theology such as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner, Hans Küng and Johann Baptist Metz, all of whom would go on to be the formative influences of the Second Vatican Council.

In addition, he became familiar with the work of the leading Protestant theologians of the day such as Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltmann, as well as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran pastor who had been hanged for resisting Hitler. While the Catholic Church’s seminarians were still using outdated Latin manuals, generally written in the 19th century, Gutiérrez was way in advance of most of his contemporaries.

Gutiérrez in 2003: much of liberation theology – a concern for the poor, the importance of social justice, and the idea that salvation was not purely otherworldly – became mainstream, largely thanks to his pioneering work

Gutiérrez was to spend most of his life in academic institutions, such as the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, with various visiting professorships in Europe and North America. His groundbreaking work, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation was published in 1971, an English translation appearing some two years later. It was this work that essentially launched the movement known as liberation theology.

Liberation theology was, and remains, a movement that works from the bottom up, using lived experience as a basis for theological reflection. The lived experience in question was that of the people of Latin America, the overwhelming majority of whom were mired in seemingly insoluble poverty.

Rather than theology originating in the cloister, it is theology originating in the slum. Poverty is by no means something to be accepted, but a challenge to be overcome, and the structures that bring about poverty are characterised as “structures of sin”. 

The essential watchword is that “True orthodoxy is orthopraxis”, or, in more accessible terms, that right beliefs must be put into practice. This approach was a useful antidote to a Catholic theology that often seemed cut off from the world and the experiences of ordinary people, or worse, which saw the problems of the world as something to be meekly accepted rather than changed.

Much of Gutiérrez’s writing was dense, erudite and somewhat inaccessible, but this did not stop non-theologians characterising him and other liberation theologians – for a movement was soon born – as Marxists, or, more critically, as Catholics who had imported Marxist concepts of class struggle and dialectical materialism into Catholic theology, and undermined it from within in the process.

This was in fact a caricature of what Gutiérrez was doing, but the oversimplified criticism stuck, and brought conflict with the authorities in Rome, as well as fierce opposition from those in Latin America who saw liberation theologians as turbulent priests fomenting rebellion against the landowning class and the interests of big business. Political opponents did indeed have a point: liberation theology, with its “preferential option for the poor”, was seeking to detach Catholicism from those who sought to maintain the status quo.

As the 1970s wore on, liberation theology became more and more popular, and entered the mainstream of Catholic institutions. Gutiérrez became a hero to those who were standing up for the oppressed in Latin America, in the Philippines, and to a lesser extent in Africa. In Europe, no theological course was complete without a reference to the theology of liberation. Liberation theology also became the one theology acceptable to European Leftists who were otherwise not enamoured of the Catholic Church. However, there were dissenting voices, and in high places too.

John Paul II, though a supporter of liberation in Poland and Eastern Europe generally, as well as a stern critic of unregulated capitalism in his social writings, was wary of the way liberation theology, as developed by Gutiérrez and his followers, was making seemingly uncritical use of Marxist categories of thought. This resulted in an investigation into Gutiérrez’s work by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Inquisition), the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog, leading to a report published in 1984 authored by Cardinal Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, a theologian of similar calibre but very different bent to Gutiérrez himself.

This highly nuanced document took the emphasis on class struggle to task as incompatible with Christianity, while stressing the traditional doctrine of the Church as means of salvation. Yet it found many aspects of liberation theology of merit. It could hardly do otherwise, as concepts such as “structures of sin”, the belief that sin is not simply an individual act, but can become a corporate one too, were presupposed in the writings of John Paul II himself.

Gutiérrez, ever the faithful priest and servant of the Church, took these criticisms of his theology in good part. When Pope Francis, the first Latin American pope, succeeded the former Cardinal Ratzinger, the subject of liberation theology, thought by some to be a spent force, came to the fore once more, as it was widely thought that, as Cardinal Bergoglio, Pope Francis had been an opponent of liberation theology. 

In September 2013, Francis received Father Gutiérrez in the Vatican, though what was said between them remained private. This visit was interpreted as a coming in from the cold for the then 85-year-old theologian. But in 2015, at a press conference in the Vatican, Gutiérrez gently corrected this idea: liberation theology was not in need of rehabilitation, he said, because it had never been condemned in the first place. Indeed, many of the key concepts of liberation theology – a concern for the poor, the importance of social justice, and the idea that salvation was not purely otherworldly – had become mainstream, largely thanks to the pioneering work of Gutiérrez himself.

Father Gutiérrez was loaded with honours for his work: these included, apart from numerous professorships, election to the Peruvian Academy of Language, appointment to the Légion d’honneur and election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as the Príncipe de Asturias award from the Spanish government.

In 1998, already an old man, Father Gutiérrez joined the Dominican order, motivated in part by his admiration for Bartolomé de las Casas, the 16th-century Dominican friar who had fought so strenuously for the rights of indigenous peoples in Latin America.

In an interview in 2013, he remarked of his difficulties with the Vatican in earlier decades thus: “I learnt that you ought not to lose your sense of humour, a virtue that helps you not to feel as if you are at the centre of the world or a perpetual exile; not to take myself too seriously, which keeps you from becoming bitter. I like to laugh a lot, and I think this has helped me in difficult times. One should get on with it, without feeling indispensable, because theological reflection will carry on without me too.”

Father Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, born June 8 1928, died October 22 2024

Part 326. A ramble.

In the 1980s I read Faith in the City, a report commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Robert Runcie. It was a study in deprivation and marginalisation in urban areas and listed recommendations on how the Church of England should press for change to overcome the causes of poverty and exclusion.  It was followed by Faith in the Countryside.

One aspect of the earlier report intrigued me: the call for not simply 'ambulance' work, helping individuals at point of need, but also a demand to engage with politicians to tackle causes of the ills set out in the report.  The report made reference to Liberation Theology. Thus it was that I became much more aware of and drawn to the writings of Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff. I was drawn into reading the ideas of Jurgen Moltmann and then into the writings of Martin Luther King Jnr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, James Lawson, Desmond Tutu, Dominic Crossan and Richard Rohr. 

Gutierrez, Moltmann and Lawson died this year. They leave a legacy of love, and hope, for the downtrodden, the oppressed, the marginalised and discriminated against.

Alongside the importance I attach to social justice issues and the need for Christians to engage in demanding systemic change has been a shift towards support for concepts found in liberal, progressive, radical and deconstructivist thinking.  Thus it is that I have been influenced by concepts articulated by, amongst others, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jacques Derrida, Don Cupitt, Marcus Borg, Walter Brueggemann, John Robinson, Jim Rigby, Jim Palmer, Colin Coward and John Caputo.

I no longer describe myself as Christian.  I seek to understand, follow, and promote the concepts of love and social justice attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels.

Part 325. Call my bluff. Will the bishops fold?

I detect an element of desperation in the following statement by John Dunnett. When a poker player has a poor hand it is not recommended to raise the stakes. A bluff may be called with dire consequences.  I cannot see the House of Bishops folding. It almost as though the CEO of the Church of England Evangelical Alliance is going 'all in".  A risky strategy.

The statement is a demand for a Third Province. If it is rejected what then?  Does the departure lounge await?

"Following countless conversations with members of CEEC, General Synod, the Alliance and many others, I've noticed widespread consensus about what the so called PLF ‘provision’ or ‘reassurance’ needs to deliver, as the House of Bishops have chosen to proceed with their proposed changes regarding Living in Love and Faith. 

Let me highlight just three of them for you:

 

ONE We need to be in a part of the Church of England that has one biblical doctrine of sex and marriage. It's just not possible to hold two contradictory doctrines side by side. 

 

TWO We need to have bishops who believe, teach and lead out of orthodox convictions. Bishops who believe and uphold biblical teaching. Laypeople are saying to us, that's the kind of bishop they long to be overseen by. Clergy are saying that they need to be licensed and overseen by such bishops. 

 

THREE We need to guarantee what you might call ministerial pathways for the future. By that I mean securing the ongoing supply of people, being trained for ordained ministry, the ongoing supply of clergy, being appointed into parishes.

 

And of course, we're talking here about the guarantee of future appointment of orthodox bishops. We don't want anyone to be barred from ordination, parochial ministry, the episcopacy, because they can't, in good conscience, use or allow the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith. 

 

And if the provisions that are being explored and possibly brought to General Synod cannot guarantee at least those three things, then we have to see it as insufficient provision. So… 

 

> Please do pray for the challenging meetings that are currently going on about how Orthodoxy can be provided for, secured, going forwards. 

> Please do pray for those who are feeling vulnerable, even being squeezed at this time because of their stand for orthodoxy. 

> Please do pray for wisdom for those who are having to live out the reality of impaired fellowship at this time."

John Dunnett, National Director CEEC

Part 324. Personal opinions (2)

I was active in the voluntary sector as a trustee, director, volunteer, employee and self employed for 30 years, mostly in the  fields of poverty, debt, mental health, community engagement and homelessness.  Most of my activity was with faith and secular charities.

Twelve years ago I started attending my local Salvation Army corps as I was impressed by the work of the Army with the deprived and marginalised. Two years later I became an Adherent.  Latterly I became disenchanted with the Army as it failed to become inclusive on matters of sexual orientation. I had been prepared to pay little attention to the Army's doctrine that is conservative evangelical. However as my theological stance has shifted considerably in recent years that, together with its lack of movement on sexual orientation issues, led me to resign as an Adherent.

Readers of this blog will have noted the changes in my theological ideas.  It is a mish-mash of liberal, progressive, deconstructivist and radical thoughts.  A work in progress.  Underpinning it is my desire to follow Jesus and love my neighbour, not simply by intellectual assent but by practical action.

Part 323. Personal opinions.(1)

This blog does not seek to promote opinions with a view to influencing people to support them.  It is a commentary on how I perceive what is happening and what should be happening in the world.  I do not set out to be provocative, nor do I seek to act as a gatekeeper of "the truth".  It's more a case of finding it helpful to me to commit my thoughts to paper.

Evangelical free churches, The Salvation Army (TSA) and the Church of England (CofE) have been major influences in my faith journey. For many years I attended and preached at free churches.  Basically it was a diet of biblical fundamentalism and conservative evangelical doctrine.  However over time I became convinced that the most important element was to follow Jesus and love your neighbour. And so I slowly drifted away from the free churches and landed in the CofE.

What a glorious mish-mash of theology and ecclesiology!  High church, low church, Anglo-Catholics, liberals, and conservative evangelicals rubbing along with the odd elements of friction and yes, loathing.  Unity in diversity.  The CofE found a mechanism (flying bishops) to preserve an uneasy peace when it decided to ordain women.

 Now battle has been joined on the issue of church blessings for couples in same-sex civil marriages. There is an orchestrated campaign afoot for the creation of a new province within the CofE, not based on geography, but on an opinion that to permit such blessings is a fundamental breach of the CofE's doctrine and tradition and a refutation of biblical truth.

There is the threat of schism and departure from the Church.  How much of this is mere sabre-rattling is hard to tell.  Loss of homes and church buildings will doubtless make clergy think very carefully. The issue is having a debilitating effect within the Church which it can well do without given falling congregations, deteriorating revenue and major safeguarding issues. The vicar of the Church I attend has stated support for the blessings.

To follow: The Salvation Army.  Also  my theological shift.

Part 322. Significant change?

The UK & I Territory of The Salvation Army has decided that, in addition to officers, it will employ staff on contracts of employment to lead corps.  What will be the terms of contracts? Will they be attractive enough to encourage individuals to apply?  

One downside is that the contracts will not offer long-term security whereas officership does. As the Territory's Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) puts it:

Employed spiritual leaders will have more self-determination in terms of where they live and serve, provided that there is an opportunity for ministry in their chosen location. However long-term security will be less sure as, if the need or a role ceases or a different strategic direction is taken, they would not be automatically moved to another appointment as an officer would.  

The CPO states:

This change has emerged as a pragmatic response to missional need at local level, but it is also the result of a strategic decision rather than a reactive response.

Make of that what you will.

Part 321. What to believe?

What to believe? by John D Caputo is an interesting volume on radical theology.  It is in the context of seeking (and never finding) words to conclusively 'explain' or 'define' God that Caputo writes.  The following statements may be of interest.

REALITY IS A PLACE LANGUAGE CANNOT QUITE GO

Many people avoid the word "God" because the symbol is so easily misunderstood. Everyone means something a bit different by the word. It is always important not to fall asleep into religious argon. Religious language is a poetic attempt to capture in words what can often only be experienced in silence. 

Whatever our source of being is, it is beyond the verbs and nouns of human thought. Words may lead us to the threshold of this experience, but only silence can truly experience reverence before a fitful ocean or starry night.

When biblical poetry said, “Be still and know that I am God,” perhaps it was reminding us that the word “God” is a symbol, not an idea or definition. The symbol “God” is a place marker reminding us there is always a mysterious infinity between our clearest distinctions, something infinitely deeper than our most profound value, and something infinitely larger than our vastest understanding

Language is incredibly important when it comes to communication but we must never forget that reality is a place language cannot quite go. 

To reduce the symbol “God” to a mental image means to lose the awestruck experience to which the symbol may refer. The symbol refers not to a belief but to an awareness, not to linguistic understanding but to a sense of awe most reverently expressed by silence. 

The Persian poet Rumi had a teacher named Shams Tabrizi who made this point very well I think:

“Most of the problems of the world stems from linguistic mistakes and simple misunderstandings. Don’t ever take words at face value. When you step into the zone of love, language as we know it becomes obsolete. That which cannot be put into words can only be grasped through silence.”

JIM RIGBY

“I have in lectures often described this interesting situation by saying: we never know what we are talking about. For when we propose a theory, or try to understand a theory, we also propose, or try to understand, its logical implications; that is, all those statements which follow from it. But this, as we have just seen, is a hopeless task : there is an infinity of unforeseeable nontrivial statements belonging to the informative content of any theory, and an exactly corresponding infinity of statements belonging to its logical content. We can therefore never know or understand all the implications of any theory, or its full significance.”

Karl Popper, 'Unended Quest', Chapter 7.

KARL POPPER 

"We are now in a position to see why it is inherent in Popper's view that what we call our knowledge is of its nature provisional, and permanently so. At no stage are we able to prove that what we now 'know' is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been 'known' at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible. What we can do, however, and this is of the highest possible importance, is to justify our preference for one theory over another. In our successive examples about the boiling of water we were never able to show that our current theory was true, but we were at each stage able to show that it was preferable to our preceding theory. This is the characteristic situation in any of the sciences at any given time. The popular notion that the sciences are bodies of established fact is entirely mistaken. Nothing in science is permanently established, nothing unalterable, and indeed science is quite clearly changing all the time, and not through the accretion of new certainties. If we are rational we shall always base our decisions and expectations on 'the best of our knowledge', as the popular phrase so rightly has it, and provisionally assume the 'truth' of that knowledge for practical purposes, because it is the least insecure foundation available; but we shall never lose sight of the fact that at any time experience may show it to be wrong and require us to revise it.”

Bryan Magee, 'Popper'. (The US-edition of the booklet has the title 'Philosophy and the Real World: an Introduction to Karl Popper).

BRYAN MAGEE

Part 320. My Facebook posts

I administer a Facebook group entitled Liberal,  progressive and deconstructivist theology.

There you will see posts on mostly progressive, liberal and deconstructivist theological  topics. There are posts also on controversies and disputations within denominations, mostly centred on inclusion issues.

A significant number of posts are on social justice issues. They highlight the activities of faith and secular organisations campaigning for changes in government policy, both in terms of alleviating the effects of social injustice and systemic change to overcome the causes of discrimination, marginalisation, poverty, destitution and deprivation.  Clearly this requires campaigning for political action. These posts are, for followers of Jesus, illustrative of the application of the commandent to love your neighbour.

Overall my hope is that the posts illustrate faith in action from liberal, progressive and deconstructivist standpoints.  

I have also a page entitled John Hopkinson Theology. it is somewhat similar to the group mentioned above except it does not have posts on the activities of faith and secular organisations on social justice activities. Instead it concentrates on a broader range of theological discourse.

Part 319. More delay

The Salvation Army in the United Kingdom and Ireland Territory is struggling. Corps are closing, some are surviving without full-time officers and may be lucky to be led by  part-time officers or officers coming out of retirement.  There are more posts to be filled than personnel available. Retirements continue to outstrip cadet recruitment. The Army claims to be inclusive, but it is not and stands accused of hypocrisy not least from many within its ranks.

The Territory established the Membership Working Group to consider matters concerning membership of TSA including the Soldiers Covenant, criteria for adherence and associated Orders and Regulations.  The Group presented its report and recommendations to territorial leadership at he end of August.  Only a privileged few know the content of the report and the recommendations.  

The report is being delivered to International Headquarters for consideration by the international leadership.  Sometime in 2025 territorial leadership will update the Territory on outcomes of the ongoing consideration of the report by the territorial leadership.

Sadly the wider membership is not going to see the report and recommendations now. Nothing has been published indicating that the Territory intends to invite comments on the recommendations.  No transparency. 

Meanwhile, the downward spiral continues.

The hope is that inter alia there will an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation, and improved officers' terms of service.

Part 318. Inerrant, inspired.....or not?

The origins and status.of the bible have been considered a number of times in this blog. The following quotations are on these themes.

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 

It is not honest to say those who follow the law of love don't care about scripture as much as those who take the texts literally. 

The whole idea of one clear interpretation of the Bible to which every opinion must kneel is a product of the power hungry framework of European colonizers, not on the inventive creative spiritual interpretations of scripture’s Middle Eastern authors. 

There is certainly one reality that undergirds us all, but that reality is to be found in our actual interactions not in the clear definitions of any one philosophy. We cannot understand ourselves in the same way we understand objects because that kind of objectivity leaves out the very subjective consciousness we are trying to understand. 

Sartre called our efforts to reduce ourselves to objects so that we might avoid the ambiguities of life “bad faith.” We are not computers in search of the right code, we are biological critters who mistakenly think themselves to be independent from the web of life. 

Our task in religion is to re-connect with our source- be that source spiritual, biological or cosmic. My rule of thumb for religion is: if obeying scripture makes me stupid and cruel, either it is wrong, or I am reading it wrong. Either way, we must often disobey the letter of a law to seek out the spirit of goodness, truth and beauty. 

I do not believe slaves should obey their masters. I do not believe the world was created in seven days. I do not believe we should stone witches, or anyone else. I DO believe we must pick and choose from scripture with love and truth as our interpretive devices or we are better off leaving the text behind as a relic of an earlier day. 

If scripture is not used as roots out of which to grow, it is a dead tree anyway. Any religion must be dismissed as “bad faith” if it does not call us to radical honesty about our world, wildly creative expression of our own hearts, and to work for justice for our ENTIRE human family.

JIM RIGBY

“The question about the sources of our knowledge (...) has always been asked in the spirit of: 'What are the best sources of our knowledge--the most reliable ones, those which will not lead us into error, and those to which we can and must turn, in case of doubt, as the last court of appeal?' I propose to assume, instead, that no such ideal sources exist--no more than ideal rulers--and that all 'sources' are liable to lead us into error at times. And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: 'How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?'  

The question of the sources of our knowledge, like so many authoritarian questions, is a genetic one. It asks for the origin of our knowledge, in the belief that knowledge may legitimize itself by its pedigree. The nobility of the racially pure knowledge, the untainted knowledge, the knowledge which derives from the highest authority, if possible from God: these are the (often unconscious) metaphysical ideas behind the question. My modified question, 'How can we hope to detect error?' may be said to derive from the view that such pure, untainted and certain sources do not exist, and that questions of origin or of purity should not be confounded with questions of validity, or of truth.”

KARL POPPER 

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  

When it comes to the Bible, the question is always going to be how one should interpret it. Unfortunately, there is more than one answer to this question depending on who you ask. Even before a single verse of the Bible is read, an argument will ensue about the proper way to interpret it. In seminary I had a class on biblical hermeneutics. We were mostly encouraged to apply a literal interpretation. 

The literal interpretation asserts that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. The literal meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. This type of hermeneutics is often associated with belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, according to which the individual words of the divine message were divinely chosen. 

There are other ways people have interpreted the Bible. In the history of biblical interpretation, there are four major types of hermeneutics: literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical. Oddly enough, there is even debate and argument over how to define each of these four interpretive approaches. 

So, before a single verse in the Bible is read, there will be an argument about what interpretive approach should be used, followed by an argument about how these interpretive approaches should be understood and properly applied. That's a lot of arguing! 

The issue at hand is who or what determines a Bible verse's meaning? 

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Theology's little secret is the claim that "exegesis" is being done, when in fact it's always tainted by some "eisegesis". In other words, there is no objective interpretation of Scripture. All biblical interpretation is subjective. 

There are at least 14 Factors that influence how one interprets the Bible:

1. Your views regarding the inspiration of Scripture.

2. Whether you would favor a literal or figurative interpretation of any given passage.

3. Your knowledge and awareness of other “related” Scriptures dealing with the same issue, including the immediate context and the broader context of the entire body of Scripture.

4. Your knowledge and understanding of the background and motivation of the writer.

5. The way in which a given interpretation fits into your over-all theological belief system.

6. Your level of understanding of the original language in which the text was written.

7. The various interpretations and commentaries to which you have already been exposed.

8. The ways in which one processes information - a Western cerebral approach, an Eastern intuitive approach, and others. 

9. The degree to which you are willing to accept logical inconsistencies as part of your belief system.

10. Your willingness to change your views in the light of new information.

11. The degree to which you are satisfied with your current views.

12. The amount of time you are willing to devote to your theological study and inquiry.

13. The unwillingness to consider alternative interpretations that diverge from your religious tradition.

14. Your overall view of God that has been conditioned by many different life experiences and relationships.

Based on the above variables, does it surprise anyone that there are many different ways the Bible is interpreted? This is especially problematic because many people view the Bible as something to be "right" about.

Our best interpretations of the Bible are subjective. That's not a criticism. We just have to know this is the case. People start with their own subjective presuppositions about what the Bible is, such as: 

- the Bible was meant to present a coherent theology about God and is a piece of coherent doctrinal exposition

- the Bible is the inerrant, infallible and sole message/"Word" of God to the world

- the Bible is a blueprint for daily living 

People will often say, “My authority is the Bible.” It would be more accurate for them to say, “My authority is what they told me at church the Bible means.” That's not meant to be overly snarky. It's just the reality of it. There has never been a singular or unified interpretation of the Bible. 

One's theological understandings are shaped and formed by their religious sub-culture or tradition. Throughout history there have been varying Christian views on even the most fundamental doctrines associated with the Christian faith such as the divinity of Jesus, existence of hell, God as a supreme being, the doctrine of original sin, and the Trinity. The idea that there is an enduring core theology that is accepted as "Christian" is not true. What is "Biblical Christianity" to one person is not to another. 

Progressive theologians, as a countermeasure to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, find a way to interpret every Bible verse through the lens of love or through the lens of their understanding of Jesus. Though they can't claim their approach is "right", I believe it can be argued that it produces a more redeeming result, which should not be taken lightly. 

Jesus was a sage and story-teller, and did not ordinarily take his point of departure from texts of Scripture. In his core sayings and parables, the Scriptures are conspicuously missing.

Neither did Jesus write anything, or instruct his apostles to record what he said or did. It was not Jesus who commissioned the writing of the New Testament. Instead, Jesus confronted the religious leaders, finding them guilty of what amounted to Bibliolatry – the glorification of a scared writing. 

One can take the Bible as a literary anthology—a collection of varied literary genres written by multiple authors over the span of many centuries. The Bible is an Epic, telling the saga of humankind. It speaks to the central themes of our existence, including life and death, good and evil, the nature of reality, meaning and purpose, the non-material or transcendent dimension, suffering and flourishing, love and hate, politics and religion. The saga includes both the ugly and beautiful things we do in the name of God. It’s a story that is still going strong.

Personally, I think the originality of the story the Bible tells makes it a fascinating and profound piece of literature. In the beginning God creates the universe, gives life and orders everything, gradually fades into the background, hands the keys over to a nobody in Palestine who cobbles together a small group of peasant followers, and single-handedly sparks a revolution against the institution of religion, which results in his execution.  

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. Theism views God as a sentient consciousness which witnesses, governs, judges, forgives, and outlives. 

Keep in mind, that the word "God" is a linguistic marker to identify an ultimate reality that cannot by definition be fully comprehended. Consider the possibility that the word and concept of "God" is a metaphor itself - that the construct of theism is symbolic of a higher power, governing force, creative energy, vitality or essence behind or infused into all existence.

But even given all of that, because of how the Bible was abused to damage many people spiritually and psychologically, it may never be a piece of literature one will be able to embrace meaningfully. That's okay too. 

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 

   

I

Part 317. Campaigning for social justice.

Charity is commendable; everyone should be charitable. But justice aims to create a social order in which, if individuals choose not to be charitable, people still don't go hungry, unschooled, or sick without care. Charity depends on the vicissitudes of whim and personal wealth; justice depends on commitment instead of circumstance. Faith-based charity provides crumbs from the table; faith-based justice offers a place at the table.

Bill Moyers.

Social justice demands we deal with the causes of injustice instead of simply bandaging the symptoms. Social justice requires systemic change. As followers of Jesus it is incumbent on us to support faith-based and secular organisations campaigning for social justice. 

I draw your attention to the websites of four organisations engaged in campaigning.

The Big Issue.

Campaigns on housing, homelessness and poverty and allied issues. Regularly posts on Facebook.

Shelter.

Campaigns on housing related issues. Published: Brick by Brick: A Plan to Deliver the Social Homes We Need. (11.07.2024)

Christians Against Poverty UK

Published: Deficit Budgets: the cost to stay alive.(September 2024).  Also a number of supporting documents.

Church Action on Poverty.

I recommend a long report: How do we build each other's dignity, agency and power together as a society? (September 2024)

Part 316: Understanding.

I do not accept the idea that the bible should be read literally. Nor do I accept that it is inspired by God.  The Scriptures were written by humans seeking to convey their understanding in their time.  We should not read scripture on the premis of a metaphysical being anthropomorphised to relate to humanity. Of course scripture is useful as a reference point to our understanding: it should not be regarded as the final or only word.  The two articles below consider ideas to which I subscribe.

JIM RIGBY  

BAD FAITH VS THE LAW OF LOVE

It is not honest to say those who follow the law of love don't care about scripture as much as those who take the texts literally. 

The whole idea of one clear interpretation of the Bible to which every opinion must kneel is a product of the power hungry framework of European colonizers, not on the inventive creative spiritual interpretations of scripture’s Middle Eastern authors. 

There is certainly one reality that undergirds us all, but that reality is to be found in our actual interactions not in the clear definitions of any one philosophy. We cannot understand ourselves in the same way we understand objects because that kind of objectivity leaves out the very subjective consciousness we are trying to understand. 

Sartre called our efforts to reduce ourselves to objects so that we might avoid the ambiguities of life “bad faith.” We are not computers in search of the right code, we are biological critters who mistakenly think themselves to be independent from the web of life. 

Our task in religion is to re-connect with our source- be that source spiritual, biological or cosmic. My rule of thumb for religion is: if obeying scripture makes me stupid and cruel, either it is wrong, or I am reading it wrong. Either way, we must often disobey the letter of a law to seek out the spirit of goodness, truth and beauty. 

I do not believe slaves should obey their masters. I do not believe the world was created in seven days. I do not believe we should stone witches, or anyone else. I DO believe we must pick and choose from scripture with love and truth as our interpretive devices or we are better off leaving the text behind as a relic of an earlier day. 

If scripture is not used as roots out of which to grow, it is a dead tree anyway. Any religion must be dismissed as “bad faith” if it does not call us to radical honesty about our world, wildly creative expression of our own hearts, and to work for justice for our ENTIRE human family.

KARL POPPER

“The question about the sources of our knowledge (...) has always been asked in the spirit of: 'What are the best sources of our knowledge--the most reliable ones, those which will not lead us into error, and those to which we can and must turn, in case of doubt, as the last court of appeal?' I propose to assume, instead, that no such ideal sources exist--no more than ideal rulers--and that all 'sources' are liable to lead us into error at times. And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: 'How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?' 

The question of the sources of our knowledge, like so many authoritarian questions, is a genetic one. It asks for the origin of our knowledge, in the belief that knowledge may legitimize itself by its pedigree. The nobility of the racially pure knowledge, the untainted knowledge, the knowledge which derives from the highest authority, if possible from God: these are the (often unconscious) metaphysical ideas behind the question. My modified question, 'How can we hope to detect error?' may be said to derive from the view that such pure, untainted and certain sources do not exist, and that questions of origin or of purity should not be confounded with questions of validity, or of truth.”

Karl Popper, 'Conjectures and Refutations'.

I am reminded of the words attributed to Andrew Lang:

Some people use statistics as a drunken man useful lampposts - for support rather than illumination.

Replace 'people' with 'Christians' and 'statistics' with 'scripture' and you have encapsulated the mindset of fundamentalist, literalist, conservative evangelicals.

Part 315: I believe.....

At Matins and Evening Prayer, in the Church of England according to the Book of Common Prayer,  the Apostles' Creed is recited by the 

minister/priest and the congregation. There are exceptions for Matins that need not detain us. 

It is fair to say that following "I believe" it may be asserted that there are different interpretations of what comes next.  It has been said that one may regard the creeds at spiritual/conceptual statements, rather than a recitation of facts; or as a mixture of the two approaches. Thus " I believe" may be said with a clear conscience by conservatives, liberals, progressives, evangelicals, high church, low church, protestant or catholic.

Since its inception the Church of England has held in tension Catholic and Protestant theology. The various Books of Common Prayer changed the emphasis from time to time.  The current version is a study in ambiguity.  For many years conservative evangelicals, high church, liberals and catholics rubbed along whilst viewing each other with suspicion.

The ordination of women led to some departures to the Roman Catholic Ordinariate and the development of alternative episcopal oversight. Now, a further split is threatened by proposals concerning the blessing of same-sex marriage couples. The conservative Evangelicals are seeking the establishment of a new province for those unable to accept the blessings. Schism or separation are threatened.  The uneasy unity is broken, probably beyond repair.  Deep theological differences are on display, mostly centered on interpretation of scripture, that are irreconcilable.

Part 314: Dear reader.

My understanding of faith and the impact it has on the human condition has developed into what you, dear reader, may consider to be a mish-mash of liberal, progressive and deconstructivist concepts. Many jurists, philosophers, economists, political theorists, and theologians have influenced my thinking. The list below is by no means exhaustive.  It acts as a signpost to the background to my current position.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Popper, Jim Palmer, Jim Rigby, David Hayward, Marcus Borg, Walter Brueggemann, Don Cupitt, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jacques Derrida, John Kenneth Galbraith, Oliver Wendell Holmes. Kurt Struckmeyer, Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Gutierrez, Oscar Romeo, Roscoe Pound, Hans Kelsen, Richard Hooker, John Robinson, Martin Luther King Jnr, John Shelby Spong and Richard Rohr.

I believe it of great importance to understand the interactions between disciplines in both theoretical and practical terms. It is no use adopting a silo mentality.

The conclusion I draw, provisional as it is, is that we must seek to follow Jesus, to assist those in need and to press for social justice. We must seek to dismantle systemic injustice. I commend the Followingjesus.org website that accords with my current position.  Of course,  you may disagree with my opinions.  I do not seek to influence anyone.

The following is from the website:

 Following Jesus website offers many different people—those who remain in the church, those who dwell on its margins, those who have left, and those who have never ventured near—with a description of a life of faith that is both intelligent and passionate. It is an invitation to forsake a traditional religion of ease and comfort for a vibrant life of challenge, risk, and fulfillment. It is an appeal for all people of passion, zeal, and courage to embrace a life of service, justice, and nonviolence, and by doing so become followers of the Way of Jesus.

Following Jesus is not easy. It calls us to become troublemakers, revolutionaries, seekers of change, and agents of transformation for justice and peace in the world. No small task.

Part 313. Here we go again, another report on poverty.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a report:  Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2024. It is a long, detailed document containing many statistics. It is sober reading.

The report is the latest in a long line of reports over the last fifty years that between them have attempted to identify the scope and causes of poverty, destitution, deprivation and inequality.  The conclusion to be drawn  is that precious little has been achieved to diminish or eradicate the problems.  

There is a recurrent theme: the need for political will to make systemic changes to achieve both short-term palliative and long-term structural change.  There is the need also for joined-up thinking to tackle issues across a wide area of activities: housing, health, education, training, employment opportunities, pay, social and care services, environment and planning.  Shades of the Bains Report!.

It is imperative that secular and faith organisations continue to press politicians to implement legislation to achieve systemic change.  JK Galbraith in the 1960s wrote, in the USA context, that politicians had the means but lacked the will to effect the necessary changes. So it is in the UK sixty years later. 

Part 312. Alpha.

The Alpha courses continue to be a successful recruiting agent for charismatic, fundamentalist evangelicalism and a homophobic understanding of faith. Sadly, the courses are promoted in glowing terms in the current issue of Salvationist.  This,  at a time when pressure is building within the UK &. I Territory for full inclusion.  

A Lieut-Colonel has stated that the Army is heavily influenced by the charismatic evangelical wing of the Church of England. This is the home of the designers of Alpha, based at Holy Trinity, Brompton (HTB).  The HTB Network, allied with the Church of England Evangelical Council and the Alliance is engaged in what may be interpreted as schismatic activity within the Church of England. It is opposed to church blessings of individuals in same-sex marriages on the grounds that such a non-platonic relationship is a sin according to a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, as well as not in accord with church doctrine.

Perhaps we should not be too surprised by The Salvation Army's endorsement of Alpha. Relieved I left.

Part 311. Facebook Group: Progressive Theology UK

Individuals who read the posts to this group may note it has two major themes namely, progressive theology and liberal theology. Also posted are items on deconstruction.

Many of the posts originate from secular and faith organisations engaged in the pursuit of social justice, of an end to systemic injustice. 

Following the way of Jesus is not simply a theological idea or position: it is seeking to effect meaningful change in social structures and attitudes.

Part 310. I've gone and done it.

Today I resolved to resign as an Adherent member of The Salvation Army.  This will not surprise readers of either this blog or my Facebook page. My decision has been conveyed to the Corps' officers.  

Part 309. Matins

Attended Matins at my local parish church today.  Just over an hour start to finish including the Anthem beautifully sung by the choir, non-rambling prayers and an interesting sermon on love.

The choir is singing at St. Paul's Cathedral on Saturday and Sunday this coming weekend.

Part 308. I'm away....

The following passage tells us what a homophobic organisation The Salvation Army is.  It is a disgrace, a policy based on dodgy fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.  I want no part in it.  I have been considering leaving for some time but hung on in the hope that there might be change, but I fear it may be a forlorn hope. 

'As a member of this group I have good news to share! My partner and myself, who have been together for 50 years are getting married in September. Whilst our C.O.'s and corps fellowship are totally accepting of our decision to finally become our authentic selves it has been necessary for us to relinquish our soldiership and are now adherent members. Whilst the pain this has caused has been unbearable I am determined to continue to challenge the Salvation Army stance on same sex relationships/marriage through the medium of this group. However, my partner and myself are determined not to allow this to detract from our happiness and are looking forward with great joy to the future.'

Part 307. Patience wearing thin

Below is the text of an email I sent to the United Kingdom & Ireland Territory HQ concerning progress towards publication of the Membership Working Group's report and the timetable to action recommendations.

I am an Adherent at Royal Tunbridge Wells Corps. I have been following with keen interest the progress of the Membership Working Group, having completed the survey online and read about the conference at Warwick University.

Do you have a timetable for presentation of your report to Cabinet? Will the report be a public document or have a limited circulation within TSA. The loss of officers, poor cadet numbers, closure of Corps and increasing numbers of unofficered Corps are major concerns and inaction or dawdling on publishing and actioning the report will only make matters worse.

Those of us who would like to see TSA become far more inclusive in its policies concerning criteria for officership also are looking for a timetable for resolution of the issues.

Yours sincerely 

John Hopkinson. 

Below is the prompt response I received.

Thank you John, for your email and ongoing interest, the work is significant to us all for many of the reasons you articulate. The report goes to cabinet for first reading at the end of August. I cannot at this stage give you an exact timeline for any publication of the findings as this is dependent on the cabinet discussion. Please note that this will have to go to IHQ as well after it has been at Cabinet.

We will be in touch and will keep the territory informed.

 

Part 306. Evensong (BCP)

Yesterday I attended Evensong (Book of Common Prayer) at my local parish church. It is over a decade since I attended Evensong.  The language is inspiring, the vicar gave a short and interesting sermon on Isaiah 25.1-9 and the choir sang to a high standard the Anthem: How lovely are the messengers by Mendelssohn.

All done in 45 minutes!  Many years ago I was the Secretary to the Rochester Diocese branch of The Prayer Book Society so I admit to bias.  Recently, I joined Progressive Christianity Network Britain and noted my local parish is listed on the Network's website.

Next week I may attend Matins.

Part 305. An interesting week.

0n Friday, 12th July The Alliance held a 'Commissioning' of 'Overseers' to provide 'Alternative Spiritual Oversight' for clergy and congregations opposed to stand-alone services of blessing for couples in same-sex civil marriages. Is this the precursor to schism or mere sabre-rattling to secure a separate province within the Church of England?  I believe the latter is not achievable whilst the desire to hold on to churches, vicarages and stipends will overrule the concerns over conscience.

Then we had a speech by Paul Main, The Salvation Army Territorial Leader for the United Kingdom & Ireland informing us that Salvationists must challenge injustice where they see it and act.  It is not enough to merely love the idea of justice.  Will this call to action include The Salvation Army abandoning discrimination in the selection of officers on the basis of sexual orientation?

On Wednesday 18th July the State Opening of Parliament was the occasion of the King's Speech setting out the new Labour government's legislative programme for the next session.

It is proposed to publish a draft bill to ban conversion therapy. The key  will be the clarity in the legislation between advice/concern and therapy/coercion.

The government is committed to improving living standards but charities have criticised the proposals as lacking focus on tackling poverty. A task force will work towards ending child poverty but no proposal on scrapping the two child benefit limitation.

A Renters Rights Bill will be introduced to abolish no-fault tenancy terminations. The government seeks to see1.5million new homes in the next 10 years but the question is how many will be truly affordable social rent homes? There was nothing in the speech to tackle rough sleepers issues.

There is a lot more information and comment on the above on my Facebook group 'Progressive Theology UK ' and 'John Hopkinson Theology Page".

Part 304. Concerted campaigning for social justice.

The poor, the deprived, the marginalised, the discriminated against are the victims of dominant powers in a society.  Campaigners for social justice demand changes to rid society of structural/systemic injustice.  For followers of Jesus the call is to love our neighbours as ourselves.  To achieve social justice it is essential to work in concert with other faiths and secular organisations.  The silo mentality does not work. There is the need for collaborative and partnership working.  It is necessary to engage vigorously with those with power and authority in political, economic, religious and media spheres.

It is important to understand that to obviate the causes of social injustice requires action on more than one front.  For instance, the causes of poverty include poor education, poor health, lack of skills, family issues, poor public transport, poor housing, addiction etc.  It is no use tackling one or two of these areas in isolation. There has to be an integrated approach.  

My Facebook theology pages include posts by secular organisations campaigning for social justice.  We have to work together, not compete with each other or be precious or aloof.  

Part 303. A stirring speech

Last weekend Paul Main, Territorial Leader United Kingdom & Ireland Territory of The Salvation Army, made a speech that was, for me, the most stirring and inspiring one I have ever heard from a senior Army officer.

He spoke of the need for those who follow Christ to seek to act justly  love mercy and walk humbly with God. All are called to defend justice.  Salvationists, he declared are called with hearts of love to challenge injustice where they see it.  It is not enough to love the idea of justice. It needs to be evident and it will be costly if it is to mean anything.

Stirring stuff!  But....talk is cheap. Will action follow, not least in abolishing discrimination in the Army on the basis of sexual orientation.  Change is needed urgently.  Will it happen soon?

Part 302. A decade on.

I became Adherent member of The Salvation Army a decade ago. My reasons for joining were primarily that the people at the local Corps were friendly and I admired the work of the Army in supporting people at their point of need.  

Since joining I have noted improvement in the Army's campaigning activity: seeking to impress upon government the need for social justice initiatives to tackle the causes of poverty, deprivation, discrimination and marginalisation.

I have been concerned about the Army's failure to tackle exclusion within its organisation of LBGTQ+ individuals.  Hopefully change is afoot and I am full of admiration for officers and others in the Army pressing for change.  I was prepared to remain an Adherent and support those seeking change.

I was brought up short by a recent speech by the General.  It reminded me of how my views are  so different from the Army's doctrines. I cannot help but feel that I should not remain as an Adherent, but leaving would be a huge wrench.  What to do, where to go should i leave?   

Part 301. Goodbye to institutional religion.

I have mentioned before my dislike of labels and refusal to describe definitively my views on faith as progressive, liberal, deconstructive  or a mish-mash of these with other elements thrown in to the mix.  We should not seek to corale our faith into doctrines, creeds, dogmas and theologies.  Such is the road to  conflict within and between denominations and between faiths.  All a far cry from the commandment to love our neighbour. 

Our faith and its application should not be constrained by institutional rules and regulations. Sadly churches seek to impose limitations and boundaries on our beliefs and actions, to act as gatekeepers, guardians or sentries. The institution assumes primary importance, to be defended against  challenge to its doctrines and practices.

The conflict within denominations distracts from the battle for social justice and is not for me.

Part 300. A good read.

Readers of this blog will not be surprised that I commend the following article by Jim Palmer.

"In Matthew 10:34 Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

This is one of those perplexing saying of Jesus that often gets swept under the rug because it doesn’t fit with the kind, loving, gentle and meek persona of Jesus that many people associate with the Jesus of Christianity. 

Jesus was no saint. The story we have about him is largely him questioning and challenging the legitimacy and authority of the dominant religious system and its ecclesiastical hierarchy. The real Jesus was a scrappy, subversive, radical and dangerous person, and was public enemy #1 to religion and the state. Jesus infuriated the religious establishment, turned over tables in the temple, and would not bow down to the worldly powers and authorities of his day.

Jesus clearly recognized that the world and its people were enslaved and held hostage to a power that needed to be struck down. That power existed in the form of a false belief, mindset, and narrative that separated people from God and one another. Driven by ego and self-interest, some had learned to manipulate people with these false mindsets and ideologies to oppress the masses and benefit the few, namely the institutions of religion and the state who often worked in tandem to keep the racket going.

Jesus came onto the scene and proclaimed that another world and society was possible, and that it already existed in the heart of humankind. He referred to it as “the kingdom of heaven” – the reality of peace, freedom, harmony and well-being. Jesus taught that this kingdom within could be lifted up out ourselves and made real in the world. It first requires one to dethrone those ruling beliefs, mindsets, narratives and ideologies within themselves and connect with that deeper source within them, and then give expression to that inner reality through are words, actions and relationships in the world.

Which brings me to Matthew 10:34 and Jesus saying, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” We know Jesus words here do not mean that he was advocating violence and bloodshed. There are several occasions when Jesus makes this explicitly clear, and times when he backs down his followers who are on the brink of taking up arms against the establishment. 

However, it was clear that Jesus understood that there would be distress and conflict in the birthing of the “kingdom of heaven on earth.” Why? Because there would be a clash of two kingdoms – the kingdoms of the world based on false ideologies and the kingdom of heaven within the hearts of humankind.

The old order – those false beliefs, mindsets, narratives and ideologies and the systems and structures of our world based on them – are not going to go quietly into the night. What Jesus meant by his words in Matthew 10:34 is, “Don’t think I’ve come to make life cozy.” There will be conflict, there will be division, there will be confrontation, there will be distress, there will be instability, and it’s not always going to be pretty. When tectonic plates start shifting, there is turbulence. That is what the “sword” represents. We can see the reality of this in the life that Jesus lived and it will also be true in our lives."

- Jim Palmer, Inner Anarchy 

Part 299. Sea of Faith

The Sea of Faith movement has been a major influence on my thinking.  The following summarises its development based on the television series of that name presented by Don Cupitt.

SEA OF FAITH AT 40: Forty years after The Sea of Faith was first broadcast, Elaine Graham examines its impact. 

"In 1984, BBC Television began screening a six-part series, The Sea of Faith. Written and presented by the Cambridge philosopher and theologian the Revd Don Cupitt, the programmes examined the impact on traditional Christian belief of a selection of modern critics of religion. They included Galileo, Blaise Pascal, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche, all of whom, Cupitt believed, had contributed to a significant intellectual crisis of faith in the churches. Cupitt invited his audience to embrace a “non-realist” theology which challenged the notion that language about God refers directly to an objective, transcendent, supernatural Being. Instead, we should regard God as a spiritual ideal, the ultimate reality towards which we orientate ourselves. It follows then, that contemporary religious belief must be focused not on a preoccupation with the existence of God, but instead on the meaning and practical efficacy of the idea of God. Cupitt was not simply presenting the religious alternatives as a straightforward dichotomy between fundamentalism and atheism. Rather, the series amounts to an apologia for the view that critical thinking and intelligent questioning might still be compatible with a credible and positive religious commitment. It stands as an important attempt to present contemporary theological and philosophical thinking which responds sympathetically and constructively to modern and postmodern intellectual trends".

Part 298. Let's be pragmatic. (4)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan tells of the triumph of the principle of love over the limitations of the application of rules. Adherence to rules guided the behaviour of the priest and the Levite.  The Samaritan behaved in a pragmatic fashion, giving practical immediste assistance and ongoing support.  He was not constrained by  rules.

It is in this context I commend the following from Jim Rigby:  

THE SIN OF FUNDAMENTALISM

Fundamentalism imagines itself to be the essence of religion, but, by reducing religion to its unchanging “roots” fundamentalism robs religion of its living “fruits." 

The only true “fundamental” of Christianity was and is love. Love cannot be organized into a clear dogma nor established as a stable hierarchy. This is why Jesus sought to awaken people using outlandish parables but fundamentalism teaches in dogmas, rituals and rules. 

Fundamentalism is all stump and no blossom. Fundamentalism produces beliefs detached from thinking, rituals detached from creativity, and ethics detached from compassion.

Fundamentalism has to take love out of the equation to do the dirty work such reductionism requires.

Part 297. The battle continues at York

The next few days will witness the continuation of the battle for inclusion in the Church of England.  Yes, it's the General Synod seeking to make some progress.  The arguments have been rehearsed to the point of exhaustion.  The opposing sides have formed umbrella bodies to organise their respective strategies to promote their ideas and snipe at the opposition.  The two bodies are:

The Alliance.

About us  

The Alliance is an informal partnership of leaders from networks within the Church of England including the Church of England Evangelical Council, Church Society, the HTB Network, Living Out, Myriad, New Wine, ReNew and The Society; who are represented on the Church of England's General Synod by groups including the Evangelical Group on General Synod, Global Majority members, the Catholic Group on General Synod, and by members of the House of Bishops.

Together we exist to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ afresh in each generation to the people of England. We want to play our part in achieving this vision of revitalising the Church of England. We long to see a church that is younger and more diverse; one which is growing as missionary disciples live out their calling as followers of Jesus in all of life. And this is why together, we have written a number of letters to Archbishops, Bishops and office holders of the Church of England concerning the direction of travel that the Church of England has been taken on, and the poor governance that has resulted in us finding ourselves where we now are - with a Church of England that is divided right down the middle over Prayers of Love and Faith.

Letters

We have written several letters, setting out the unintended consequences of the proposed changes and the issues they raise in terms of Western elitism (ignoring the views of the Global South) and unlawfulness (failing to follow the canons of the Church of England which are designed to preserve

Join with us

The Alliance includes the leaders of a number networks within the Church of England:

Catholic Group on General Synod, Forward in Faith, the Society, the Global Majority reps on General Synod, HTB Network, New Wine, Church of England Evangelical Council, Evangelical Group on General Synod, ReNew, Church Society, Living Out and MYRIAD.

We are inviting clergy and lay leaders to join with the Alliance.

Support us in prayer, keep up to date with our news, be a voice for our cause in your church and give financially if you are able.

We will listen to you, keep you updated on our activity and seek to represent your needs as we work to secure the best way forward.

Together for the Church of England 

About us

Together is a new organisation, bringing together members of General Synod, a wider network of Church of England members, and working with other partner organisations to form a single campaign around two fundamental objectives:

*To unite those seeking to remove all discrimination in the Church of England, especially where it is embodied in the formal and legal structures of the Church.

*To work for a Church of England in which people of differing convictions live together in unity.

We formed in early 2024 with support from a wide range of partners and are setting up diocesan networks to create a space for those who support our aims to work together and encourage each other. We seek to work with the governance processes of the Church of England, enabling people to have a voice on issues of inclusion and belonging.

As a national Church for the whole of England, we believe that there should be no discrimination on grounds of ethnicity, disability, sex, gender, gender identity, sexuality, mental health, neurodiversity, marital status, socio-economic background or economic power. Christ is for all and we are called to dismantle the barriers we construct that exclude people unnecessarily. The focus for Together is particularly on the formal and legal structures within the Church, and we support our many partners in challenging the cultural, sometimes subconscious discrimination that prevent people participating fully in the life of the Church.

Part 296. The power of prayer

Readers of my blog are aware I do not like the use of labels, so I refrain from defining my theology by the use of a label.  If pushed I say that my current views are strongly influenced by progressive, liberal and deconstructivist ideas. A mish-mash it may be,  but it is a work in progress and I think it is unlikely I will reach the end of my faith journey.  

God is not an anthropomorphised being  listening to and answering prayers. God is in us and in all around us.  It is this context that I commend for your consideration the following:

Meditation and prayer are not rituals or duties to be performed.  They are the gifts that help us to organise our conscious state to the spiritual reality of the presence of God.

Paul Bane

I used to pray that God would feed the hungry, or do this or that, but now I pray that he will guide me to do whatever I'm supposed to do, what I can do.  I used to pray for answers, but now I'm praying for strength.  I used to believe that prayer changes things, but now I know that prayer changes us and we change things.

Mother Teresa 

Part 295. Let’s be pragmatic. (3)

For many years the Church of England has been an uneasy collection of Liberals, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals.  For the most part the disparate groups rubbed along  with varying degrees of suspicion.  

The uneasy calm was shattered by moves to ordain women as priests and later to become  bishops.  An uneasy alliance of Anglo-Catholics and conservative Evangelicals blocked progress for years and eventually caved in in return for structural change in the form of alternative episcopal oversight otherwise known colloquially as 'flying bishops'. Pragmatism rather than principle triumphed, although there were some Anglo-Catholics who jumped ship and landed on the deck of the Roman Catholic Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. Some Evangelicals joined Gafcon.

In the past few years a major division has opened up over the issue of blessings of same-sex marriages and the position of clergy in non-platonic, same-sex civil marriages. The division and acrimony  is on public display in the General Synod.  The outcome is uncertain.  There is talk of schism, of a new province.  Will pragmatism triumph or will there be more departures from the Church on a matter of principle? Will there be a spurious unity that does not accord with the reality?