Part 56. Guidance and control. Principles and rules (4)

According to Oliver Wendell Holmes the law has no metaphysical or natural law basis. It is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky. The prophecies of what a court will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law.

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

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

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

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

Beware those who seek to control, or guide us towards a static exclusive  introspective faith.  Embrace those who guide us towards a dynamic, outgoing and inclusive faith. Chuck out the dictionary, welcome Jesus.

Jesus said a lot on the subject of interpretation as we shall discover in the following post.

 

Part 55. Guidance and control. Principles and rules. (3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Words are the skin of living thought.

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

Part 54. Guidance and control. Principles and rules (2)

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

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

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

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

Part 53. Guidance and control. Principles and rules (1)

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

My background is in law as a student and a lecturer. I lectured in jurisprudence and legal theory.  For this and following posts I intend to concentrate on how judges in common law legal systems in the UK and USA  decide cases and how the process has parallels to assist our understanding scripture. Apart from statutes English law is based on the common law as ameliorated by equitable jurisdiction.  Don't  worry it will be explained later.   

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

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

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

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

 

Part 52. Defining Christian love (2)

Following on from my previous post I turn my attention to John's Letters and to James.

* 1John 3: 17-18

If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him. Dear children  let us not love with words or tongues but with actions and in truth.

* 1 John 4:7-8, 21

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

And he has given us this command: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

* 2John vv5-6

I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

Note John states that that love is not about words but about actions. This is the theme of James who argues that faith without deeds is dead. Our faith, according to James, requires us to love, not by mental or vocal assent,  but by deeds, by action.  James rails against discrimination and oppression of the poor and weak.  It is a call for justice and for Christians to act accordingly.

So,  taking on board the views of a range of authors  are we any closer to deciding what love is?  A few tentative thoughts:

* Love cannot be reduced to a set of concrete fixed rules as language is susceptible to different interpretations.

* Love shows itself in how we relate to people on an individual level.

* Love entails helping individuals in need by providing practical support

* Love requires us to demand justice in our society to eliminate, poverty, oppression, marginisation and exclusion.

Love entails being respectful to people and selfless in supporting them. Sadly many Christians and churches are not outward looking and inclusive. instead they are exclusive and self-centred.

I have expressed the opinion before that the two great commandments are not rules to be slavishly obeyed.  They are principles we may apply in an inclusive, progressive, expansive, transformative way. They give us strength to tranform our personal life, the lives of our neighbours  and the communities and society in which we live.

I finish with an observation by Richard Rohr with which  I agree.

We worshipped Jesus instead of following him on his same path. We made Jesus into a mere religion instead of a path towards God and everything else. This shift made us into a religion of 'belonging and believing' instead of a religion of transformation.

Part 51. Defining Christian love (1)

Love is a Christian buzzword. How do you define its meaning, never mind its application?  Tricky word, whether used as a noun or as a verb, yet so much hangs on the meaning we give to it. Do we define it narrowly or broadly? Do we qualify it or compartmentalise it? Are there degrees of love? Is it mental, physical or both?  I am reminded of the ideas of Derrida, that we can only express our understanding of  the meaning of a word though other words which in turn can only be...etc. A word means what a person believes it to mean no matter what the original author meant.  Meaning is subjective, not objective. Meaning is flexible, not rigid. It is fluid, not set in stone. There is no one objective true meaning of a word as bible literalist fundamentalists would have us believe. 

At this juncture you may be thinking what then is the point of my seeking to  define the meaning of love in a Christian context? Quite right, it means what you want it to mean, not what I might propose it to mean.  I am going to press on and consider the matter anyway!

Love is at the core of the ministry of Jesus. Witness the two great commandments instructing us to love God and love your neighbour as yourself. The parable of the good Samaritan is an example of love in action as are the  actions demanded by Jesus in the sheep and goats parable. (Matthew 25:31-46). Love manifests itself in deeds.

In his letters Paul articulates his thoughts concerning the concept of love. I have quoted a number passages to provide an overall picture of his views.

*Romans 13:8-10

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow-man has fulfilled the law. The commandments,"Do not commit adultery", "Do not murder", "Do not steal", "Do not covet" and whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbour as yourself". Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.

Individual rules subsumed in a  principle broader in meaning than the totality of individual rules. A vital concept in our theological thinking on the meaning of passages of scripture. So, what is love?

*1 Corinthians 13:3-8

Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy  it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude  it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts , always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

* Galatians 5:22

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

* Ephesians 5:2

Live a life of love.

* Colossians 3:12-14

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved  clothe yourself with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And above all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.  

Paul uses the word 'love'  as an overarching concept to link together and categorise under one label what he considers to be a set of virtuous attitudes and behaviour for Christians to follow.  In his letters Paul sets out a moral code for individuals to adhere to, a catalogue of dos and donts. The classic gatekeeper.  However, the words are so generalised that they are capable of being interpreted in many different ways.  We must beware of attempts to impose any one interpretation as being 'correct' to the exclusion of others.  We must resist any temptation to grant equal or more weight to Paul's ideas than we do to those of Jesus.

Part 50. The enemy within.

Hello. Little did I think when I started to compose what masquerade as posts on theology that it would extend to fifty posts and counting.  My posts consist of random thoughts and are not in a logical order. I hope you have been kept amused.

Today I take aim at the real enemy of Christian faith.  Not atheists, nor agnostics, nor humanists.  My beady eyes are focussed on literalist interpreters of scripture. 

A church may state its approved method of interpretation in its doctrines that church members are expected to adhere to.  Doctrine should follow interpretation and not determine meaning. Doctrine should not be read into the meaning of scripture, rather we should derive doctrine from our understanding of scripture. As understanding of scripture changes so should doctrine.

The Salvation Army doctrine states:

We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by the inspiration of God and that they only constitute the Divine Rule of Christian faith and practice.

It leaves open the potential for a variety of interpretations of the meaning of the text. However the literalist fundamentalists within the Army have not been idle.  Step forward an unofficial Army equivalent of the Inquisition: SENTRY - Salvationists Fighting For Sanctity.  Some of the self- appointed roles of this group are:

* To defend the authority of the Bible as the absolutely trustworthy (infallible) revelation of the knowledge of God, His laws and the way of Salvation.

* To defend the sacred institution of marriage as described by God between one man and one woman for life. This union, as Scripture reveals, is the only proper context for sexual intimacy.

* To confront the propagation of false doctrine and teaching within The Salvation Army.

SENTRY states there must be no tolerance of deviation from Orders and Regulations for Soldiers of The Salvation Army. Concerns should be reported to the appropriate Salvation Army administration.

A sorry group,  trapped in a mindset which permits no biblical interpretation other than its own and fearful of any challenge to the stance it takes. What confidence can the group have in its theology if it has to threaten to report individuals who dare to disagree with its stance?

The breathtaking arrogance of SENTRY is matched by a statement made by The Christian Institute. 

Campaigners (for a ban on conversion therapy) want to outlaw any preaching, gentle prayer or pastoral care that seeks to help people live in accordance with the Bible.

Such arrogance. The Institute means anyone who wishes to live in accordance with its particular version of biblical understanding.  Many Christians do not subscribe to what the Institute understands as living in accordance with the Bible.  Thank goodness.

Part 49. Full inclusion (again)

The Salvation Army (TSA) is a Christian organisation. I joined as an Adherent nearly ten years ago as I admired the work it undertakes to bring practical help and support to the most needy in society. It is love in action. I argue that although its focus is on direct support at point of need, it should do much much more campaigning on policies to tackle the causes rather than the symptoms of poverty, marginalisation and deprivation. Continually repairing damaged broken lives is laudable but Christians have a duty to promote radical change to deliver the Gospel message of a positive option for the poor.

One issue dominating discussion within TSA is that of exclusion on the grounds of sexual orientation. The most contentious issue is the exclusion of gay individuals from soldiership and officership and certainly not if in a same sex stable relationship.  

The exclusionist argument runs along the lines that a same sex relationship is condemned in scripture and in any event is against TSA doctrine (a dubious proposition) which a soldier is required to adhere to.

The inclusionist view is that the exclusionist reading of scripture is incorrect: a matter considered in earlier posts. As to doctrine,  well change it if needs be is the simple answer.

I can understand why a deeply conservative traditional body such as the Roman Catholic Church retains an exclusionist stance and also why this is the case with extreme Protestant churches such as the Bretheren.

How did TSA get into this mess of its own making? TSA started as a radical offshoot of the Methodist Church which in its turn was an offshoot of the Church of England. 

From the outset TSA had female soldiers and officers and biblical injunctions against women speaking in churches were dismissed. So, if women are included, why not gay people?

TSA is an international organisation with branches (known as territories). The territories are not independent organisations and in theory cannot take unilateral action. The Anglican Communion is a collection of independent church organisations and they can and do take unilateral decisions. Thus the USA church has gay women bishops and gay male bishops in same sex marriages. Such developments are anathema to African Anglican church organisations.

Pressure is building for change in TSA's stance and it may only be a matter of time before some territories decide to act independently of the international organisation and become fully inclusive.

Whatever does happen will cause pain for either the exclusionists or inclusionists and may lead to a restructuring along the lines of the Anglican Communion. The one thing we may be sure of is that some change will come either in doctrine,  organisation or both. The question is when? It won't be soon.

Part 48. The cost of following Jesus.

In Luke 9: 23 Jesus is quoted thus:

If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

In so doing there is transformation. The sinful nature departs and in its stead the fruits of the Spirit come to the forefront of your thoughts and actions. But, it is not easy, it has to be worked at. There will be setbacks as you wean yourself off the sinful nature.

Becoming a follower or a disciple may be  tricky, a step into the unknown, certainty replaced by uncertainty, doubt instead of confidence and the loss of comfort in what you are leaving.  It may engender excitement, hope, confidence, joy, boldness.  Whatever the emotions stirred, things will be different and there may be no option of turning back.  Following Jesus stirs up emotions and has serious consequences not only for you but also for others.

So what does it mean in a Christian postmodernist context to pick up your cross and follow Jesus?

For many Christians following Jesus is a matter of personal salvation and no more. The problem for Christian postmodernists is that, as they dismiss the concept of overarching, objective, metaphysical concepts, following Jesus has to be something more than personal salvation. There is a need to deconstruct the teaching of the church.

Christian progressives argue that the injunction of Jesus to follow me is to work towards the vision proclaimed by Jesus of the reign of God on earth. As we noted in the part on Religionless Christianity we pray for strength to achieve justice for the poor, the disadvantaged,  the marginalised and the oppressed. We love our neighbour. Following Jesus thus takes on a new dimension. It is not inward looking concerned with personal salvation.  it is outward looking and challenging the rich and powerful. Thus it is not without  dangers

Part 47. Cheap grace, costly grace or both?

Options may be presented as stark alternatives whereas the reality is more nuanced. 

Bonhoeffer distinguishes cheap grace and costly grace.  

Kierkegaard argues that some Christians admire Christ rather than following Jesus.

In the case of both theologians  the cleavage is between those who hold to literalist interpretation of scripture, obedience to rules and moral codes to exclude those who do not conform, and the reward of salvation: and those who follow Jesus and work to transform lives of the disadvantaged in the present by engaging with the principles set out in the Great Commandments.

The distinction is clear-cut. However in practice many individuals have a foot in each camp. I love the language of the Book Of Common Prayer: the ambivalence and ambiguity of its theology.  Concurrently I have engaged in social justice  and action. However I do understand why in the age of postmodernity cheap grace is ignored and unacceptable to younger generations whereas costly grace with its concepts of justice and inclusion strike a chord. First and foremost I am a follower of Jesus.

Part 46. Following Jesus

Born in Sheffield aka Steel City it had to be Wednesday or United. I chose United, The Blades. A Unitedite. For many years l have been a supporter, spectator and follower of the club,  paying to watch them play home and away. I joined a community of supporters, sang songs on the terraces and made friends. Together we have been through times of despair, hope and joy and never been slow to express an opinion during a game. We regale stories of past seasons and of players past. We are unashamedly nostalgic yet filled with hope for the future. We listen to the statements of the directors and manager and interpret them as we see fit. We are focussed,  inward looking and never slow to denegrate The Owls. It's a religion!

You know where this is heading. Instead of football think church denomination or a specific branch of a denomination. You attend services, put money on a plate, sing, listen to a preacher and the reading of church notices, exchange pleasantries with fellow members of the congregation  then go home and await the next fixture, oops, service. You are a Christian, you have been saved  and you  support loyally your church. But do you support and follow the church or do you follow Jesus?  Is it as Bonhoeffer puts it cheap grace or costly grace?

Part 45. Religionless Christianity is not an oxymoron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 44. Back to base and basics

Hello. Well here we are back where we started. When I commenced these posts I had no idea where I might journey. Along the way I have discovered fellow travellers who provide me with the comforting thought that I am not alone in my beliefs. Quite exhilarating!

The danger in any blog is it may become repetitive and  yes, this blog is heading that way.  However, some arguments deserve repetition, none more so than the centrality of Jesus in acting out our Christian faith. I know it sounds obvious but in reality things are rather different. 

Do we follow Jesus in the sense of intellectual assent or do we really follow his example?  Does our Christian faith revolve round Sunday church services or in action to help the poor? Just the latter and you are close to Bonhoeffer's religionless christianity. Add prayer and you are there.  Ditch doctrine, dogma and Paul's cosmic Christ. Instead, concentrate on prayer, particularly for the strength to follow in the way of Jesus.

Next post. Religionless Christianity is not an oxymoron.

Part 43. Religionless Christianity: too bleak to contemplate?

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

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

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

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

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

Part 42. Deconstructivism, Nihilism, Postmodernity and Sea of Faith. (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 41. Deconstructivism, Nihilism, Postmodernity and Sea of Faith (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued....

 

Part 40. Groupthink.

Hello again. Do you stand out from the crowd?  Do you feel the need to belong? Do you desire to conform to the extent that you suppress anything which might lead you or others to doubt you belong? Your answer depends on the context or the importance you place on a particular topic or circumstance.

Consider faith in the context of membership of a church. You join, like the people and concur with the theology. You are accepted, you belong. However  over time you begin to have doubts about the teaching of your church on some issues. So, what to do? Sit tight and say or do nothing? Or do you make your concerns known?  Do you weigh up the consequences of this? 

Consider the above in the context of full inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in the life of the church. Do you follow slavishly the teaching of the church and become a church groupie, accept groupthink and reject all consideration of full inclusion issues? In other words bury your head in the sand and parrot what you have been told by the gatekeepers.

However should you have doubts what then?  Just keep quiet?  Or do you articulate your concerns in full knowledge of the risk of disciplinary proceedings, cold-shouldering or exclusion?  Speaking out against the norm is attended by risk whatever the group you belong to or support.

 The current controversy over full inclusion within The Salvation Army is a classic example. Both sides of the argument are in  entrenched theological positions and discourse between the two has soured in social media exchanges. It could turn very nasty. The Army's leadership has to take a grip,  otherwise permanent damage will be done to the Army and individuals. Sadly the hallmarks of groupthink exist on both sides and it is distasteful but understandable.

Part 39. What to believe and how to behave.

Bring forth the gatekeepers,  guardians of truth and purity. Or should that be enforcers of doctrine and behaviour?

From the earliest days churches have had gatekeepers. Great chunks of Acts and Paul's letters are about keeping church order and imposing codes of behaviour on congregations.

Nothing has changed. Churches have theological doctrines which mark out one denomination from another. To be a full member an individual signs up to accept the doctrine. Rules and regulations set out how church officers are to undertake their duties and live their lives.  There may be another set of rules which are intended to  determine how church members generally are to behave. 

Failure to adhere to doctrine, regulations and rules may have serious consequences for an individual vis-a-vis church membership. It is all about control: a top down paternalistic and patronising structure. 

The doctrine of  a church is a manifestation of its theology and finds expression in sermons based on its interpretation of scripture. Thus the church tells it members what to think and do.   The Liberation Theology movement arose in South America as an expression of grassroots interpretation of scripture. It was, and is, a challenge to the authority of the church, a challenge to the gatekeepers. 

Part 38. Well, well, fancy that!

After my previous post I decide to surf the Internet on the topic progressive christianity. I came across an organisation called the Progressive Christian Network, based in the USA but with a British equivalent.

A visit to the British website, where I discover a church, referred to in an earlier post as having sermons based on Guardian newspaper editorials, is a member of the British network. However, as the blurb about this church mentions an interregnum it is at least ten years old and the church may no longer be a member.

Have I found my theological home? Maybe. I feel an affinity/empathy for the theology and for the Network.

Part 37. Progressive Christianity. My theological home?

In a previous post I expressed my dislike of labels although I admit to using them:  as in 'bible fundamentalist'.  The problem with labels is the ideas, concepts  etc that people associate with the subject of the label.  Therefore I refuse to label my own ideas. Nevertheless it does not surprise me if I am perceived as being in the  Progressive Christianity camp.

When I commenced writing these posts I had no preconceived plan. It was intended as a series of jottings on my theological understanding of the Christian faith. As I commented in my first post there is nothing original in my thinking.  My musings may have led me to my theological home and it is possible I shall become an adherent of Progressive Christianity and accept the baggage that comes with the label.  Then again.........

Part 36 understanding the Bible. Paul and Inclusion.

The death has been announced of the Reverend Professor Leslie Houlden, a former Principal of Cuddesdon Theological College,  Oxford (Anglican) and latterly Professor of Theology, King's College, London.

Theologically he was a liberal and his assertions regarding Paul have been echoed in my posts.

1. Paul's ethical judgments ( on homosexuality as an example) were addressed to particular first century  issues and are not of universal application.

2.following on from this Houlden emphasised the cultural gap between between Paul's ideas and assertions and those of today.

It is for these reasons that I have argued that we should not read Paul to amplify, contradict or add to our understanding of Jesus and his second Great Commandment.

One can only hope that this approach commends itself to the decision makers in the Church of England as they consider the issue of gay marriage. In The Salvation Army there is the issue of gay individuals becoming soldiers and officers never mind gay marriage. The Army's General stated recently its doctrine was not about to change. (Query: is it a doctrinal matter.) In a 1976 report by the Church of England's Doctrine Commission Christian Believing (Houlden was a member) it was stated that:

Basically Christian loyalty is to God through Christ, not to any exact doctrinal formulations.

Will The Salvation Army take note and act on the sentiment of the statement and move to full inclusion? Don't hold your breath.

Part 35. Theological influences. Section 3

Many years ago I was invited to preach at a little chapel in a rural area. It was an evangelical free church with a small congregation most of whom had driven quite long distances to attend, and did so every Sunday. After the service I was approach by an individual who stated he was a Calvanist, then a few more descriptive words I do not recall, ending with the word Christian.  What was I he asked?  My response was along the lines of 'just a Christian'.

I am wary of sticking labels on either myself or others. Labels, shields etc can be a badge of honour or the equivalent of a mark of Cain.  Our opinions, beliefs, faith etc should not be pigeonholed by a label and all the baggage that goes with it. It is for this reason I refrain from attaching a label to my views.  I am not an evangelical, nor a protestant,  nor a postmodernist,  nor a liberal, nor a progressive,  nor a Liberationist. 

My theology is a melange of interwoven strands as I trust has become evident from earlier posts. The posts indicate the outlines of my faith and theology. In Part 1 I stated I had a simple, not simplistic, theology. I leave you to decide on the accuracy of my assessment and attach whatever label(s) you deem appropriate. 

Part 34. Theological influences. Section 2

My theological journey began when I started to attend Matins and Evening Prayer at a Church of England parish church. It was low church of an evangelical persuasion and used the Book of Common Prayer.

From time to time I attended Choral Evensong according to the Book Of Common Prayer at another church. It had a liberal outlook, was somewhat high church,  and the in joke was that sermons consisted of the vicar paraphrasing Guardian newspaper editorials. The music was magnificent.

Occasionally I would venture into the morning service at the local Anglo-Catholic church.  Mass.  There was also an evening service of Benediction and a confessional box, numerous statues, smells and bells and an altar that could be circled round by the priest who was addressed as 'Father'. Prayer Book used sparingly but a cornucopia of Catholic additions which the Roman Catholic Church ditched at Vatican 2.  Yet this was a Church Of England parish. More ritual than the Roman Catholic Church down the road!

The variety intrigued me then and does still. The Book of Common Prayer is a masterpiece of theological compromise, of ambivalence and ambiguity. It is used by protestants and catholics co-existing in the Church of England. There are significant theological differences, based on understanding of scripture,  between evangelical, liberal and catholic persuasions within the Church of England.   

(The Prayer Book has been replaced in many churches by new orders of service  or the use of the hymn sandwich approach beloved by the evangelical free churches.)    

At times the three groups give a very good impression of loathing each other. The evangelicals and catholics united in an informal alliance in a bid to stop female ordination. It will be interesting to see how they line up on the issue of gay marriage at the General Synod in February 2023.

 You see, dear reader, bible interpretation and theology affects lives.   it is not a dry, academic pursuit divorced from reality. It is relevant, present and for some, the consequences are distress and pain.

Part 33. Theological influences: section 1

Once upon a time I was a senior lecturer in law. The university's title for my subject was Jurisprudence and Legal Theory which struck me as tautologous. The skills I acquired in understanding the subject are now described as transferable skills and came in useful when I began studying scripture. 

My current understanding of scripture and my Christian faith has been shaped by many influences including"

Liberation Theology

Don Cupitt and the Sea of Faith movement

The Book of Common Prayer.

Postmodernism

Faith in the City

JK Galbraith 

Walter Brueggemann 

NT Wright

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Oscar Romero 

Luther King Jnr 

Richard Rohr 

The keys to my understanding scripture and my faith are the two Great Commandments and what Jesus says about them, and the words of Hebrews 11:1

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

It has been a challenge for me to determine if my understanding of scripture and faith is a consequence of the writings I have perused or if I have gone in search of material to support my understanding. I suspect it is some of both.

The starting point had to be the Bible.  There is no point in reading commentaries or theological papers unless you have read the source material.  What does a passage you read mean? Has your understanding of a passage been coloured, influenced or conditioned by something you have read or heard? Has a gatekeeper attempted to tell you what to think?

Jesus cannot tell you what he means, nor can Shakespeare or any other dead writer for that matter. All that is available is the text itself, your understanding and beyond that the interpretation by others. But others have their own agendas. You may believe that your understanding is driven by the Holy Spirit but it is a serious claim to make. Some argue that even if an author is living a text still means what the reader makes of it.

Understanding Jesus is an adventure, a journey, a quest, an exploration, a voyage of discovery. Do we travel with hope and expectation of finding that which we seek? What are we seeking: certainty, comfort, peace?

I do not seek to guide you on your journey, after all I am not a gatekeeper. However do try and avoid the mushy, saccharine - laced, sentimental, emotional twaddle dished out by what I dub The Barbara Cartland School of Theology. 

Part 32. Snow

 Last Sunday the local Salvation Army Corps held its carol service. The arrival of heavy snow led to the curtailment of the event. Earlier, snow had prevented some from reaching the venue. The fear was that as some attending lived some miles away they would be trapped far from home.

In the event homes were thrown open for people who were at risk of being marooned.  It was all arranged calmly and quickly and credit to the officers for their handling of the situation.

Unfortunately the snowy conditions led to the postponement of the Corps' Knit & Natter group's Christmas lunch a few days later.

Last Sunday showed how small acts of kindness may be very important for the well-being of the recipient. Loving our neighbour does not require extravagant measures, indeed in terms of direct support it is the little, everyday actions which mean so much.

Part 31. My simple theology.

Rather a pretentious title. It is not 'my' theology. I lay no claim to be a theologian and the opinions I express have been expressed elsewhere and far better. Perhaps the title should read: my understanding of theology.

 I do stand though by the word simple.

For me the Christian faith is the living out of the two Great Commandments of Jesus, exemplified by The Salvation Army's logo: Love God: Love Others.  What could be simpler than that?

Recently this was posted on Facebook:

Don't confuse your path with your destination. The path may be rocky now,  but it is going to lead to amazing places.

The Old Testament (OT) does not lead only to Jesus to the exclusion of all else. Christians read back into it for signs that it can be read to point to Jesus. On such a reading the OT may be regarded as the path that led to fulfilment in Jesus. We should focus on Jesus,  not the path leading to him.

My simple theology is to concentrate on the teaching and actions of Jesus. It is sufficient. We do not need the writings of Paul, or others, seeking to amplify, explain, add to or limit the good news of Jesus

In opposing full inclusion for gay individuals, or seeking to support conversion therapy, bible fundamentalists are prepared to ignore the teaching of Jesus,  instead relying on OT and Pauline verses.  It is wrong., wrong, wrong.

I have no issues with studying the OT. It fascinates me with its many layers of meaning, its rich variety of styles and the various authors' stories of God's relationship with His chosen people. But it should not be used to explain Christian teaching. We are not bound by the Law of the Old Covenant but freed by the the New. For Christians the old has been swept away so why refer to it for guidance? Certainly not for better understanding.

Part 30. Gatekeepers

Attend a professional sporting event and it is likely you will have to show your ticket at the gate, to the gatekeeper. No ticket no entry. Once inside the arena you might wish to leave early and have to seek out a gatekeeper to unlock an exit. However there are other gatekeepers not concerned about physical movement through a gate or door. Rather their interest is in seeking to influence or insist on what a person may see, read,  think or do.

Censors are gatekeepers who until recently in the UK could ban films from public showings, limit what could be performed in theatres and ban books from public consumption.

The judiciary  got in on the act. Thus in Shaw v DPP 1962 and Knupfer v DPP 1973 the House of Lords held that it had the power in common law to protect public morals and society's welfare. The cases decided it was criminal conspiracy to be party to the publication of salacious material.

My main focus however is the role of gatekeeper played by churches and governments and their agents in the field. Heretics were burnt, catholics and protestants killed each other, people are excommunicated  or thrown out and let's not forget the Crusades and the work of christian missionaries. We read today of christians being persecuted in many countries.

However there are more subtle ways to be a gamekeeper. Churches have traditions, doctrine, rules and regulations, ordering of services and demands on lifestyle. It can all be coercive, to keep the individual in line. 

There is an expectation by the church that its teaching will be adhered to and its clergy and congregations will accept uncritically the pearls of theological wisdom laid before them.  Fortunately this approach is not meekly accepted.  Change is driven from the bottom upwards. Thus we have the impact of Liberation Theology on the Roman Catholic Church and the more widespread influence it has had. The Salvation Army is being challenged from below to change its stance on sexual orientation issues. The Church of England is undergoing a similar challenge only a few years since the furore over the ordination of women.

Beware those who seek to prevent all inclusive love  by insisting on discredited literalist interpretation. Love is not for censorship.

Bob Dillon RIP

 Sad to hear of the death of Bob Dillon. I first met Bob over 35 years ago when he gave me free board & lodgings at a difficult time in my life. One of life's true gentlemen, Bob was a Christian with a deep faith and an interest in the Holy Land. When I first met him he attended Rusthall Evangelical Church. In later years he attended Tunbridge Wells Baptist Church.

Part 29. Conversion Therapy

I am fully in support of a complete ban on conversion therapy. In England the government has delayed the introduction of a bill to go through Parliament making conversion therapy illegal in all circumstances. A consultation period has ended but we are informed by the Home Office that there is to be further consultation.  Where is the pressure for this coming from?

One source is The Christian Institute, an evangelical organisation with income of £3.6 million in the last financial year. The Institute sets out its position on conversion therapy in its 2022 Annual Review. 

The Institute claims campaigners for a ban are seeking to "outlaw any preaching, gentle prayer or pastoral care that seeks to help people live in accordance with the Bible".

The Institute's implied claim is that their interpretation is the only correct one. Of course it isn't. Theirs is a fundamentalist interpretation which I believe to be incorrect.  As noted in earlier posts it is based on ripping passages out of context and ignoring passages which speak of God's love for all equally.

 It rejects the science which indicates clearly that sexual orientation is a matter of inherent physiology and not one of choice. There is no sin here no matter how much evangelical fundamentalists may huff and puff.

Addendum.

The above was published in December 2022. In 2024 the Labour government announced its intention to propose legislation to ban conversion therapy.

Part 28. Full inclusion.

I hope my theological musings have been of some interest and maybe amusement or bemusement. As stated at the outset I hold to a simple theology. It is based on the two great commandments, not fettered or chained by the Old Testament (OT) nor the  theology in the New Testament (NT) outside of the synoptic gospels.

The OT assists our understanding of the NT but it should not be used to diminish or contradict our understanding of the message of Jesus.

Likewise the exposition and development of the meaning of Jesus to be found in the NT outside of the synoptic gospels are just that. They are not to be understood as  replacements, limitations or additional to the teaching of Jesus.

All of which leads me to the subject of full inclusion.  Should Christan churches discriminate against individuals on the grounds of sexual orientation? The answer is mixed. Some churches do not.

The Church of England will not entertain same sex marriages and clergy in a same-sex civil partnership must be celibate. The CofE is considering the issue in February 2023. 

The Salvation Army, according to its General, has no intention of changing its stance which is not to permit an officer to be in a same sex relationship.

In the case of both churches each side to the argument relies on scripture to justify their stance. As the Bishop of Oxford put it recently:

It is about giving priority to all those strands in scripture about giving affirmation to each persons individual love by God, how all are equal in his sight. And, therefore, all the texts in scripture that appear to prohibit relationships outside (heterosexual) marriage fall into a clearer perspective.

Very polite and measured as one would expect of a senior Bishop.  Plain old me has no such scruples.  In my opinion the principle of love overrides all and if fundamentalists wish to peddle notions based on selective use of texts out of context then they should be called out for their reliance on three elements: dodgy theology, scientific ignorance and possibly homophobia.  

The same elements are present in the supporters of conversion therapy. My next post will consider this in some detail.

Part 27. Fundamentalism and Literalism. How not to read and understand the bible. (3)

In an earlier post mention is made of the key role Paul played in the development of Christianity by defining the followers of Jesus as believers in a faith that was new and distinct and not a radical sect of Jewish faith.  The distinction is made numerous times and reflects  Jesus's own teaching.

When reading Paul it should be with an understanding of the context in which his letters were written. They were for specific groups or individuals and addressed  issues faced by the recipients. The thrust of Paul's letters is one of support for womens' ministry. However two passages have been ripped out of context to limit the extent of women's activity in the  church.

In 1 Timothy 2:11:12 we read:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 

In 1 Corinthians 14:34 we read:

...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission

Set against this see:

1 Corinthians 16: 19-20

Acts 18: 24-26

Romans 16: 1-16

It should be noted that in Galatians 3:28 we read:

There is neither Jew nor Greek  slave nor free  male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So is Paul a proponent of inclusion or an authoritarian exclusionist?  The evidence clearly points to the former and we should apply the inclusive approach not only to our understanding of all the New Testament but also its application to the present. 

St. Paul's, Rusthall. Desperate times?

All is not well at St. Paul's Church, Rusthall. A full page in the parish magazine announces a day of prayer next January for the future of the church.  We are informed expenditure significantly exceeds income.

Previous financial problems have been overcome by the timely arrival of bequests or selling capital assets.  Bequests are diminishing and selling the family silver to turn capital assets into revenue expenditure in never a good idea.  It only kicks the problem further down the road and does not provide a permanent resolution.

So, what to do?  Reducing expenditure has to be the solution.  It is painful but essential. Income generation is difficult when people are feeling the impact of inflation on their personal budgets. What is needed is more people attending church activities and thus provide a larger pool of potential sources of income. Perhaps the church centre could be sold with a lease-back arrangement.

It is easy to point the finger of blame in the direction of individuals but that is not a sensible course of action. The church collectively has failed.  For whatever reason the church does not give the impression of active engagement with the community. There is little new to inspire people to want to be involved.

In 2021 the governors of Rusthall Primary School resigned en bloc. The school is Church of England Voluntary Aided and the resigning governors included the vicar and parish church appointees. The governors have been replaced by an interim executive board. Such disengagement carries negative connotations.

I am reminded of the Matthew Arnold poem: Dover Beach. 

The Sea of Faith....

It's melancholy, long,  withdrawing roar.

Part 26. Fundamentalism and Literalism. How not to read and understand the bible (2)

The Old Testament sets out the relationship between God and his chosen people Israel. It is story, history, testimony and prophecy. It states  supposedly divinely inspired commands and rules (the law) God demands his people follow and are contained in the first five books of the bible known as the Torah (also known as the Pentateuch).  The problem with sets of rules is they have to be interpreted and applied to new situations. The Jewish interpretation is a huge body of work known as the Talmud. The Talmud is still used and interpreted in Orthodox Jewish religious courts. One of its leading authorities in the UK, Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu, died recently.

In appropriating Torah laws fundamentalist  Christians do not refer to the Talmud.  Christian understanding of Torah should be determined by the interpretation put on it by Jesus, not by delving into the Torah and wrenching specific rules out of context and using them to justify a particular stance, whilst at the same time choosing to ignore other rules.

The sad truth is that bible literalists and fundamentalists distort the distinction between the old and new covenants and instead of embracing the good news of Jesus for all humanity fall back on narrow,  legalistic interpretation. It needs to be called out for what it is: a deliberate distortion of the message of the love by grace we are given and the love we give in return to God and all humanity. In loving others we are called to be fully inclusive and not expend energy on erecting barriers to exclude anyone.  To be continued......

.

Part 25. Fundamentalism and Literalism.. How not to read and understand the bible.(1)

Ready to receive a dose of moral coercion? Then pop along to a church and the chances are that at some  you will be informed what a wretched, miserable sinner you are. The sermon might well be delivered with zeal so you are left in no doubt what a rotten person you are. When you have heard what a failure you are for the umpteenth time the message palls somewhat and you begin to feel there are better things to do with your time. Nothing like a negative, hectoring message to draw people in. Yes, exaggeration on my part, but with more than a grain of truth.

Poring over ancient texts to discern a message to be delivered to the  congregation is the stock-in-trade of a literalist and fundamentalist theology. Attenders at such a church are fed on a diet of old testament lists of sinful activity peppered with verses from Paul's letters. Why the congregation is fed regularly this diet is not questioned, but at least they can leave in the smug  self-satisfied knowledge they  have been saved by seeking forgiveness and accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

But what of those whose supposed 'sin' cannot be forgiven by the church? I say the church and not Jesus. The church applies its own interpretation of scripture and acts as a gatekeeper seeking to keep people on message and repel opposition. It is moral coercion. The effect can be devastating for individuals should they be excluded by the church from complete fulfilment of their faith. To be continued.....

Part 24. An example of community engagement. A major undertaking

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

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

After the initial enthusiasm interest started to wane.  Then a 'big hitter' joined the congregation. An independent charity was formed as a limited company to run the centre. Trustees were nominated by the church along with representives of the borough and county councils. The borough sold the retail units and the county the library to the charity for nominal sums.  In return the charity raised a large capital sum from major philanthropic trusts. A complicated  agreement was drawn up between the councils and charity.

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

The new centre provides a range of services and activities for all age groups. The downside has been the reluctance of most of the people on the estate to become involved. This sadly is a feature of many secular and faith based community centres. The roots of the problem were  a failure to engage with the local community using appropriate methodology and  also failure to encourage real and not token community participation and ownership.

Part 23. Community: diverse and inclusive

So, your fellowship is intent on being a good neighbour in an area of deprivation. The first task is to enquire if any other churches are active in the area and if not do you intend to invite them to join you?

Next, what is being done in the area by other organisations? No point in duplication.

Do you know the councillors for the area? Do you have contact details for the organisations impacting on residents? They may be repositories of useful information. Is there a residents' group? Are there buildings in the area which are available for hire?  

 

There will be statistical information on the area contained in Super Output Area information based on the last Census which is available from the council. The information covers income, employment, education, skills & training, health & disability, crime and housing.

Armed with all this information decisions can be made as to what is to be undertaken: direct services or campaigning or both.

Before anything is set in motion there  needs to be disussion with residents.  What are their priorities and concerns?  The residents are a diverse population and have different priorities and needs. You must seek to be inclusive. However it is likely you will make meaningful contact only with a very small percentage of residents. Apathy is the norm. The danger is that a small sample will not be representative.

There are volumes of information on community engagement on the Internet.  Taking on activity in the community may be a daunting prospect but remember, we are called to love our neighbour.

Next: a case study encompassing the above.

Part 22. What is 'community'?

People  living in urban areas of deprivation are not a homogeneous group. Their needs and circumstances differ considerably. They are not statistics.  Walking round a former council housing estate it is possible to identify three categories of accommodation.  

The first is owner occupation, properties originally purchased by people under the Right to Buy legislation. Gardens are well maintained and new doors and windows fitted.

The second is tenants of properties transferred to housing associations.  For the most part the doors and windows of these properties are identical.

The third category is tenants of private landlords. The properties have been purchased from people in the first category. The gardens are unkempt and some changes made to the appearance of the properties.

Different groups, different issues.

Wandering round such an estate you might come across a set of retail units. Most  if not all, will be empty. There may be a public house in a run-down state, possibly a doctor's surgery and a community hall. There may be an adequate bus service.

Of course provision varies considerably.  There may be blocks of flats, playgrounds, a church and a church hall. The point is that when considering areas of deprivation one description does not fit all, either in terms of people or facilities.

Therefore a nuanced approach in required. It is vital that a local church does not act inadvertently in a patronising or paternalistic manner.  We must listen to people and have no preconceived notions and certainly not be judgemental. But to whom do we listen and how do we interest people to talk to us? Different groups within the community will have different concerns and  priorities. As Christians we should step carefully into this complicated and often contradictory environment.

Part 21. Community engagement

Many manuals have been published on the subject of community engagement/development. All the writing in the world does not prepare you for the issues to be faced initially when out in the field. It's a bit like learning to drive: all the theory is of little use when you take the controls for the first time.

Community engagement/development is an industry. Community engagement/development staff are to be found in local authorities, housing associations, churches, NHS, police forces and voluntary organisations. All backed up by providers of training courses and qualifications, not forgetting the development of tools to measure engagement: inputs, outputs  interim outcomes and final outcomes. Then there is the raft of funders and the army of people trained to apply for funds. 

Add to this various government initiatives: Community Plans, Community Legal Services Partnerships, Partners and Communities Together.  The Lottery Community Fund made funds available for the Health of Communities Together Fund.  Doubtless people living in areas of severe deprivation are impressed by all this activity!

It is a huge circus and I regard it with deep cynicism. This is not to demean the practitioners who have the wellbeing of people at the heart of what they do and often are engaged in posts with uncertain futures given the vagaries of time limited funding.

The sad reality is that huge resources have been dedicated to patching up a failing system.  When the ship is in danger of sinking you mend the leak. You do not rearrange the seating. 

However I do not advocate that churches and individual Christians walk away. The Christian voice needs to be heard.  We must not withdraw into piety bubbles and become introspective.   That was not how Jesus went about his ministry and we can hardly love our neighbour if we are not out there.

Part 20. A call to action

Many living in areas of multiple deprivation suffer deep poverty: real poverty not relative poverty.  Existence is hand-to-mouth, continuously.  There is no relief on the horizon, it is never ending, drives people to despair, depression, illness, zero self-esteem, domestic violence, substance abuse, unsocial behaviour.  

Taking people out of poverty is promised by politicians but they have failed to deliver. The need for concerted action by the churches has been accentuated by the current inflation crisis.

Christians should, to borrow a phrase uttered in 1960 by Hugh Gaitskell a former Labour Party leader:

fight, and fight, and fight again.

Sporadic forays will be made by individual denominations. There will be hand-wringing but little else. What is needed is sustained campaigning,  lobbying, even direct action at local and national level. We must be advocates for radical change to tackle the causes of poverty.

Clearly there are no immediate solutions, no magic wand. It will take years to improve housing, medical care, education, skills training, employment prospects but there has to be a direction of travel. As Galbraith said we have the means.  Now we must will the means.

In the meantime churches continue with foodbanks, redistributing clothing,  providing warm areas, feeding people. In other words assisting with the basics for living. Hard unremitting work.

One area where I believe churches should do more is to encourage people to use existing credit unions. The scourge of doorstop lenders preying on poor people should be addressed by the churches. Churches should work in collaboration with credit unions to promote the services on offer. More affluent Christians should consider saving with a credit union. This will enable more lending.

Part 19. Getting involved.

Clearly, loving your neighbour includes everyday acts of kindness and help. Doing the shopping for a poorly neighbour,  visiting a lonely person etc. All very important activity to acknowledge as making life more bearable. We must not underestimate the value of one-to-one social contact and support.

Many people desire to do more and volunteer to join organisations engaged in activities supporting people in the community,  either as helpers, committee members or officers.  Thus a person may join a lunch club to help serve meals and if it is an independent organisation becoming a committee member or an officer of the club. 

Conversely the club may operate under the direction of perhaps a church  or group of churches, a community centre  or an organisation with a broader remit, such as a mental health charity or a charity providing a range of  services for older people.  

However it is run the lunch club is providing a service for the benefit of members of the community, as are youth clubs, keep fit clubs, community cafes etc.  Such activities can make a significant contribution to an individual's well-being and have a wider beneficial effect.  Thus a youth club may draw its members away from unsocial behaviour and free up police time.

Important as all this activity is it is  working only at the margins. Far weightier intervention is required to combat the root causes of multiple deprivation. This involves Christians engaging with secular bodies and with people with very different mindsets and expectations to their own.

Part 18. Putting flesh on the bones

So far my posts have consisted of a brief snapshot of the main features of my interpretation of scripture and its application.  My specific interest is inclusion in the context of community engagement in areas of multiple deprivation. What are the factors driving Christians to engage with such communities? How is this achieved?  What is the purpose of engagement?  How is 'success' measured?

Community engagement is a subject which brings out my cynicism in industrial quantities. Central and local government, quangos,  private companies, secular and religious voluntary organisations and sundry bodies such as the police and health services have been and are participants in engagement. For the amount of effort expended and the vast sums spent the results show that little lasting improvement has been achieved.

The failure to make significant inroads into the issues of disadvantage and deprivation I believe to be self-evident. Such progress as has been made has been driven by political short-termism,  party advantage and concentrating on alleviating symptoms rather than tackling deep-seated underlying causes. After all, the pursuit of social justice is hardly a election winner; far better to cosy up to the better off, the affluent.

Whilst the merry-go-round  of research,  reports,  debates, political point-scoring and short-term 'initiatives/projects' continues the disadvantaged in our society,  for the most part , stoically try and make the best of their circumstances with a weariness and resignation borne of years of broken promises and failed policies. But also there is deep discontent,  resentment and anger.

So against this background what is the Christian message and what do we do?

Part 17. The Pursuit of Social Justice (3)

Campaigning for change.

Christians have been accused of interfering in politics. When Faith in the City was published some politicians rushed to advise the Church of England to 'stick to saving souls and leave the politics to us'.  In the UK this attitude is deeply ingrained and with it the assertion that faith is a private matter and should be kept there.

Christians are only too well aware of political failure as they seek to mitigate the effects of policies causing poverty, poor health services  poor education and the rest resulting in misery, oppression and deprivation. Being on the front line is it any wonder Christians challenge politicians to deal with the causes of deprivation and oppression. Campaigning, lobbying, call it what you will requires,  to be successful, specific skill sets with which some churches are uncomfortable.

In the Old Testament there is recognition of social and economic inequality and the need take action to tackle the issues and not merely mitigate the effects.

Leviticus 19: 9-15 contains the following:

"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.  Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and alien. Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight. Do not put a stumbling-block in front of the blind. Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly.

in Leviticus 1918 we read: love your neighbour as yourself.  This we have noted before is the second Great Commandment. The two Great Commandments fulfill all the Law and Prophets.

In Isaiah we read the following:

Seek justice, encourage the oppressed.  Defend the cause of the fatherless,  plead the case of the widow. (1:17)

Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees  to deprive the poor of their rights and withold justice from the oppressed of my people. (10:1-2)

With righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. (11:4)

I believe it is correct to state that the approach adopted in the Old Testament is not articulated so explicitly in the New Testament, but as noted before it is not entirely absent. One suggested reason for this is that as Rome was an occupying power little could be done to effect social and economic change.

I remind you that I am not a theologian and am putting forward my own personal opinions. I put forward the following idea for your consideration.

Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God on earth and in so doing challenged the religious leaders of his day. He had no desire to challenge the Roman authorities on economic and social issues as this might be perceived as the coming of the warrior-king Messiah, that clearly Jesus was not. Nevertheless  the call to action to free the oppressed and downtrodden is there to be acted upon by Christians as we seek to love our neighbour.

.

 

Part 16. The Pursuit of Social Justice (2)

Demanding that the state should shoulder responsibility for direct support.

Pressure groups form to advocate and lobby for change. An organisation providing direct support may at the same time campaign for the burden to be lifted from them and become the responsibility of the State.  In other words there is a demand that there be a redistribution of resources. Given the demands made on public expenditure this will inevitably lead to conflict with government (and its agencies) and also with other organisations seeking public funding for their cause.

Faith groups often feel uncomfortable in confronting secular organisations and governments,  whether local or national.

Faith organisations may work with government in partnership. Usually government provides the finance and the organisation engages in the work. This poses a number of issues. A faith group may bid for a contract with government to deliver government services. Such an arrangement limits the independence of the faith organisation as not only is it bound by the terms of the contract, it may be pressured to make changes to its operations at the time of contract renewal.

The fear of interference as outlined above also applies when government agrees to fund in full or in part a faith based groups'  activities.  The same concerns apply to secular groups funded in full or in part by government. Faith and secular groups need to be clear that becoming reliant on external funding leaves them wide open to demands for change in the way they operate.  It is a dirty business.

Voluntary faith and secular organisations sometimes claim to be working in partnership with other organisations when in fact they are engaged in collaborative working. The distinction is important. Partnership entails rights and duties that may have legal consequences. Collaborative working is often expressed in terms of intentions that carry no legal force. Phrases such as 'best endeavours' and 'seek to' abound. The litmus test in collaborative working is how far do you trust your collaborator to deliver?

Faith based groups should seek to make collaborative working a positive reality. For too long there has been a silo mentality in which churches give the impression of being apart from the community rather than being outwards looking and part of the community.

All this is a far cry from biblical theology but it is a consequence of following the command to love your neighbour. Is it Practical Theology?

Final points.

In the UK faith groups must not use taxpayers money to fund activities which promote faith except as an incidental consequence arising from the activity being funded. 'Incidental' might include the location where the activity takes place or the personnel involved.

I have been an employee and a volunteer for faith based and secular organisations in the voluntary sector.  The relationship between the sector and public bodies can be rewarding but it would be foolhardy to seek to minimise the very real problems and tension that exist between them.

Part 15. The Pursuit of Social Justice (1)

Many strive for social justice for themselves, for others, for communities. The community may be based on geography or interest. I am aware of four ways by which this striving may occur.

1. Direct support for those in need.

2. Demanding that the State should shoulder responsibility for direct support.

3. Demanding the State introduce measures which obviate the need for support.

4. Salf-help, either alone or in concert.

Seeking social justice for the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the victims of circumstance, bigotry or indifference is never easy.

How to engage in the pursuit  of social justice? In my limited experience it boils down to resources and organisational ability. Any group lacking a sufficiency of these two elements is doomed to struggle and eventually fail. Sadly too many people enter the labyrinthine world of  voluntary organisations, engage with bureaucracy, get chewed up and spat out. 

Direct support for those in need

Individuals may give directly to a person money, or goods, or time or their skill. Or they may give said  assistance to an organisation providing direct support. 

In the Book of Acts we read of communities of believers being together and holding everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone who had need. Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35. In Acts 11:27-30 the disciples in Antioch decided, each according to his ability, to provide help for the brothers living in Judea.

Marx in 1875 voiced the socialist mantra:

from each according to ability; to each according to need.

Similar sentiments had been expressed by French Christian socialists in the early 19th century.

The redistributive aspect of love your neighbour has influenced political and theological thinking way beyond its original context in Acts of mutual support within Christian communities.

In order to provide resources  for, and to engage, collectively  in 'ambulance' work requires a raft of skills. An organisation has to be created,  constitution agreed, financial control and funding mechanisms established,  often charity registration and many statutory requirements to adhere to. In the religious sphere some churches are equipped to undertake the work involved, many are not. Loving your neighbour can be very complicated.

 

Part 14. Latin America weighs in

Latin America is the cradle of Liberation Theology initiated in the 1960s within the Roman Catholic Church. The context is one of dictatorships or unstable democracies supporting economic and social systems which favoured the wealthy at the expense of the poor. There was extreme social and eonomic repression. The poor had no political voice, no economic clout and the Roman Catholic Church perceived at the very least as tolerating if not supporting the status quo.

Liberation Theology seeks to understand and reflect on the concerns of the oppressed by listening and responding with action in the political sphere and by direct action.

A key aspect of Liberation Theology is the recognition that that the oppressed themselves should articulate the message of Jesus in the light of their experience. Their ideas should not be directed or controlled by the Church.

Put another way: oppressed people should not sit back and meekly accept the dictats and interpretations of the Church. They should foster their own understanding and act upon it. They should be empowered. The gatekeepers should no longer dictate the message and the action.

Whilst Liberation Theology has its roots in the context of extreme social  political and economic oppression the principles can and have been applied in other contexts where a group perceives itself as being oppressed.  This includes feminist theology, black theology and issues surrounding sexual orientation.

Liberation Theology was criticised by the Roman Catholic Church as having its roots in Marxism although it proponents argued it was merely using the tools of Marxist analysis. 

In reponse to Liberation Theology the Roman Catholic Church has developed the concept of social justice. The Vatican has stated the following:

Jesus taught us that on the Day of Judgement God will ask what each of us did to help the poor and needy: "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of the least brothers of mine, you did for me ".  This is reflected in the Church's  canon law, which states, "The Christian faithful are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord   to assist the poor from their own resources".

Through our words, prayers and deeds we must show solidarity with,   and compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy we must always keep the "preferential option for the poor" at the forefront of our minds. The moral test of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.  The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.

Pope Benedict XVI has taught that "love for widows and orphans, prisoners  and the sick and needy of every kind  is as essential as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel ".  This preferential option for the poor and vulnerable includes all who are marginalised in our nation and beyond - unborn children  persons with disabilities,  the elderly and terminally ill, and victims of injustice and oppression.

How well do we as individuals and collectively  respond to what Jesus calls us to do? Do we stay in our bubbles of piety or go out and challenge the secular powers to act?  Do we stand with the victims of injustice and oppression and empower them?  The God of love is calling us....

Part 13. Social Responsibilty. Theological Musings.

A few rambling thoughts.  Probably disjointed, but then I make no claims to be a theologian, nor do I seek to influence anyone.  I declare my opinions openly. No wishy-washy ambiguities, no weasel words, no sitting on the fence. I am going to enjoy the journey into the theology of social responsibility. I hope you do.

My starting point is our old friend the second Great Commandment love your neighbour as yourself. We noted before that defining who my neighbour is may be construed broadly. My overall impression is of New Testament emphasis on individuals being supported (ambulance work) rather than structural change. In support of this I refer to the Parable of the Good Samaritan and also Matthew 25:31-46.  Both emphasise the duty on Christians to give freely assistance to those in need. Love in action.

Does this mean Christians do not have a responsibility to confront social injustice and the misery resulting from it? Far from it.  In an earlier post I noted that Jesus stated that all the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.  Passages in Isaiah expressly refer to social injustice and the wording of the Beatitudes (Matthew 5: 1-12) and passages in Luke's Gospel point to a Christian responsibility to press for change to end social injustice. In future parts I shall consider this in more detail and also the impact of Liberation Theology with particular reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

Part 12. JK Galbraith. The Underclass.

JK Galbraith published two works which had a major influence on my thinking. One is entitled The Affluent Society. The other is The Culture Of Contentment.  Each is a critique of the USA economic, social and political system but the message it contains applies equally to developed democratic capitalist nations (and others like China).

Galbraith identifies in capitalist societies the existence of what he names  an underclass. This underclass is poorly educated, lives in bad housing, is in badly paid jobs or unemployed, prone to ill-health and the communities they live in  have poor infrastructure and support services. Set against this there is a contented class in well paid jobs, access to the best medical and educational provision  living in good housing and enjoying a congenial working environment.

The contented class rely on the work undertaken by the underclass to maintain their lifestyle. The contented class is electorally strong and politicians are keen for their votes.  The consequence is that the contented class has its hands on the levers of government. As a result governments will seek to protect the contented class and not raise taxes to fund better living conditions for the underclass nor remedy the eroding of infrastructure and support services for those living in deprived communities.

Galbraith conclues that the USA has the resources to tackle the issues he describes, it lacks the political will to resolve them.