A couple of weekends ago I went to the Progressive Christian Network’s conference Godly Mayhem with Pete Rollins, Ketherine Moody and George Elerick. During the Q&A after one of Pete’s talks someone asked where’s the ressurection?
I think the answer is that the ressurection is everywhere. We are surrounded by the hope and promise of fufilment from the sermons preached in church to the adverts that we see on TV. We want and expect constant ressurection without having to experience death. I see this in Good Friday – a day set aside for the observance of Christ’s death. A day in which to sit with this loss and experience it. However so many Christians can’t help but add to their sermons or announce on Facebook that “Sunday’s coming”. We can’t allow ourselves to experience death we just want to hear about the promise of ressurection. So I think that the important thing is that, what Pete calls, deserts in the oasis exist and I think that was part of the point in the conference. The conference wasn’t about ressurection it was about us being in touch with doubt, suffering and death. In order to bring about a balance within the engulfing fixation on ressurection spaces without talk or promise of resurrection need to exist. If they were trying to hold the balance of death and ressurection within themselves they wouldn’t be being effective in trying to bring about an overall balance.
The other answer to the question, I think, is that ressurection is an experience and it isn’t dependent on talk about or promise of itself. In bringing up to the surface our doubts, pain and experiencing our ghosts we are able to be freed from them. Perhaps, at least sometimes, in order to give the experience of ressurection the very least thing that you should do is talk about it.
I wrote this over a year ago but, for some reason, never published it. I’ve just found it in my drafts and thought I would share it now.
I’ve had a brilliant summer with my (The Order of the) Black Sheep family spending time with them at a wedding, providing the welfare provision at Bloodstock and going to Greenbelt together this last weekend. I feel so amazingly blessed to be part of that community and spending this time with them over the summer has lead me to thinking about what community is and ways in which it may be possible to identify when a real community has been formed. The first mark I’ve noticed is people self-identifying themselves as being part of the community. A sign of this may be people saying “I am a…”* depending on whether the name of the community lends itself to this. Community affects our identity as we start to think of the whole rather than just ourselves and so we identify ourselves as being part of the whole. Secondly people aren’t required to attend x, y or z to be considered (and to be able to feel) that they are part of the community. They may only occasionally, or never, make it to your main worship gathering but are able to feel that they are and are treated as a fully included member of the community in whatever they do to engage with it, be that social gatherings, events etc. Thirdly there is no confessional condition to membership. The group may have a confessional statement such as a creed or a statement of belief that guides it as an organisation and many members may subscribe to this but this isn’t used to exclude people who don’t subscribe to it. The community meets people where they are, rather than expecting them to fast track to where the community is. There may be members who never subscribe to the confessional statement. I think that these are good signs that a true community is forming.
Wow… it’s been a while. Anyway here’s a confession and something that I thought was worth sharing.
I’m an Anglican (that isn’t the confession, by the way) and I really like the way in which the lectionary leads us through the year and the different seasons. In fact it winds me up when churches claim not to be liturgical and reject the idea of following such a pattern – I assume they all still celebrate christmas, easter etc at the same time that the appear in the liturgical calendar.
I, therefore, have a thing about Christmas starting and ending at the right times. I.e.a 12 day festival starting after Midnight mass on Christmas eve/going into Christmas morning. And it really irritates me that Christmas starts earlier and earlier. I have my own little protests about this, i.e when I’ll set up my own decorations and when I take them back down again. Working in retail until earlier this year really didn’t help me either with Christmas songs starting in October and the store loosing anything remotely Christmasy before we went home Christmas eve (before Christmas has even begun!).
I had a colleague in my old job who used to like to start the countdown to Christmas in the summer months, it would “mysteriously” appear on the briefing boards to keep us all informed. Every time it happened I’d give out a little groan and would moan at her (in a friendly, wind up kind of way). I think she quite liked that it got to me to be honest. She loved Christmas and was able to get excited about it that early.
One day when this had happened I went to give my usual reaction but another thought overcame me. It was of Jesus looking into the situation and what he would say. I somehow don’t imagine that it would be “Well done James, you kept the rules and made others aware of them by moaning consistently” It was something more along the lines of “Don’t you see, she loves the celebration of my birth – now I know she’s not a Christian and she probably isn’t really thinking of me and it is a little early but she is celebrating – she loves it. This is the kind of heart I am after. Why would you want to put a dampener on it?” Damn, that stopped me in my tracks.
So this year I pledge to be less of a pharisee over Christmas, and take joy in seeing others getting excited about the celebration of Christ’s birth – even if they are getting it all wrong. I’m still going to do my best to observe advent first and save Christmas to the official 12 day period as much as I can (my desk decoration will be going up Christmas eve at work). I find the period of waiting and preparation in advent spiritual and it is very much part of the journey to Christmas for me. But I’m going to think twice before I tell others that they are wrong.
As reported in the news this week Justin Welby (the Archbishop of Canterbury) has said that he wants to compete Wonga out of existence through the use of credit unions. This, in itself, is great: the interest rates charged by the likes of Wonga and other “pay day lenders” is extortionate and shouldn’t be allowed. However, it was later revealed that the Church of England had, inadvertently and indirectly, invested in Wonga even though this is against the ethical investment policy of the church. It seems that they used a “pooled investment vehicle” to invest and this had funded Wonga. Of course this is unfortunate and the church would not have deliberately or directly invested in Wonga. However these investment companies allow people not to really know (unless they were to ask) where the money is being invested and, therefore, allows them to claim innocence once it emerges that the money had been used in a way deemed unethical. Of course, though, it is likely that people know that investment companies often don’t stick to ethical codes but pretend no to know this so that they don’t have to deal with their actions in sending the funds that way and this may have been what happened. But this is something that we all do, for instance when we buy a chocolate bar that hasn’t come from an ethical source (most chocolate available on the shelves in the supermarket etc). In order to buy that chocolate bar we pretend that we don’t know of the shit, underpaid conditions that the chocolate has been produced through although we all, of course, do understand that this is what happens thanks to documentaries, news pieces etc. By pretending not to know, what we really know, we can convince ourselves on a superficial level that the chocolate “probably” hasn’t been produced unethically and therefore can cope with the decision that we have made to buy it and still believe ourselves to be moral beings. We all suffer from cognitive dissonance, a difference in what we believe (that people shouldn’t have to work in such crappy conditions to produce our chocolate) and our actions (buying chocolate bars that have been produced in crappy conditions), in some way and the pretence helps us to avoid dealing with this dissonance.
Our cognitive dissonance causes us to seek out the immorality and inconsistency within others. By pointing this out, even if only to ourselves, we are able to distract ourselves from our own dissonance by concentrating on someone else’s. Many people this week were keen to jump on the church’s “inconsistency” for this purpose. It is the perfect institution for this as it holds itself to be concerned with ethical issues and so we are able to point and go “look at what those supposedly ethical people have done, they are really bad”. Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t point out where things have been gotten wrong, or gloss over it (and it certainly needs to be sorted out so that it doesn’t happen again) but perhaps we need to start by recognising our own cognitive dissonance before making lots of noise about someone else’s – we may just find it humbling.
Paul Tillich wrote that “serious doubt is confirmation of faith.” At first, and to many, this would seem a contradictory statement that can’t make sense. Indeed for many Christians certainty is the confirmation of faith.
I very much feel that I identify with the statement from Tillich; to misquote Lewis Carroll it sometimes feels like I’ve had 6 contradictory thoughts about faith before breakfast. My walk of faith is an uncertain one and often my only honest answer is “I don’t know”. I have wondered on several occasions if I was loosing my faith, only to find it restored once again.
Serious doubt is confirmation of faith for me because it means that I care, that wrestling with this often confusing and difficult thing called faith is worth it for me. That I am willing to continue to engage, question, search, and pray through the difficult periods in my faith, the periods where it seems that all is lost and it seems pointless surely indicates that I have faith and that I take it seriously.
I’m not claiming this to be the only confirmation of faith but without doubt it certainly is one if the ways in which faith is confirmed.
Yesterday the House of Commons had the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill along with a debate. The vote passed with a large majority and it will now go to be ammended by the House of Commons before being passed to the House of Lords and so on before, hopefully, becoming law. Much has been heard of the Christians in parliament who in the weeks leading up to the vote who went on to speak and vote against the bill but watching the debate yesterday there were also those who spoke and voted in favour, but this isn’t covered so readily in the media so I thought I would outline the Christian support for the bill in the House of Commons. All quotes from the debate are taken from the They Work For You transcript available here.
Toby Perkins Labour MP for Chesterfield:
As a Christian, I see Christianity as a tremendously generous religion. As I have said previously, I think that Jesus Christ led the way on promoting equalities. There are any number of stories in the Bible that make it absolutely clear that Jesus stuck up for groups that had been oppressed over the years. As a Christian, I feel entirely comfortable voting in favour of this Bill. As someone who got married at the famous Crooked Spire church in Chesterfield, I do not think that my marriage will be besmirched or undermined in any way by the fact that gay people in the future might also be able to say that they are married.
See the whole of Toby’s speech here.
Stephen Doughty Labour MP for Cardiff South and Penarth:
Although it is of great personal regret to me that my Church currently does not permit same-sex marriage, what is exemplified in that quote—as, indeed, it is in the rest of the Bill—is that it will not be forced to do so under the proposed legislation. There could not be a more respectful and appropriate compromise. Let me be clear: I will argue and pray for my Church to change its mind from within, but that is fundamentally a theological decision for my Church. The Bill is about not compulsion but permission—permission for the state to offer the legal institution of marriage to all those who request it, and permission for religious organisations to do the same should they so wish.
The whole speech is available here.
Susan Elan Jones Labour MP for Clwyd South:
Let me explain my main reason for wanting to speak in this debate. As a straight woman of the Christian faith, I cannot believe it is right that I could be married in a church—and also that people of no faith whatever could be married in a church—yet believers who are lesbian and gay are shunned by the civil laws of the land on this issue, and even denominations that freely wish to marry them are barred from performing one of the most fundamental sacramental and pastoral duties. Do Members honestly believe that we should say to a Quaker couple whose meeting house wishes to perform a religious ceremony that they should be unable to have that, or that we should say the same to reformed or liberal Jews or to Unitarians? What about the United Reformed Church, which brought in religious ceremonies for civil partnerships last year? That Church was created from non-conformist traditions whose adherents were once barred from standing for office in this place and barred from our universities, and whose burial rites were not permitted in our parish churchyards. Do Members seriously believe that, in the 21st century, we should be denying religious freedom to those faith groups again?
The whole of Susan’s speech is here
Jonathan Reynolds Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde:
Having listened carefully to the representations I have received from constituents on both sides of the debate, I will vote for equal marriage today. I will do so because I am a Christian, not in spite of it.
I have just taken this small part of Jonathan’s speech as I couldn’t just select on part to include here you can read the whole speech that he gave here.
David Lammy Labour MP for Tottenham
The Jesus I know was born a refugee, illegitimate, with a death warrant on his name, and in a barn among animals. He would stand up for minorities. That is why it is right for those of religious conviction to vote for this Bill.
David Lammy’s speech was very passionate, one of the best speeches in favour during the debate. Again I have only inclded a couple of lines as choosing just one part of his speech isn’t really possible. I suggest watching the whole speech here. However, if you would prefer to read it you can find his speech (split as he gave way to another member here and here.
Eric Ollerenshaw Conservative MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood.
I equate this debate with what happened to divorce law in the previous century. Interestingly, in all this talk about marriage always being the same and its continued popularity, no one seems to have mentioned the loosening of the divorce laws. As I said, I am a Roman Catholic, and in that faith divorce is treated differently, but nobody, to my knowledge, has ever challenged the right of a Roman Catholic priest or, indeed, an Anglican to refuse to marry a divorced couple. It has never actually happened, and that is how I see this issue. I approach it with principles based on the reciprocity that exists in any democratic society between minorities and our protection of their rights. I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.
Other Members mentioned civil partnerships. Mr Lammy went slightly over the top and historically I think he was incorrect. It was not Rosa Parks to begin with. The principle of separate but equal was defined as wrong by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Topeka Education Board in 1959—if my history teaching is still there. Nevertheless, he was right about it being different. All we are asking for in the Bill, principally, is civil marriage. The majority of existing civil marriages are between divorcees, so the Roman Catholic Church does not recognise them anyway, and that is fine; it is permitted—and it will be permitted to keep its particular beliefs in this case as well.
Some faiths—this is where the theology gets complicated—and Christian groups actually want to carry out these marriages. I thought that was what I came here to do—to protect those freedoms and retain that balance. As I said, that is the principle I work on: a reciprocity between minorities in respect of their beliefs and right to carry on with their lifestyle as they wish, provided it does not interfere with that of others. I do not see how the Bill creates any problems with that or will prevent me in future from defending the Plymouth Brethrens, the Jewish faith, my own Church’s faith or the Muslim faith.
It’s great to see that a Catholic (who appears to theologically be against same sex marriage) speaking in favour of the bill, happy with the provisions in place to protect those who cannot consciously offer marriage to same sex couples. The full speech is here.
Mark Menzies Conservative MP for Fylde.
I am a Catholic and religious freedoms are very important to me, as is my religion, but so too are equality and tolerance. I think that the Bill protects both those things. I came here to abstain, but I have listened to the debate like I have listened to no other, and it is now my intention not to abstain, but to support the Bill .
This was the whole of Mark’s speech but you can see it here if you wish to.
The only way that I had of identifying Christians who spoke in favour of the bill was to look for those who called themselves a Christian or a Catholic during their speech so there may be others that I have missed. It is great to see the Christian support for this bill in the house and the passionate, well thought speeches that they made. The bill, with it’s protection, increases religious freedom as it allows those of us who would want to to offer religious same sex marriage without forcing anyone who doesn’t want to to do so and I am personally very pleased that the vote passed in favour of the bill last night.
My dissertation looks at the manipulation of identity by the capitalist system, exploiting anxiety to make a profit and the narratives that are used to do this. I explore, in one section, the infantalisation of society – how we act and aim to look younger, buying into the kidult market. The narrative that we are told is that to be young is to have value and mean something. For Paul Tillich we hold the inescapable anxiety of meaninglessness and one result of this is the anxiety of death. Our tastes, therefore, are manipulated into being more infantile, for instance the increasing average age of video games players or the 50% of visitors to Disney Land who are childless adults. We try our best to hold onto our youth and retain our value. Once we are unable to maintain the narrative of still being young purely trough the products that we buy we are then encouraged to buy age defying creams and cosmetic procedures to attempt to hide the outward signs of our ageing. To get old is to approach death, which causes us great anxiety and so we cling on to our youth for as long as possible.
The human race has invested much time and money into lengthening life through science, medicine, and better quality of life. The expected life span increases constantly, therefore each generation can expect to live longer than their parents. Slowly but surely we are learning to defy death for longer and longer periods of time. This morning on Radio 4’s Saturday Live Sian Williams interviewed 100 year old Violet Coleman as it’s now expected that girls born today can be expected to live to 100. Violet was a wonderful woman who still had much life in her. Afterwards they read a text from a viewer saying that he didn’t think that the generation being born would live longer due to the growing levels of obesity and that the trend of increasing life expectancy will be altered. Rev’d Richard Coles referred to these as “life shortening habits” that we seem to have taken on as a society. This got me thinking, through our anxiety of death we have been trying to lengthen our time on earth and delay it as long as possible, however, we are now confronted with the reality of achieving this aim and experiencing lengthened life; perhaps the thought of living to these great ages, now that is has become a reality, causes greater anxiety than the thought of death therefore we are taking on new habits that will shorten our life expectancy. If getting old causes meaningless then why would we want to lengthen the experience? The anxiety of death is wrapped up in the greater anxiety of meaninglessness and so, ironically, by extending our lives we are actually extending our experience of death as we wait longer and longer for it to take us. Eternal life (at least life experienced as eternal before death) is actually a scarier thought than dying itself. As Richard Coles pointed out on the show “death gives life meaning” and by destroying death we risk removing the meaning of life itself.