Knock and the Door shall be Opened for You?

Yesterday A Lib-Dem, A Tory and A Labourite walked into a restaurant. It sounds like the start of a bad joke, but it was in fact my dinner last evening and when these facts came to light things got rather animated, possibly to the discomfiture of the rest of the table. Now I'm not here to recount whatever arguments we were having, but I will observe that according to the Tory Austerity is both working and still the only way, and according to the Lib-Dem, the party was being absolutely 'principled' in going into coalition and has made a huge difference to the present government. I suppose somewhere in the midst of this conversation I, the hapless labourite forced to listen to just how well this country is doing with inflation, unemployment and flatlining economy, had an enlightened moment and felt if labour were in power, in coalition with the lib-dems, exactly the same things would be said, though by slightly different people. What I was told by an MP once holds true; it really is just a game.

I found myself in a funny position defending Labour, seeing as I dislike most of its trajectory over my lifetime, in effect, apparently unlike the other two, I sort of look a bit uncomfortable with being seen under a particular banner. However for all my cynicism of the theatrics of political life, I more than met my match in Neil Jameson, Mr. Citizens UK himself, who was meeting with some Jellicoe interns in the afternoon, who even managed to dismiss the events in Tunisia as a false dawn and the Occupy protests as a fruitless distraction from real change.

I bring it up though because also at that meeting there were a lot of gloomy comments concerning St. Paul's decision to lock its doors and potentially find ways of evicting protestors from the Cathedral area, ostensibly on health and safety grounds, yet just happening to mention the lost revenue from half-term and of course all Giles Fraser came out and supported their right to protest. The Occupiers are not the only ones who are baffled. As the article linked to goes on to indicate, many seem to think the Cathedral is in cahoots with the Corporation of London, and I have read one or two commentary pieces saying as much outright. I have no idea myself behind those Cathedral doors, but it certainly allows me to find my idealistic voice:

These actions not only make the Church look incredibly stupid, saying one thing, doing another, saying something different about it, seemingly not have considered the camp as a longer term project at all but it's just a completely wasted opportunity to engage with people who clearly have a lot of passion for a just cause, many of whom probably do feel done over by the system and who care deeply for others disenfranchised by our political and economic systems. Exactly the sort of people, one might say that Jesus would want to meet with, invite to the wedding feast. Perhaps an established Church is fearful of picking a clearly partisan side, but I think few would deny which side a Church following its principles would, should come down on.

Many have pointed out that if they're worried about blocked walkways, the Cathedral could always open its doors to the tents. At the very least, they could be out there meaningfully talking over what should be a huge wealth of common ground, sharing the gospel, showing the protestors their own marks of the divine in their current commitments. But it is not to be. A wonderful opportunity fully wasted and done with as gracelessly as possible. I have seen people on Twitter saying the protestors should be reasonable and move on, but an institution that wishes to walk 'the narrow way' who prays for the will of God to be done on earth, as it is in heaven, has no business putting the pragmatic considerations first.

Hang the cost, support the cause, or if not the cause, then at least the people who still need supplies and must be perishingly cold out there, why accrue animosity with them instead? I think there was some guy in the religion somewhere, quite important, who said 'strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness [and] do not worry about tomorrow' ..?

I will say it's good advice, for the vexing actions of the Cathedral certainly have brought sufficient troubles to worry about today. And though I may not have much belief in Party politics, I certainly still believe in doing the right thing without counting the cost, and I just wish that St. Paul's would share that view.As for the meeting with Neil Jameson, he eventually revealed his idealist colours as he talked proudly of the changes brought about in Newham hospital thourgh organized civic pressure. Although the Occupiers may have less realistic asks at the moment, but every good Community Organiser knows the publicity can make a big difference to achieving one's aims. Stand firm protestors, and we shall wee what tomorrow brings...

My Contribution to the ongoing quest of Liturgical Revision

After a mere 4 days at studying the Liturgy, I feel like my views of the subject of early Eucharistic practice have already crystalized.

Thus I find my take on the raging controversies that surround the questions of the Beginnings of the Christian Eucharist, and put forward to the Liturgy commission this minor adjustment to the Eucharistic prayer:

‘Who, in the same night he was betrayed,

Took bread and gave you thanks;

He broke it and gave it, and gave it to his disciples saying:

‘Now, I hope you’re watching what I’m doing really carefully, because one day whole careers are going to rest on the precise order I do these things’

And Peter Said ‘But Lord, who among us has been watching you the whole time? What is significant about tonight? For he had not yet understood the Lord’s teaching that this was the night of his betrayal.

‘Truly I tell you’ said Christ ‘you shall see the meaning of my action soon enough, and the symbolic importance of my words, but I beseech you; look past all that and watch my hands very carefully...’

And placing down the Bread next to the Cup he said ‘Now did bread or cup come first and where precisely during the meal?’

And the disciples replied ‘surely the precise ordering is irrelevant Lord? Is it not important that we understand its spiritual meaning? Where does the cup even come into it?’

And Jesus answered them ‘Bread, cup, cup, bread? Let he with eyes to see, see, for he shall use his hands to handle in a few weeks’ time’

And the disciples said ‘this is a hard teaching, who can understand it?’

And Christ tilted his head to one side and said ‘You know what lads, you’re right; this is ridiculous, but I do know a rather good miracle involving a bottle and a cup that switch places if you’d rather I showed you that?’

And donning a fez, he performed many signs and wonders in front of his disciples and they had a great Last Supper together with much joy and laughter.

Amen’[1]

And were I feeling particularly dark, I may well add the phrase 'and Judas pondered these things in his heart, for he had memorized exactly what christ had done.'

---

[1] Common Worship, Church of England Eucharistic Prayer A (minor paraphrase)

Start the day (as) Beethoven

So I wake up this morning and catching myself in the mirror I noticed that thanks to growing it out and the semi-permanent windsweepage induced through cycling down the odd wind tunnel mostly towards college. My Hair has rather come to resemble, almost exactly:

This I should note is Big News for it in fact achieves a small ambition of mine that I had when I was teenager. Yes that's right, when everyone else was growing their hair long and styling it into those variations of 'emo' fringes, I was consciously trying to imitate the father of Romantic Music.

Thus to celebrate this important occasion I have decided to celebrate by sharing the third movement of Symphony number 7. This particular movement is very special to me; I once played the whole symphony with the college orchestra but it was so distinctly amateurish that when I listened to number 7 by you know, a good orchestra, several months later it was only by halfway through movement three (and that's almost half an hour in) that I actually recognized as something I had played, such was the quality of our performance.

Good Day to you all, I hope to put up something on the 'Occupy' protests later today.

Brief Response to Raj Gupta

Twitter trawling late at night is such a bad idea. Nevertheless this little number on the Sydney Anglicans Website did catch my attention and I would like to note a thought or two on the matter, and seeing as I'm quite unlikely to have much interaction with the diocese of Sydney any time soon, the hassle of registering and leaving a reply there seemed a bit much.

So the suggestion by Raj Gupta is that the traditional church liturgy feels a bit old hat and a lot of people don't really 'connect' with it as such.

He asks rhetorically, 'Is the central issue the content or form of the liturgy, or is issue the liturgical nature itself?' and the particular answer he provides is interesting to me, for he seems to offer a somewhat conflicted answer, whilst making much of his own experiences and the thoughts of others about feeling alienated from the old rituals, but when he at the same time declares:

"Do not misunderstand me. I am all for preserving good theology. I am all for teaching via our practices, and the repetition of them."

Which does rather beg the question of how such a thing could be achieved that did not resemble the form of a liturgy. Indeed his closing sentence: "Maybe our issue is particular liturgy forms" seems to indicate that the central issue as stated above would in fact be the former, if we're only going to be negotiating particulars.

Of course, it's a well-worn truism that every Church has a liturgy, some just don't realise it, or acknowledge it, and I think most can appreciate that certain phrases crop frequently in supposedly non-liturgical churches, and that there's a shape and an order to the worship more often than not.

So I suppose the real question comes from the idea that the more traditional liturgy is 'out of touch'. And I think going deeper, a bit of unpacking of this statement would be useful. I am deeply sympathetic to those who wish to encourage people to come to Church, to feel that worship is something they are really participating in, but the liturgy is...out of touch with what exactly?

Here I must offer my disagreement with Raj when he says Anglican liturgical inheritance only goes back as far as the Reformation. Liturgy is old. Specifically Christian Liturgy seems to be traceable back to the first century. In Corinthians 10 and 11 (esp 11 23-26) We see words that have a formulaic feel, indeed they have passed down to modern liturgy. I have recently embarked upon studying Liturgy as part of my degree, and frankly I regret it having spent a whole day caught in a simply fascinating discussion as to whether the earliest liturgical practice was to do Bread - Cup or Cup - Bread, or whether there were local variations and whether it started as something sacramental or eschatological[1] etc. etc.

The point I wish to make is that it's not out of touch with the Church itself, in preserving the ancient way of public worship (at least in the Eucharist) we have a connection that (not entirely untenuously, of course, but authentically all the same, I think) stretches right back to the first Christians, and even Christ himself, indeed. Formulaic prayers and certain ritual acts are part and parcel of the Jewish religious milieu that the Church emerges from, so we shouldn't be surprised.

This also goes some way into the possibility that it is out of touch with modernity, for is this really what the Church should be worried about? The Orthodox church of course has barely changed in worship style for centuries- so deeply ingrained is the style of worship that certain pockets of the Russian faithful in the 17th Century preferred to schism and die over such dramatic changes as the way one shapes their hand whilst making the sign of the cross and the spelling of 'Jesus'.

Yet I have yet to meet a person outside of the Christian spectrum...or within for that matter who has not felt something of the beauty of that (entirely liturgical) worship, and felt the holiness that seems to radiate as it goes on, myself included. Perhaps part of that unchanging feel, that weight of history and depth of theology gives an immediate sensation at the least, of something deep and authentic.

Understanding the why Liturgy is 'out of touch' I suspect, has more to do with the personal and particular expectations and desires of those who declare it so, which is somewhat problematic for a real faith cannot grow from the desires of the self, it can only grow by losing the self-will within the Divine, opening oneself to God that he may move in. I've personally found that by taking part in something with a timeless quality in unity with churches across the globe and through time, in rhythm with people immediately around me helps in many ways towards this forgetfulness of the self and to be taken up into something bigger, but as the article says, anecdotes are probably not the best way of determining policy.

I do submit myself to correction however; can anyone help further explain the felt sense of liturgy's irrelevance? and perhaps if Mr. Gupta is reading this himself (and I would consider that an honour) I would be interested to hear more about what he envisages coming under a 'different approach' even if it's only a sketchy thing currently.

For myself, I am weary of simply doing away with centuries of ancient tradition just to cater to the contemporary whims of what Chesterton calls 'the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about'. I think there's a holiness to it, and it binds us with the Church as a whole; across denominations, across the globe, and across time.

[1]Consult Luke's Last Supper narrative which has an anomalous 2 cups and a farewell discourse - a sign of two strands of ancient eucharist being clumsily plonked together?

Big Issues 1 - Why Believe in God?

Leaving the Buddhism Lecture at one in the afternoon, I couldn't help but notice just how hungry I was. Unfortunately, this being Friday, I was also skint, and home is a 12 minute cycle away at a choppy pace. There was however the text message in my pocket, received at somepoint between the question of just how influenced Gautama had been by Brahminism and examples of BC representations of him where they refused to portray him as a man (opting instead for tree, wheel, Stupa): 'Hi Nathan it's mj...Talk at the Mitre...Free Lunch...lovely to see you again'. True, it had been a while since I had seen her, and I did feel bad for never replying to her email about Mary. More importantly the Mitre is only a minute away by bike, and that's going slowly. Lunch, for free too, just one minute away. All I had to do was sit through some talk or other. Not a problem.

Of course, actually I knew exactly what was going on at the Mitre - Big Issues, hosted by OICCU, The Oxford Christian Union. The last time I had been goaded in by the prospect of a 'free' lunch, I had left distinctly irritated, if not scandalised by the apologetics of the man they had brought in. I forget precisely what he said but I do recall that his account of reason and revelation from his perspective made it rather difficult to maintain the exclusive truth of the christian religion, something he was simultaneously quite keen to assert, amongst other things. And it's so hard (though in truth I do get a rather wicked little twinge of pleasure) to tell all those nice, smiling people how little you thought of speaker's arguments, only occasionally explaining why.

But who knows? Maybe he was just a bad speaker, maybe the quality is usually better. Fair enough, in dealing with this particular topic, something like 'Did God make Man or Man make God?' I didn't expect in 40-odd minutes much of a foray into secular understandings of the origin of religion (Note to self: read those notes given to you on Clifford Geertz) or a particularly systematic approach looking closely at how faith may fit in with modern epistemological positions or much like that. But still, what was left left me distinctly irritated, nay scandalised! At first he engendered my sympathy, this speaker, he apologised for the unnecessarily androcentric title of the talk which apparently had not been his decision, and then started what Kierkegaard might call a platitudinous introduction sounding of bad things 'christians' had said treating God as a 'ventriloquist's dummy' (no mention of just how sincere and genuine these people's faiths might have been, it seemed tacitly assumed that they are at best erroneous fools with no real understanding of the bible, or at worst cynical hypocrites manipulating the externals of religion to further their own, rather more worldly power).

Then he manages to make a dig at atheism, and those rather soft targets of certain 20th century dictators. I'll admit I was quite busy adding cheese to a roll at this point but he may well have upheld Godwin's Law, I certainly heard 'Stalin' thrown in at any rate. And points out atheists say 'well that's not what atheism is'. Seemingly assuming that there is beyond the denial of deity their is an essential atheism, that is 'more true' than other atheisms, not to mention that atheism in this model is taken to be the prime cause of these atrocities, which is grossly unfair, particularly since he had just been making the point that allegiance to a deity emphatically does little to prevent atrocities. I kind of have an issue or two with treating atheism as analogous to christianity in that they 'should' feel the responsibility of history and former generations, feel all bound together and things like that. I'm pretty sure they're not quite encumbered as a Christian, since an atheist is not bound to tradition and can freely reject what they see as 'unreasonable' (even if their particular reasoning is not always completely coherent) .

Anyway, if I carry on listing all my criticisms of the talk I shall be here all day so I shall simply chart them out in brief and try to keep the guttersniping to a minimum. So, the thing is it very quickly became a talk on Evidence for God. The attempt was to try and preserve the full-force of revealed (and of course Evangelical) Christianity (Liberal christians coincidentally, much like the bad christians mentioned above, don't take their positions from good faith, but merely, cynically, pick and choose what they like and don't like and maintain and discard it accordingly) under the sort of theoretical suppositions consonant with Post-enlightenment (though not really postmodern, that wasn't touched upon) thought. Thus the speaker wished, in a nutshell, to argue that there was a 'bridge' over the gap between faith a reason, so one can happily walk from one to other, under a system of thought that had systematically burned it quite a while back, or so I thought.

So what are ther easoned and empiracle evidences for God. True to Evangelical style he boiled it down to 'Three Es' Experience, Evidence (..?) and I forget the third one.

Religious experience of course, speaks for itself, and is quite a powerful reason for many of course because in all sincereity they really felt like they were feeling 'something'. Of course there's no reason at the same time to conclude in the truth of a Trinitarian God and an Incarnate Son raised from the Dead etc. etc. from seeing a particualrly pretty sunset (one of his examples). Feelings are not the same as content. More interesting was the experience that comes from a specifically 'religious' activity (he cited 'hearing the voice of God' as someone read out the bible) but again, no discussion on how far this relies on presupposed ideas of God that can be gained from general exposure to local culture, one may also legitimately wonder how far along these matters one has gone if their in a context where they can not only hear a bible being read out, but are in fact listening to it. Since we had already begun from the point that the 'true god' was the bible-based one, it was a little surprising that no space was given over to the question as to how the sensation of the numinous from a different religious persuasion was less legitimate, or what one is meant to do when such a 'feeling' takes them in a different religious context- talking from my own experience as one of the baptised, I have felt the God-itch when hearing the Qu'ran read out at a mosque and whilst watching worshippers in a Hindu temple - should I therefore, on the strength of these incoherent feelings conclude that thier religious systems are also true?

Evidence was a quite good one too. He begins by noting that in the experienced realm, we can't be certain of everything, his example was crossing the road, he noted there just might be a patch of superglue in the road and their just might be a steamroller coming round the corner at the same time, yet we did not expect to die whilst crossing the road to get to this talk. Then comes my favourite bit. THEREFORE we shouldn't worry if we can't be 100% 'philosophically certain' (that phrase kept cropping up an awful lot in this 12 minute slot) about the existence of God. Our evidence from life indicates we're unlikely to die crossing the road, and we also have evidence for God...wait for it...from the BIBLE! (stoppit nathan, don't be so condescending). That's right coming to faith is just like crossing the road. An assumption of not dying based on a huge repository of direct experience whilst traversing some tarmac is strictly analogous with trusting a source which can't be verified by experience (the gap of 2000ish years and all that) discussing something which, ultimately, according to Christian tradition has no directly comparable object in creation ayway (that being God obviously). Even better that he used the Gospel of Luke which specifically declares itself to be at least a second-hand account, the author hasn't even verified it by experience.

And because the book says Jesus committed Miracles (something I do not commonly experience) and came back from the dead (again something rather unusual) we should take it as historical fact. Merely on the strength that the author himself has declared this to be an orderly account derived from eyewitnesses.

We then rather career of track a bit by learning that God can speak directly to us through the words of the text, and a good prayer is apparently 'God, if you exist, please speak to me now'. My head still spins from trying to work out this preposterous request. And if a total nonbeliever actually said that in all sincerity and then heard nothing, would the speaker then count that as a legitimate nonexperience of God confirming the truth of atheism? Of course now we're on the matter of experience again...I'm sensing some blurring of the categories here...it's almost like he just plucked three E's as a rhetorical device and just tried to squeeze his arguments into them.

'This is hell' I'm thinking by now. Actually I'm not, I'm thinking I'm back in Sunday school as a six year old. The table with the orange and blackcurrant squashes in plastic cups is not dispelling this comparison. Thinking about Sunday School though, perhaps hell is not quite so far from the truth after all. MJ, now to my left, looks quite unimpressed as well. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I must admit I didn't quite catch all of E number three, I was too drawn into thinking why I wasn't outside in the sunshine, or how much I wanted to throw a javelin in his foot. Why a javelin or his foot specifically I couldn't tell you but there it is. I do distinctly recall it was the argument drawn from moral reasoning, a delicate conflation of the question of where moral sense comes from and how can we know what is right and wrong. Highlighting the absurdity of morality based solely on majority opinion, he nevertheless declined to offer any other arguments against theories of morality which are slightly closer to reality.

Then at some point in the questions, he noted a conflict between his feelings on the matter of the exclusive claims of Christ to the truth (contentious interpretation of the bible of course but I'll move on without further comment) and his own, more ecumenical feelings. But if his sense of right and wrong is derived from God....and the Bible is also from God...but you don't like what it says... He also notes God gives us space for grey in morality without seemingly appreciating that his system ultimately demands a right and wrong eventually and gave no clue as to how we weigh up conflicting positions (though perhaps the last bit is the unstated answer...intriguingly he cited abortion as one of these sensitive areas, which may well mean that I actually have found something where I am the more inflexible one, but I don't know how far he feels about it really). He also noted morality as 'progressive' for humanity, New Testament beats Old but it doesn't seem to occur to him to question whether anything beats New...

I'm not really angry, but this facile, muddled, feeble Christianity is surely a poison for anyone who does a little thinking about it. How that man was able to reach that age and come to this line of thought does leave one wondering about the abilities of most teachers in Christendom. Truly I went partly because in the morning I had been pondering the word's of a friend when she noted that Anglo-Catholicism is a rather negative identity in many respects, derived from a rejection of Evangelicalism (and I might and concurrent with, of course, a rejection of the Roman Catholic Church) which made me wonder about the blind-spots of such a faith, particularly since I know of a few at least who in their own lives have lived out this historical trajectory. Yet if this is what I left behind, then suddenly I don't feel quite so bad about it. This foolish speaker who fails to see the enormous consequences of the system he proposes, its thoroughly absurd claims (Kierkegaard has clearly really got to me already!) and outrageous demands on the subject. Really it's just a snap, a mountain view and suddenly finding the Golden Rule quite congenial when Jesus says it. It's...odd. He may as well have just read out some C. S. Lewis (I hear Evangelicals like his apologetic work a lot) at least it might be coherant in itself, distinctly more useful and edifying than that dribbling sophistry.

Humbug I say. Humbug. Still, in fairness it makes sure I can never be too complacent in sloppy thinking and it does pose the question 'so how do you justify it?' a question I am perhaps not ready to answer to anyone's satisfaction. Big religious statements, as far as I can see, deal with what is at heart a mystery and any assertion relies in part of pre-formed, potentially uncritical opinions- the wealth of theological reflection would not be so if one had to justify outside the bracket of revelation certain facts and ideas that have grown within it. And whatever 'natural' arguments I might care to formulate certainly do nothing to defend the entire integrity of either the Christian tradition or an exclusive truth claim it purports to have. I puzzle as to whether I could break from a westernized idea of thinking about it all in terms of the self and individual before whatever divinity. Still if there was ever an answer to the question 'can man make god in his own image?' it must surely be found in this man who was so ready to dismiss christians with sharply differing viewpoints as false and who was able to rattle off the 'moral certainties' that the Bible offered up...one perhaps sees hints of an answer.