If you want to do more than just click you can comment on this post.
Last week's poll: "Should we be planting more churches?" 7 votes: yes 4; no 3. One more vote: I vote yes
musings on mission and ministry ... and other miscellaneous mind-leaks
Monday, 29 October 2007
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Mother God?
THE other day while setting up for a lecture I came across copies of a prayer by Desmond Tutu left over from a prayer meeting. It addressed God as Father and Mother. This raised again for me the issue of whether we should be calling God 'Mother'. I decided we probably should.
Our language goes a long way to constructing the world we inhabit in our heads. If our talk is dominated by the masculine, our worldview becomes definitively male. This is the norm, the mainstream, the proper, and by implication the feminine is secondary, derivative, deviant. If this logic holds good for the way we speak about people, why not apply it also to the way we speak about God?
True, some attempts to address this issue don't quite work. Many prefer to use gender-neutral language, 'Creator, redeemer, sustainer' for example, or the increasingly common, 'loving God' or 'gracious God' and other variants.
Trouble is, if we become too thoroughly gender-neutral we will end up neutering God. While God is neither a man nor a woman God is personal and indeed more than personal - but certainly not less.
Also, while using such descriptive forms of address certainly allows for a rich and varied focus on different aspects of God's character, they are less intimate, more distant and formal. Family language has a lot going for it when it comes to expressing relationship.
So I'm not entirely comfortable with going too far down the gender-neutral road. It makes more sense to call God 'Mother'. However, such a proposal causes strong feelings. Why is that?
Some are suspicious that others are merely being trendy, following the latest fashion in an unthinking way. I have to say that talking to those who use such language more readily than I do, the last thing they are is unthinking.
For others the issue is different. Because it has tended to be the less orthodox among us who have been quickest to adopt feminine language for the divine, the practice is seen as tainted. This is silly. I've never been a big fan of guilt by association.
Some believe that we are only allowed to do, think and say that which the Bible explicitly sanctions. And of course while there is some feminine imagery for God in the scriptures, nowhere is God addressed as 'Mother'. But this is far too restrictive a way to use the Bible. Surely we are meant to be consistent with God's Word rather than slavishly copying the details of its speech forms?
Other reservations include a reluctance to abandon classic language that has become a part of who we are. Formulations such as 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' and 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' help tie us to other Christians in other places and other times. But there is absolutely no reason such language shouldn't be enriched by also using feminine forms.
A significant part of my own hesitation has been a matter of instinct rather than theology. It just feels odd. It's unusual. I'm uncomfortable. Mind you, I used to feel that way about women preachers, drums in church and, if I'm honest, meeting black people. In other words, discomfort is no reason for not doing the right thing.
A final reason for this being such a hot potato is the fear of offending others. This ought not to be ignored, but neither should we keep silent for fear of causing upset. What we need is an open, charitable conversation. Aren't we Baptists supposed to be good at that kind of thing?
So while I think I understand people's reasons for being opposed to calling God 'Mother' I'm not convinced those reasons stack up.
I reckon we ought to include feminine forms of address in our God-talk as part of a varied language to help us speak more effectively of our wonderful and fascinating God. Time, I think, for some of us to get over our discomfort.
[My turn to do a month's worth of comment pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. I don't reckon I'm up to both a weekly newspaper article and a weekly blog post so I'm copping out. With the agreement of the editor I'm going double up and post my BT article. This means that the blog will have a slightly different feel. To chek out the Baptist times as a whole click here
The weekly poll will continue as usual.]
Our language goes a long way to constructing the world we inhabit in our heads. If our talk is dominated by the masculine, our worldview becomes definitively male. This is the norm, the mainstream, the proper, and by implication the feminine is secondary, derivative, deviant. If this logic holds good for the way we speak about people, why not apply it also to the way we speak about God?
True, some attempts to address this issue don't quite work. Many prefer to use gender-neutral language, 'Creator, redeemer, sustainer' for example, or the increasingly common, 'loving God' or 'gracious God' and other variants.
Trouble is, if we become too thoroughly gender-neutral we will end up neutering God. While God is neither a man nor a woman God is personal and indeed more than personal - but certainly not less.
Also, while using such descriptive forms of address certainly allows for a rich and varied focus on different aspects of God's character, they are less intimate, more distant and formal. Family language has a lot going for it when it comes to expressing relationship.
So I'm not entirely comfortable with going too far down the gender-neutral road. It makes more sense to call God 'Mother'. However, such a proposal causes strong feelings. Why is that?
Some are suspicious that others are merely being trendy, following the latest fashion in an unthinking way. I have to say that talking to those who use such language more readily than I do, the last thing they are is unthinking.
For others the issue is different. Because it has tended to be the less orthodox among us who have been quickest to adopt feminine language for the divine, the practice is seen as tainted. This is silly. I've never been a big fan of guilt by association.
Some believe that we are only allowed to do, think and say that which the Bible explicitly sanctions. And of course while there is some feminine imagery for God in the scriptures, nowhere is God addressed as 'Mother'. But this is far too restrictive a way to use the Bible. Surely we are meant to be consistent with God's Word rather than slavishly copying the details of its speech forms?
Other reservations include a reluctance to abandon classic language that has become a part of who we are. Formulations such as 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' and 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' help tie us to other Christians in other places and other times. But there is absolutely no reason such language shouldn't be enriched by also using feminine forms.
A significant part of my own hesitation has been a matter of instinct rather than theology. It just feels odd. It's unusual. I'm uncomfortable. Mind you, I used to feel that way about women preachers, drums in church and, if I'm honest, meeting black people. In other words, discomfort is no reason for not doing the right thing.
A final reason for this being such a hot potato is the fear of offending others. This ought not to be ignored, but neither should we keep silent for fear of causing upset. What we need is an open, charitable conversation. Aren't we Baptists supposed to be good at that kind of thing?
So while I think I understand people's reasons for being opposed to calling God 'Mother' I'm not convinced those reasons stack up.
I reckon we ought to include feminine forms of address in our God-talk as part of a varied language to help us speak more effectively of our wonderful and fascinating God. Time, I think, for some of us to get over our discomfort.
[My turn to do a month's worth of comment pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. I don't reckon I'm up to both a weekly newspaper article and a weekly blog post so I'm copping out. With the agreement of the editor I'm going double up and post my BT article. This means that the blog will have a slightly different feel. To chek out the Baptist times as a whole click here
The weekly poll will continue as usual.]
Monday, 22 October 2007
This week's poll 22/10/07
If you want to do more than click, comment on this post.
Last week's poll: Has the charismatic movement had its day? 9 votes: 6 yes, 3 no. One more vote: I vote yes.
Last week's poll: Has the charismatic movement had its day? 9 votes: 6 yes, 3 no. One more vote: I vote yes.
Friday, 19 October 2007
Holy, holy, holy?
I'M thinking of becoming a bit more Roman Catholic. I quite fancy the idea of crossing myself. You know, like Brazilian footballers or Robbie Coltrane in Nuns on the Run. In fact, come to think of it, like last year's BU president, Roy Searle.
I fancy it because it seems like a good antidote to a problem that we have unwittingly created for ourselves; a problem that makes God a bit less real, a bit less significant. Let me explain.
One of the really good things that has happened in our bit of the Church over the past 20 years or so is that more and more of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the notion of a sacred/secular divide.
We no longer like the idea that there are religious bits of the world that have to do with God and non-religious bits that don't. We've recovered something approaching a proper doctrine of creation.
I myself have argued repeatedly that we are just as likely to stumble across the divine at the multiplex as we are at the prayer meeting; that the world - every bit of it, including the human bits and not just pretty birds and big mountains - is God's world, not the devil's.
To the extent that we have moved away from a God who prefers hanging out at meetings to one who turns up all over the place we have become more biblical. Discipleship is indeed about living life differently, not living a different life.
However, I'm beginning to worry that we might have shot ourselves in the foot. The idea was that by ditching the sacred/secular divide we would see the world as more full of God. I fear that it might have had the opposite effect. Because we have fought shy of the explicitly religious, we just might have emptied life of God. In theory we find God everywhere. In practice, I wonder if we remember to make the effort.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we attempt to re-establish the old unhelpful, unbiblical dualism. No, my inclination is to start a campaign consciously and deliberately to do what we can to re-sacralise as much of our world as possible.
When the mainstream of society is more thoroughly secular than at most times in history, when the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is being driven from public life by the powers that be, the last thing we need is for Christians to collude in the process.
Hence my idea of crossing myself at significant moments during the day. But that's only one tactic. Let's get imaginative and find as many ways as we can to remember, express and embody our conviction that God is everywhere.
For instance, what about reintroducing explicitly Christian salutations in our letters? Why not greet each other in the name of Christ and bid farewell by commending one another to the care of God? Why not pray before car journeys? Why not stop talking about nature and start to speak of creation?
Why not get back to saying grace a bit more? Why not pray quietly as a matter of course before the start of our day's work? Why not extend the rather limited practice of the evangelical quiet time into a three times daily office?
Don't get me wrong: it's not that I think God isn't there if we don't invite him; it's not that God will not watch over us if we don't ask. It's rather that unless we pepper our waking lives with explicitly religious language and practices we are more likely to forget; more likely to act, and indeed think, in categories that leave God out.
In other words we might end up replacing a world divided into the sacred and the secular with one that is simply more secular.
My turn to do a month's worth of comment pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. I don't reckon I'm up to both a weekly newspaper article and a weekly blog post so I'm copping out. With the agreement of the editor I'm going double up and post my BT article. This means that the blog will have a slightly different feel. To chek out the Baptist times as a whole click here
The weekly poll will continue as usual.
I fancy it because it seems like a good antidote to a problem that we have unwittingly created for ourselves; a problem that makes God a bit less real, a bit less significant. Let me explain.
One of the really good things that has happened in our bit of the Church over the past 20 years or so is that more and more of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the notion of a sacred/secular divide.
We no longer like the idea that there are religious bits of the world that have to do with God and non-religious bits that don't. We've recovered something approaching a proper doctrine of creation.
I myself have argued repeatedly that we are just as likely to stumble across the divine at the multiplex as we are at the prayer meeting; that the world - every bit of it, including the human bits and not just pretty birds and big mountains - is God's world, not the devil's.
To the extent that we have moved away from a God who prefers hanging out at meetings to one who turns up all over the place we have become more biblical. Discipleship is indeed about living life differently, not living a different life.
However, I'm beginning to worry that we might have shot ourselves in the foot. The idea was that by ditching the sacred/secular divide we would see the world as more full of God. I fear that it might have had the opposite effect. Because we have fought shy of the explicitly religious, we just might have emptied life of God. In theory we find God everywhere. In practice, I wonder if we remember to make the effort.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we attempt to re-establish the old unhelpful, unbiblical dualism. No, my inclination is to start a campaign consciously and deliberately to do what we can to re-sacralise as much of our world as possible.
When the mainstream of society is more thoroughly secular than at most times in history, when the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is being driven from public life by the powers that be, the last thing we need is for Christians to collude in the process.
Hence my idea of crossing myself at significant moments during the day. But that's only one tactic. Let's get imaginative and find as many ways as we can to remember, express and embody our conviction that God is everywhere.
For instance, what about reintroducing explicitly Christian salutations in our letters? Why not greet each other in the name of Christ and bid farewell by commending one another to the care of God? Why not pray before car journeys? Why not stop talking about nature and start to speak of creation?
Why not get back to saying grace a bit more? Why not pray quietly as a matter of course before the start of our day's work? Why not extend the rather limited practice of the evangelical quiet time into a three times daily office?
Don't get me wrong: it's not that I think God isn't there if we don't invite him; it's not that God will not watch over us if we don't ask. It's rather that unless we pepper our waking lives with explicitly religious language and practices we are more likely to forget; more likely to act, and indeed think, in categories that leave God out.
In other words we might end up replacing a world divided into the sacred and the secular with one that is simply more secular.
My turn to do a month's worth of comment pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. I don't reckon I'm up to both a weekly newspaper article and a weekly blog post so I'm copping out. With the agreement of the editor I'm going double up and post my BT article. This means that the blog will have a slightly different feel. To chek out the Baptist times as a whole click here
The weekly poll will continue as usual.
Friday, 12 October 2007
A Little more conversation?
My next job after writing this article is to prepare for a church weekend. They gave me a choice of subjects so I opted straight away for 'Telling People About Jesus'. For the past eighteen months every time I've been given a say I've picked the same topic.
(I've even used this column to bang on about it before but that was quite a while ago so I'm hoping the editor won't notice.)
It strikes me that as our society becomes less and less Christian, there is more and more of an onus on all of us to find appropriate ways to give voice to our faith. The idea that we can bear witness to Christ without actually piping up is dangerously misguided.
I know St. Francis of Assisi is a bit of a hero, even among Protestants, but I wish someone had sat on him quick and heavy before he managed to utter, 'Go and preach the gospel. And if you must, use words.' Sure it's a nice line and yes, I get the sentiment behind it - communicating the good news involves far more than being a gob on legs. But these days most of us need little encouragement to clam up when it comes sharing our faith.
In fact I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that a worrying number of Christians are not only shy about breaking the sound barrier with those who don't share their faith.
In 2005 the Methodist Church published a study book called Time to Talk of God. It seeks to get Methodists talking to each other about God. Apparently it's not a thing that many of them like doing. Perhaps they should consider handing out WWWS wristbands, What Would Wesley Say?
And it's not just Methodists. Earlier this year I led a training session on faith-sharing with a Baptist Church. I used the well-worn exercise of getting the participants to tell each other the story of how they had come to faith.
Normally it's good to get appreciative feedback after speaking at a church. This time however I found myself wishing they hadn't been quite so enthusiastic. 'You know we really enjoyed that. It's the first time we've talked about such things,' they said. I ask you.
What makes it worse is that some of the most innovative and interesting younger Christians are just as hopeless at telling others.
Those involved in the emerging church movement might be pretty hot on incarnating the gospel, seeking to be a gospel community, getting alongside people and showing them (all really, really, really good things) but they don't seem to be at all sure about actually telling people.
This summer I finally got round to reading Velvet Elvis by American emerging church guru Rob Bell. This otherwise excellent volume is decidedly diffident about verbal evangelism.
I know that some evangelists give the good news a bad name. I know that some evangelistic techniques would have Jesus turning in his grave - if he were still in it. But I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit wasn't sent to make disciples hesitant.
If others have taken witnessing and screwed it up, straighten it out. If some have got it badly wrong, find ways to get it right. For God's sake don't just stop!
No wonder our wonderful new Christian neighbours from places like Nigeria are bemused by what they see in this country. For them speaking of God is second nature and the importance of telling others is taken for granted.
I'm not suggesting we duplicate their methods or adopt their way of speaking. I am suggesting that they've got something that we've lost. Something precious.
It is probable, humanly speaking, that some of us will live to see the death of more than one historic denomination. Parts of the British church are dying fast. The reasons of course are complex. But this much at least seems obvious: talking a bit more about God ought to help.
My turn to do a month's worth of comment pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. I don't reckon I'm up to both a weekly newspaper article and a weekly blog post so I'm copping out. With the agreement of the editor I'm going double up and post my BT article. This means that the blog will have a slightly different feel. To chek out the Baptist times as a whole click here
The weekly poll will continue as usual.
(I've even used this column to bang on about it before but that was quite a while ago so I'm hoping the editor won't notice.)
It strikes me that as our society becomes less and less Christian, there is more and more of an onus on all of us to find appropriate ways to give voice to our faith. The idea that we can bear witness to Christ without actually piping up is dangerously misguided.
I know St. Francis of Assisi is a bit of a hero, even among Protestants, but I wish someone had sat on him quick and heavy before he managed to utter, 'Go and preach the gospel. And if you must, use words.' Sure it's a nice line and yes, I get the sentiment behind it - communicating the good news involves far more than being a gob on legs. But these days most of us need little encouragement to clam up when it comes sharing our faith.
In fact I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that a worrying number of Christians are not only shy about breaking the sound barrier with those who don't share their faith.
In 2005 the Methodist Church published a study book called Time to Talk of God. It seeks to get Methodists talking to each other about God. Apparently it's not a thing that many of them like doing. Perhaps they should consider handing out WWWS wristbands, What Would Wesley Say?
And it's not just Methodists. Earlier this year I led a training session on faith-sharing with a Baptist Church. I used the well-worn exercise of getting the participants to tell each other the story of how they had come to faith.
Normally it's good to get appreciative feedback after speaking at a church. This time however I found myself wishing they hadn't been quite so enthusiastic. 'You know we really enjoyed that. It's the first time we've talked about such things,' they said. I ask you.
What makes it worse is that some of the most innovative and interesting younger Christians are just as hopeless at telling others.
Those involved in the emerging church movement might be pretty hot on incarnating the gospel, seeking to be a gospel community, getting alongside people and showing them (all really, really, really good things) but they don't seem to be at all sure about actually telling people.
This summer I finally got round to reading Velvet Elvis by American emerging church guru Rob Bell. This otherwise excellent volume is decidedly diffident about verbal evangelism.
I know that some evangelists give the good news a bad name. I know that some evangelistic techniques would have Jesus turning in his grave - if he were still in it. But I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit wasn't sent to make disciples hesitant.
If others have taken witnessing and screwed it up, straighten it out. If some have got it badly wrong, find ways to get it right. For God's sake don't just stop!
No wonder our wonderful new Christian neighbours from places like Nigeria are bemused by what they see in this country. For them speaking of God is second nature and the importance of telling others is taken for granted.
I'm not suggesting we duplicate their methods or adopt their way of speaking. I am suggesting that they've got something that we've lost. Something precious.
It is probable, humanly speaking, that some of us will live to see the death of more than one historic denomination. Parts of the British church are dying fast. The reasons of course are complex. But this much at least seems obvious: talking a bit more about God ought to help.
My turn to do a month's worth of comment pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. I don't reckon I'm up to both a weekly newspaper article and a weekly blog post so I'm copping out. With the agreement of the editor I'm going double up and post my BT article. This means that the blog will have a slightly different feel. To chek out the Baptist times as a whole click here
The weekly poll will continue as usual.
Friday, 5 October 2007
Sex in the pulpit?
'What do you think about sex on the telly?''Well I don't mind, but my wife keeps knocking the set top box on the floor.'
Boom boom.
Would you be happy to tell a joke like that? Are you comfortable reading such a joke in The Baptist Times? (1) I do hope so. Although I must confess that the first time I heard it I was a bit taken aback. The reason it got to me is that it was told from the pulpit by a visiting preacher at my church. Those sitting around me clearly found it funny. Some were equally clearly embarrassed and not at all sure that they should have found it funny. The noise that went round the congregation was half-laugh and half-splutter. But what got under my skin was the fact that I felt uncomfortable. I was annoyed that I felt awkward.
Thinking about it later I was convinced that there was nothing wrong with the joke - it wasn't gratuitous, it fitted in with what the preacher was saying and I could think of no reason why we shouldn't be able to tell such jokes from the pulpit. After all, sex for many (though not all) of us is an important part of life and, let's face it, sex can be really funny. So why not have a laugh about it in church?
I have long been convinced that there needs to be a third way (nearly said position ... snigger) when it comes sex, one that avoids the false alternatives of the voyeuristic obsession which is shot through so much of our culture and the uptight embarrassment which is still far too common in our churches. But we will never be able to find that third way until we learn to talk about sex, and laugh about sex in an open, frank and, yes, far more earthy way. The alternative to prurience and prissiness is not a buttoned-down, matter-of-fact, coldly clinical approach to sex talk. (The last thing that sex should be is cold and clinical.) No, the alternative is being real, being honest, being human. And that, at least in part, means having a laugh.
I suspect that, as with many of our attitudes in church, when we think we are being Christian by avoiding talking and laughing about sex we are in fact conforming to certain middle-class conventions which often have very little to do with holiness. This confusion of the holy with what is 'proper' can leave us with some skewed values. We end up being more concerned if someone swears than if they are greedy; we are more vigilant about dress codes than about the abuse of power; we are offended by the depiction of sex in film and on TV, but we are blasŽ about the portrayal of violence. Odd.
And we also end up being far too tentative about sex being on the agenda of our sermons, our Bible studies, our prayer meetings and our fellowship with Christian friends. Sex is far too potent a force - both to damage and to delight - for us not to be talking about it. The commodification of bodies, the promotion of sex as mere recreation and the sexualisation of children are all serious causes for concern. It is far too important for us not to be modelling a much healthier and holier approach than we often have to date. But that alternative is not conventional middle class morality with a supposedly Christian veneer.
So despite my initial discomfort I'm glad the preacher told the joke. So glad that I've nicked it and told it myself from a couple of carefully chosen pulpits. Not to get a cheap laugh and not for the sake of causing offence, but in the hope breaking what seems to me to be a decidedly unhelpful and unjustified taboo.
(1) My turn to do a month's worth of comment pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. I don't reckon I'm up to both a weekly newspaper article and a weekly blog post so I'm copping out. With the agreement of the editor I'm going double up and post my BT article. This means that the blog will have a slightly different feel. To chek out the Baptist times as a whole click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)