malcolm chamberlain

This may sound like a rant (because I guess it is!) but I am getting fed up with the complete rubbish (I could have used a much stronger word here) that is being churned out by the US conservative right concerning Obama's proposed health care reforms.

Labels: debates, news

'This', from Bishop Alan's blog, is brilliant - a warning to those who spend too much time hunting for 'dodgy'! Go read...

Labels: church, debates, religion

an interesting question raised by 'zero_zero_one' to my last post...

"Another thought - can churches choose to opt out from being under the authority of a MALE bishop? Obviously at the moment there are only male bishops in the Church of England, but when female bishops come along will churches be able to say, for example, "The (male) bishop of our diocese voted against female bishops, we do not agree with this on a theological basis, therefore we want a female bishop or a male bishop who agrees that women can be bishops"?"

Labels: church, debates

Once again, Jon Birch hits the nail well and truly on the head...

Labels: church, debates, fun

	For	Against	Abstentions
Bishops	28	12	1
Clergy	124	44	4
Laity	111	68	2

The final amended motion was:

That this Synod:
(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;
(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;
(c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and
(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.

for more information about this historic vote, and some interesting links, see the Church Times blog

I followed the debate yesterday through Ruth Gledhill's excellent live blog-cast (is that a new term?!) - well worth a read to fill in the gaps!

Let's continue to hope and pray that the code of practice and special arrangements being drawn up don't serve to water down the important step taken, by making women bishops appear to be 'second class bishops'. I agree that there are very complex pastoral considerations needed for those who in conscience can't accept this decision, but the Church, through it's recognised structures, has decided and this should now be regarded as the understanding and policy of the Church of England. Women will be bishops and, when that happens, should be treated by the Church as equal to any other bishop - anything less would be to treat with contempt the historic decision that Synod has taken which would be a travesty.

Labels: church, debates

Various people, over the last couple of days, have asked me what I think of the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks regarding Sharia law and British law, and I've avoided doing so because, to be totally honest with you, any comment would be made out of relative ignorance. I don't claim to be an expert in any way on Sharia law and I'm pretty sure that most of the voices we've been hearing recently are in the same boat! What do they say about ignorance breeding contempt?!


And so, with my reluctance to comment noted, here's what I wrote in an email to one such inquiry...

Re: Rowan’s speech – I haven’t read it in full (which is the problem with most comments being made about it!). That said, I’m not sure I totally agree with his conclusions BUT (a very important 'but') I find it very sad that most of the debate that has ensued has had little to do with what he actually said or with what he wanted people to be debating. I think he has some very good points – my concern is where it may end or what it could lead to, rather than with what he suggested per se.

I get really angry though with people who use one interpretation of Sharia to whip up a frenzy of anti-Islamic sentiment. That is the worrying thing, and it seems to be happening a lot at the moment - one example is the completely misleading and downright prejudiced comments of Douglas Murray (from the Centre for Social Cohesion - how on earth did he get that job?!) on last night's Newsnight program. On the other hand Prof Tariq Ramadan spoke a lot of sense on the same program. He confirmed that most British Muslims are not calling for Sharia as a separate code of law, stating that "equality before the law is our Sharia". In other words, Prof Ramadan was arguing that for the majority of British Muslims, British law is already in keeping with Sharia and so is sufficient.

I guess the Archbishop wanted to take things slightly beyond this though and raise some discussion concerning family law in particular. But why are people going on about public flogging and hands being cut off – that has nothing at all to do with what Rowan Williams was talking about, and just serves to direct the discussion away from the important, if uncomfortable, issues that he was raising!

The Archbishop's website has posted a very helpful article, What did the Archbishop actually say? (with a link to the full text of the original lecture) and there are several measured posts from people more qualified than me to comment such as those from Richard Sudworth, Kester Brewin and Maggi Dawn. If you missed last night's Newsnight, you can read about it and watch it again from 'here'

Labels: debates, news, religion

Bishop Tom Wright has a wonderful way with words, as can be seen in this recent interview with the Wittenburg Door's Becky Garrison...

"In Christian theology, such phrases [as "the authority of Scripture"] regularly act as “portable stories”—that is, ways of packing up longer narratives about God, Jesus, the Church and the world, folding them away into convenient suitcases, and then carrying them about with us. Shorthands enable us to pick up lots of complicated things and carry them around all together. But we should never forget that the point in doing so, like the point of carrying belongings in a suitcase, is that what has been packed away can then be unpacked and put to use in the new location. Too much debate about scriptural authority has had the form of people hitting one another with locked suitcases. It is time to unpack our shorthand doctrines, to lay them out and inspect them. Long years in a suitcase may have made some of the contents go moldy. They will benefit from fresh air, and perhaps a hot iron."

Go and read the full interview!

hat tip... Paul Fromont

Labels: debates, theology

Not having a great week so far!... I managed to spill a full cup of coffee on my pda yesterday which has completely killed it! It's a funny, and strangely unnerving, feeling going out without a functioning diary. The very helpful woman at the insurance company, when I phoned to claim, said to me, "I'll stress that this is urgent as you can't do without it" - a sad reflection on modern living if ever I heard one, and yet it feels that she's quite right!

Anyway, with one thing and another, I have no profundities (or time!) to share in the blogosphere today, but then I don't think I could have possibly offered anything better than Kester's inspired piece, 'stones'. So, hoping that he doesn't mind (!), I'll just paste it here in case you've not seen it - it's a wonderfully sober reminder that grace should always win the day...

Stones by Kester Brewin

If we could all
just stop throwing stones,
and stoop, knees bent
and write in the dust,

we'd see that the dust
was once stone -
grand, and hard, and proud, and tough -
now ground and dissolved
in grace and tears.

So... how much better
to be a grain of dirt
on that kind prophet’s hands
than a stone
in the cold, accusing Temple
of the pure.

Labels: debates, musings

'This' is a very thoughtful contribution to the discussions and debates surrounding human sexuality from a good friend of mine, Paul Chambers. We would all, regardless of our position on this or any other issue where we attempt to apply 'Biblical Truth' to someone else's life, do well to reflect on Paul's comments...

"... before you reach for the Christian platitudes, let’s dare to sift our own souls. Is there much there that is unhealed, unspoken, unforgiven? Faith in Jesus does not exempt us from traversing the deeper chasms of the psyche. Nor does it automatically protect us from the little deaths which rehearse us for the grand one. There can be no easy conclusion to this debate – I suspect that if we don’t weep as well as laugh, there will have been a failure somewhere."

Labels: debates, theology

Pete Rollins posts a fascinating reflection concerning the problem of entering the 'is Christianity true' debate. He writes...

"it is [the] very acceptance of the question, ‘is Christianity true’, that lies at the heart of why Christianity is losing the popular debate being brought to the fore by the ‘new atheists’. For there is a much more basic question that one must ask before this question can be understood properly. The question that one must ask is not, ‘is Christianity true’ (at least not yet), but rather ‘what is it that Christianity claims when it claims to be true’. To put it another way, the issue is not to attempt to ascertain, on rational or empirical grounds, whether or not the claims of Christ are true, but rather to work out what did Christ meant when he claimed to be the truth." (bold highlight mine)

Read the whole post 'here'.

Labels: debates, religion, theology

According to 'this Guardian report', Dawkins and his followers are now organising themselves into a movement of sorts. I always thought that movements or organisations gathered around a central belief system roughly equates to 'religion', but I guess that Dawkins would argue otherwise! After reading the article and the posted comments, I felt compelled to add...

"Dawkins provides us with the ultimate meta-narrative! So is this action a last gasp attempt of modernity to hang on to its credentials in a culture that has largely left it behind? I have a feeling that, in the postmodern age, Dawkins and his followers will face (and are facing) the same marginalisation as institutional (conservative) religion - that will make for interesting bed-fellows!!"

I'm just waiting now to see if this provokes any response!!

hat tip... Mark Berry

Labels: debates, news, religion

Andrew Jones has a great way with words...

"... you can see why a lot of Reformers are not happy with the Emerging Church. After effectively getting rid of quite a number of meaningless rituals like Lent [and Christmas in Scotland] as well as the English monastic system and other things associated with Popery, the emerging church seem to be undoing some of these gains.

Don Carson describes the emerging church as a protest movement. Is it true? Are we protesting the protest? Are we rebelling against the Reformation or are we helping the church to reform again to regain its status as the one holy catholic church? I hope its the latter."

Read the whole post 'here'

Labels: debates, emerging church

Yesterday's Guardian newspaper carried a fascinating article simply titled 'faith', in which Stuart Jeffries explores the notion that "Britain's new cultural divide is not between Christian and Muslim, Hindu and Jew. It is between those who have faith and those who do not." The article argues that dogmatic atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, simply present an alternative fundamentalism to that of religious extremists; one that is just as devoid of tolerance, grace and the desire to understand the other.

It seems to me that both points of view, religious fundamentalism and atheistic fundamentalism, are equally underpinned by modernist propositional rationalism and a certainty that leaves no room for doubt. Both claim to have grasped the True meta-narrative and, as such, both are equally out of touch with the cuture(s) of postmodernity and the sense of exploratory journey. The challenge for incarnational mission is to tune into the spiritual heartbeat of the postmodern explorer and simply provide spaces for connections with the ever-present Christ to be made. For this to happen with integrity, we will need to buck the trend of the two fundamentalisms and open up the arena of questions and doubts, for it's in the doubting and questioning that many people find the God of grace.

Read the full Guardian article 'here'

Labels: debates, mission

Scot McKnight has an excellent post on the art of conversation 'here' in which he suggests that many evangelical Christians don't know how to hold genuine conversations because of what he calls the 'right vs. wrong risk'...

"Orthodoxy is right; anything else or less than orthodoxy is wrong. With that looming behind every conversation, when a person raises a question there is immediately a worry if what the person is asking is orthodox or not; whether or not by participating in such a conversation a person will be seen as harboring doubts about orthodoxy; and whether associating with such persons calls into question one’s reputation. Quickly, in many cases, the conversation stops being conversation and becomes instead a quick lesson on what tradition teaches the Bible says and that if one strays from that one is questioning the Bible and, there you have it, it all becomes a reduction to whether or not a person believes in inerrancy."

Read the whole post and make up your own mind...

Labels: debates, theology

Further to my post earlier in the week about Malcolm Duncan's statement concerning the 'Sexual Orientation Regulations', his full press release (which is somewhat more helpful than the article about it that I originally linked to) can be read 'here'. Malcolm also responded at length to the discussion prompted by my post, and his comments are well worth reading. He writes:

"It is my distinctive Christian ethos and my values and convictions that cause me to be unconditional in service. It is also those distinctives that give me a view of right and wrong, good choices and bad ones. Whilst I am free to express those, I must also recognise that I cannot force people to follow them. I must serve unconditionally and love extravagantly and be willing, in words and actions, to be faithful to Christ and his teachings. But I must also remember the importance of allowing God to work in another person's life and not assume that I am the Holy Spirit. He is the one who brings about true and lasting transformation - not me. I am, and the church for that matter, is a vehicle. Broken, cracked and tainted - yet a vehicle for grace and love and truth."

Read the original post and discussion 'here'

Labels: debates, politics, theology

Malcolm Duncan (Faithworks) gives an intelligent and well reasoned perspective in the midst of the planned Evangelical Christian demonstrations concerning the governments 'Sexual Orientations Regulations'. He warns against what he calls 'virulent' and 'aggressive' behaviour, and reminds us that...

"Christians are called to follow Jesus’ example, and he says remarkably little about sexuality in scripture. Rather, he treats all people he comes across with love and acceptance, and does not refuse his service to anyone, even if he does not agree with their lifestyle"

Read about Duncan's statement in more detail 'here'.

hat tip... Maggi Dawn

Labels: debates, politics, theology

Thank God that the Church of England has people like Bishop Tom Wright, who has issued this measured and appropriately strong response to the so-called 'Covenant for the Church of England' that was sadly issued by some (and I stress the 'some') key evangelical leaders last week. When I read their document I was equally disturbed by the divisive tone, especially given that an organisation I deeply respect has signed up to it (or at least its leader has). Tom Wright's document, though long, is a very important contribution to this debate and must be read by anyone who is interested in the future of the Church of England. I hope that, in time, the authors of the 'covenant' are able to give an equally measured and valuable response to his paper.

Labels: church, debates

the following quotes are taken from some notes of John Franke's October '06 address to the Westminster Theological Seminary Emerging Church Forum, and carry resonances with a discussion I was having with someone last night when I was trying to explain that the emerging church conversation and biblical theology are not polar opposites!

"The reason for doing theology is to serve the church in becoming missional. The impulse comes from notion of mission as central to character of God (missio dei). Mission is at the heart of biblical narratives. Example: Israel was the recipient of covenant in order to bless the nations. Mission continues today in the global witness to the gospel working toward the eschatological redemption. "As the Father has sent me so I send you" (jn 20:21). God is missional by nature; he is sent and sender in Jesus...

The western church has not formed itself as missional because it grew up in a culture that considered itself Christian. Christendom was so pervasive that even when it is undermined as in modern North America, the patterns continue. The church now lives in functional Christendom. Maybe that is a better category for discussion than modern vs postmodern. Mission had become just one of the many programs of the church (mission boards). Only place we need to go is to the pagan nations, and we'll civilize them while we're at it. Home missions were merely attempts to prop up and preserve Christian culture. Now we must realize that mission isn't peripheral, it is central to what the church is. [We must] Move from church with mission to missional church...

Commitment to missional theology entails ongoing interaction with local culture. All forms of thought are embedded in social conditions. Those conditions don't unilaterally determine knowledge, but they inevitably shape it. Theology always bears the marks of the context in which it is produced. Therefore it is not the task of theology to set forth a timeless and non-situated dogmatic for all times and places. Systematic theology doesn't fall out of heaven, so we need a human and earthly dogmatics, formed in the community of faith and seeking to bear witness to the God of that faith and speaking in and to the culture in which it finds itself..." (bold highlights mine)

Now before some might say... "there, that proves it, accommodation to culture is the mark of the emerging church", Franke does recognise the danger...

"Theology throughout history has shown itself remarkably adaptable in many times and cultures, but also there have been many bad accommodations. So we must be culturally aware but also aware of the danger of becoming captive. How do we account for the situadedness [sic] of theology without succumbing to cultural accommodation?"

It seems to me that there are two responses we can make in response to the danger. One is to remain safely wrapped in our received (modern) 'orthodoxy' and defend it at all costs as THE gospel, even if it fails to make any meaningful connection with the context in which we are seeking to proclaim it. Here we simply (and, I would suggest, naively) refuse to accept that our theology has been shaped in any way by cultural context - it is held as pure Truth. The other possible response is to take the risk of re-thinking that received 'orthodoxy' while trying to remain faithful to the central message of the Kingdom of God (that was Jesus' central message, after all). Yes, it may be risky... yes, it may sometimes feel like we're out at sea longing for the security of the past... yes, it may lead to us being misunderstood, even cast out, by our Christian brothers and sisters; but for the sake of participating in the mission of God and his work of redemption it's a risk worth taking.

Indeed, wasn't it St Paul, the theological champion of Reformed theology, who led the way in contextual mission when he chose to quote from the pagan poets of Athens instead of the Old Testament, knowing the former would connect far better with his hearers? This was the same St Paul who wrote, "Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1Corinthians 9:19-22, TNIV) Would St Paul in the early 21st century western world also have added... "to the new-age spiritual I became like a new-age spiritual... to the post-modern philosopher I became like a post-modern philosopher..." and so on, or is this pushing the analogy too far? I guess the key word in all this is the work 'like' - we become 'like' the other as we engage in mission, we don't become the other.

So to my friend who I was chatting with last night, and to many others who are critical of the emerging church, I ask... please don't write us off as heretics or as people selling out on orthodox faith. Please listen to us as we seek to listen to your challenges, and see that we're simply seeking to follow the biblical missional call of God.

Read the full notes of Franke's address 'here'
Hat tip - Paul Fromont

Labels: debates, emerging church, mission, theology

I've been involved in an interesting email discussion over the last week or so, which arose in response (initially) to my posts on this blog about Ikon and Pete Rollins' book. Since the spark for the discussion came from these pages, I asked the other person (Tim) if I could post the last few emails here for others to join in and add their perspectives. If you want to know (before reading this long post) what issues we've been discussing, I guess you could some them up as: experience of God vs understanding of God; how we believe vs what we believe; and is the Emerging Church a new liberalism? If any of these issues grab you and you'd like to add your comments, read on...


Hello Malcolm,

I have written to you before and saw your positive comments on Pete Rollins book about How not To Speak to God. I read the book and thought it was confusing, and the stuff I think I understood, I disagreed with. I thought his main point was: that we can not understand God but we can experience God. Am I accurate in my understanding of his book?

Thanks
Tim


Tim

thanks for your email. I don't think I read Pete Rollins in quite the same way as you have described. From what I gleaned, Pete was simply trying to challenge the modernist assumptions that rational understanding is the ultimate goal of spiritual endeavour, and argue for a more experiential faith drawing on the ancient resources of monastic spirituality and the like. What I found particularly helpful was his reminder that the closer we get to God (in our experience and understanding) the more we realize the limitations of our understanding concerning him.

As an illustration to this I blogged some time back (on Dream's Lent blog - now offline) about a visit I made to the Angel of the North in Gateshead. From a distance you could see this amazing sculpture and get a handle on the overall picture. From close up, however, you could see the rivets and the corrugated iron sheets - i.e. the detail, but could not take in the whole sculpture. In other words, the closer you get to it the more intimately you see it and the more you see the detail, etc, but the more you also realize that there is a bigger picture you only see a part of. I think this is something like what Pete was saying with respect to our relationship with God.

Pete points out that whereas we tend to understand revelation as the opposite to concealment, biblical revelation is often the unsettling of knowledge. That is, instead of being in a position of not knowing then we get revelation then we know, we find ourselves in a position of knowing (or thinking we know) then we get revelation then we realize that we don't really know (and so, paradoxically, we come to know at a deeper level). I think there's a lot in this and it certainly seems to be the level at which Jesus was operating in relation to the Pharisees and religious leaders of his day.

I hope this helps!
Regards
Malcolm


Hi Malcolm,

I am going to reread his book and try not to react. I remember a thought from his book that shocked me - it was like we need to be concerned more with how we believe that what we believe. I thought that what I believed is the foundational aspect of behavior, not behavior the foundation of belief. Maybe I am just too old and have such a totally different way of looking at things. I was talking to Peter Maiden the head of OM and he sees emergent as the first step in the new liberalism that will fully emerge in two or three generations. I am afraid of this also.

I have no concern for emergent theology impact the Muslim or Buddhist world. Nothing withstands the wave of Islam except pure Jesus as you know from your time in Pakistan. My friends who are living in Kabul right now are laying their lives on the line for Jesus. Emergent folks are at seminars and churches in the western world, but not at the coal face of missions.

Do you have concerns that Emergent is wanting to dilute the gospel?
Tim


Hi Tim

thanks for your email - I think the concern you raise is a valid one, although I don't think the 'how we believe' is simply about behaviour. I guess how we believe is pretty much tied up with what we believe - for example if we believe in a God of military conquest, then wars in the name of God are ok. If, on the other hand, we believe in a God of love and grace then we will love people we don't agree with and allow them to hold differing beliefs no matter how much we may feel they are wrong, misguided or whatever. So how we believe (eg. humbly, dogmatically, aggressively, lovingly,...) is intimately tied up with what we believe.

As to whether Emergent is diluting the gospel... I cannot and would not want to answer for Emergent as an organisation (be it the US or UK version) but the Emerging Church conversation (as it has been labelled) is exploring the possibilities of going beyond the old polarities or Evangelical, Liberal, Catholic, etc to see if Biblical faith (and Jesus) is more inclusive than we first thought. I guess this is the basis of McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy, which I found very helpful. If this is risking taking the first steps to a new liberalism then I think it's worth the risk. However, where it (or should I say, where I) differ from some forms of 'liberalism' is in the desire to remain thoroughly Biblical, but to do so while remaining open to the possibility that what I thought was Biblical is in fact not so. I am open to learn from followers of Christ of all traditions and, hopefully, in doing so discover a deeper relationship with God.

I don't know if that makes sense or not. I would 100% agree with you in your statement "Nothing withstands the wave of Islam (though I wouldn't necessarily put it like that) except pure Jesus", but I would follow this up with the challenge as to what is 'pure Jesus'? Is our (evangelical) interpretation of the gospel 'pure Jesus' or is it 'Jesus with bits added'? I guess my desire in joining and exploring the Emerging Church Conversation is to better discover that 'pure Jesus' so that in my life and ministry I may point people to him and him alone.

Thanks for the conversation - keep the comments coming!

Regards
Malcolm


Quite simply 100% pure Jesus is that Jesus is God's only and Final revelation through which to know him. No other world religion, cult, ideology, is from the heart of the Father. I am not saying that other religions do not contain slivers of truth, but only through Jesus can we come to know the Father and walk in his Kingdom while we are alive and will be with him when we physically die. Everyone else is eternally separated from experiencing the love of the Father if they do not know Jesus as the way to the Father.

That's 100% Jesus to me!
Tim

Labels: debates, theology

An interesting article by Martin Newland, the former editor of the Telegraph, appeared in yesterday's Guardian, which gave a different perspective on the debate over Jack Straw and the niqab. The gist of his argument can be gleaned from this quote...

"I do not therefore see Straw's comments as an attack on Muslims, but rather an attack on religious observance in general. Secular society does not allow for openly religious people to be seen also as normal and well-adjusted. There always seems to be a desire to pigeon-hole them as semi-rational, spiritual fifth columnists."

The article can be read online 'here' and is accompanied by equally interesting comments from readers of various view points!

Labels: debates, politics, religion