The Complex Christ | Signs of Emergence

"Money Having No Impact on Youth Crime" | "MPs Reject Need For Father in IVF"

Two pieces followed one-another on the radio this morning:

MPs voted last night to remove the clause that required IVF clinics to consider the need for a child to have a father and a mother - essentially opening the way for women to have the treatment without any father-figure being present in the prospective child's life.

And a recent report has found that, despite record investment, youth crime has continued to rise. "The government's record on youth crime and tackling the multiple needs of children caught up in the youth justice system is less impressive than many would have expected."

And no one suggested there might be a connection.
I am depressed.

Technorati: Crime | IVF

So What's Worse...?

Your one-time minister saying some outrageous things about 9/11,
or being married to a man who had his cigar smoked in the Oval Office?

I don't get it - surely Bill should be the persona non grata on the campaign trail?

Technorati: Clinton | Obama

Clinton Defaults to Conflict: This is Washington, not Hollywood

"One of the things that makes Mrs Clinton so psychologically fascinating is her tendency to portray everthing in terms of conflict and confrontation. And one of the characteristics that makes her so interesting politically is that she is a much better candidate when things are going badly than when they are going well." From BBC News.

This is precisely why I think you Americans should not vote for Clinton. When she says in an interview that she would completely destroy Iran if they attacked Israel, her rhetoric is getting dangerous. It is highly unwise politics to threaten another nation in order to win votes in your own.

The world does not need another US President who defaults to conflict. It's fine in Hollywood: the victim finds their metal and fights back. It's just not good enough if the White House is going to be a force for good.

"America deserves a President who doesn't quit." Perhaps Hillary, but it also needs one who knows when stopping fighting is for the greater good.

Go vote Obama.

New MA at Kings

Kings College have a new MA which they wondered if I'd be happy to flag up, which I am.

It's in 'Politics, Theology and Faith-Based Organisations', and you can read more about it in the doc attached below.

Should British Kids Salute the Flag? | Identity | Symbols

A recent government report has proposed that teenagers should make an oath of allegiance to 'Queen and Country', in order to give them a 'sense of belonging.'

I'm aware that something similar exists in the US education system, though the only reason I'm aware of it is by it's bitter-sweet use in movies to suggest some apple-pie nostalgia that's going to be blown up in our faces.

I actually think it would be a very bad idea, for a number of reasons. As a teacher, knowing both the sorts of people who work in schools and the sorts of kids who attend them, I think it would be totally impossible to implement with a straight face.

However, leaving the possibility of people not taking it seriously aside, the question remains about what it would actually mean. Would we be insisting the teenagers 'take the pledge'? What would happen to those that refused? Would immigrants or temporary residents have to take the pledge too? Are we seriously suggesting that teenagers might think twice before acting in an anti-social manner, before buying cheap alcohol and marauding around high streets, because of it?

In these sort of public liturgies, the words themselves are merely symbolic, and are meant to be a public statement of some already deeply held truth. The same is true in marriage and baptism. So aren't we asking our children to actually lie if the are forced to say the words without the belief? And if so, is this not simply going to lead to deeper problems later?

Children in the UK are suffering an identity crisis. They are insecure, adrift and alone on the ocean of free-market consumerism, battered by peer pressure, told not to hold on to beliefs or foster relationships or risk being sunk by commitment.

An oath to Queen and Country is an insult to them. How about instead a commitment, a public statement by government, reciprocated by a public commitment by parents, to do better by our children, to love them and support them, to adopt laws that would support families rather than atomising them in the drive to make people work?

Once again, it's the children who are taking the rap. And, as I think the parable of the sower suggests, we shouldn't expect so much of our young seedlings.

Technorati: Allegiance | Britishness | Government | Oath | Parents | Teenagers

What Are The 'Grand Challenges' for Theology for the 21st Century?

Wired reported a couple of days ago on the conclusions of Google co-founder Larry Page's working group on improving life on earth, and the list of '14 Grand Engineering Challenges of the 21st Century'. They included things like making solar energy affordable, reverse-engineering the brain and providing energy from fusion. Energy, quality of life, quantity of life, in summary.

This got me thinking: what might a list of the grand theological challenges of the next 100 years look like? Well, I'm no Larry Page, but I mailed out a bunch of people in my address book, texted and called a few others, and had lunch with one, asking them, very simply, what they thought should be on the list.

Actually, not that simply. Because I also asked if they thought whether such a list could even be created. Page's list is more simple: science - our knowledge of our physical world - does progress. We have better materials and technologies than we used to. But has our understanding of God actually moved forward? Or do people simply dig ever-deeper into their rutted positions?

So what did people say? You can find the unexpurgated version here, but, edited down a little:

Brian Maclaren (writer) Grappling with Jesus' good news of the kingdom of God, realizing how it differs from the popular Western gospel of "how to go to heaven after you die and be happy and successful until then.

Nic Hughes (designer) I wish that someone, some group, something, somewhere would develop a theological project that captured the imagination. All the good ideas are elsewhere. Cross-discipline theological labs please?

Vanessa Elston (teacher) In very basic terms how do we move from a reformation/protestant/enlightenment emphasis on the salvation of the individual to one of communal participation in salvation.

So This Is What The World Wants: One Dimensional Men? | Bartlett and Williams

As the Archbishop heads for Synod this afternoon to defend himself and, according to some exaggerated reports, save his job, I've been mulling over exactly why he has been under such pressure for his comments on Sharia Law. Even the shallowest examination of him as a man would reveal a hugely intelligent thinker and a thoroughly, deeply spiritual life. Why would such a man want the UK to come under Sharia Law and start 'stoning women', as the tabloids would have it?

His words have been twisted out of all recognition of course. And yet pundits line up to judge that he has been foolish - of course his words have been twisted. Everyone's are. Which is why people say nothing. And thus runs the plot tension of a whole stack of West Wing episodes: Bartlett knows what should be said, but is advised he can't. Then at the last minute a way is found that he can, and all is good. In other words, we know this stuff should be said, and feel good when it is on TV, so what is stopping people talking intelligently in the public domain?

I tried to touch on this in the book. I think Marcuse's analysis in One Dimensional Man is really good. He writes that there are basically three ways that the dominant powers push people down - flatten them into nicely manageable one-dimensional beings. All three ways are lies, and they run like this:

The first lie: "Things are too big and complicated for you to be able to change them. Things have gone too far to change anyway."

The second lie: "If you do try to change things, you'll be risking all you've got - your own status and position and financial security."

The third lie: "And if you still persist in taking these big topics on, and are prepared to pay the cost, people will just laugh at you."

These are the main reasons why people simply don't do anything: it'll cost me, it's too big, people will laugh. And it's been interesting to note how these three lies have been spun out to attack the Archbishop. 'You don't understand enough about Sharia Law / Islam / the legal system to comment'. 'You're foolish for speaking out - don't you know you'll be putting your job at risk?' 'What a Burkha' etc.

But what is more interesting to note are the groups of people spinning them. As a general rule it's been legal pundits, the broadsheet media and more right-leaning politicians who've spun the first, the church and more left-leaning politicians who've spun the second, and the tabloid media who've spun the third.

What have all these people got in common? Something precious to lose. And this is the nub of the whole furore: in a country under tension from immigration, from European integration, people feel their identities are under threat. And what is perceived as the last bastion of Englishness? Our own legal system with its wigs and theatrics. The political right and the jurists are afraid of losing this precious control over how to tell people what is right and wrong, the religious right are afraid of Britain straying further away from hard-line evangelicalism, the political left are still frightened they won't be taken seriously and will lose their hold on power, and the tabloid media poke fun and stir up a storm to sell papers.

None of them are really interested in what Dr Williams had to say - which was a quite brilliant and brave talk on culture, belonging and identity. Not because they have no interest in it, but precisely because they've invested too much interest in keeping the status quo. Like Bartlett, I hope Rowan stays true to his message, and doesn't stop forcing us to see the multiplicity of our dimensions.

Technorati: Archbishop | Canterbury | Marcuse | Media | One Dimensional Man | Rowan Williams | Sharia

Mission as Entrepreneurial Activity?

Ben has an excellent and honest post here outlining his doubts about the 'missional entrepreneur' that is in popular parlance.

I've posted a comment outlining some thoughts on how the role of the artist might help us imagine this in a new way.

Technorati: Ben Edson | Mission | Entrepreneur

More Papal Bull... "If It's Not Catholic, It's Not A Proper Church"

The Times reports today that "The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as “not proper Churches” in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope."

"The Orthodox church suffers from a wound because it does not recognise the primacy of the Pope. The wound is even more profound in Protestant denominations, and it is difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to them.”

Great work. Really nice. It's difficult to see how the title of 'Christian' could possibly be attributed...

Technorati: Pope | Ratzinger | Catholic | Orthodox | Protestant | Division

Is The Emerging Church Hopelessly Utopian? [3]

Hopelessly Utopian [1]

Hopelessly Utopian [2]

Thanks for the comments on the above posts. In response to Cheryl and Becky, yes, of course every church movement has felt 'no one else has ever felt this way before'. And it's actually important to recognise that, as Gray does in Black Mass, suggesting that 'the utopian instinct in modern politics, which has itself presented itself in secular and often explicitly anti-religious form, must be understood as a kind of sublimated religious impulse.' Gray, as I've written, goes on to say that we need to move beyond any grand visions, any utopian ideals, but the point I think he misses is within his own words: utopian dreams are part of what it is to be human. They are part of the divine ache within each of us.

So, if the Emerging Church is hopelessly utopian, that's partly because it's hopelessly human, and hopelessly divine. We couldn't be any other way.

Trouble is, these grand visions often lead to states/power structures enforcing their own purity codes on others, and, in church parallels, people getting hurt and religious warfare/bigotry breaking out. Which is why Jay Winter argues for us to go after 'minor utopias', "a modest strand of visionary thought that sketch out a world very different from the one we live in, but from which not all social conflict or all oppression has been eliminated."

Because, as I've written in the book, I believe the Emerging Church needs to be a 'dirty' church, having a 'minor utopian' vision will hopefully allow us to avoid some of the pitfalls of sterile religion, and avoid becoming a fully denominated, bounded group.

So what might this look like?

I'm really glad Nic brought up the concept of TAZs in the comments on the first post. The article describes these Temporary Autonomous Zones as "like an uprising which does not engage directly with the State, a guerilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves itself to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen, before the State can crush it."

In other words, as the article continues, TAZ is, in the ancient sense, 'festive': "it envisions an intensification of everyday life, or as the Surrealists might have said, life's penetration by the Marvelous [...] It lies at the intersection of many forces, like some pagan power-spot at the junction of mysterious ley-lines, visible to the adept in seemingly unrelated bits of terrain, landscape, flows of air, water, animals. [...] The patterns of force which bring the TAZ into being have something in common with those chaotic "Strange Attractors" which exist, so to speak, between the dimensions."

I don't think it's too far to push the TAZ concept to say that Jesus was involved in TAZing. The incarnation event was 'life's penetration by the Marvelous', which existed in festival for a while before the authorities radared it and tried to crush it. Jesus' miracles can be seen in the same way: foretastes of another world, TAZs breaking through, complex, strange, without fixed dimensions.

I believe, as John L pushed towards in his comments, that the Emerging Church will not be hopelessly utopian if it follows Jesus' TAZ vision. Never institutionalising, never forming solidly, always festive, always uprising, always liberating, always slipping away, Trickster-style before the authorities can crush it. But, as John rightly points out, this will take a totally different sort of leadership, and membership. One that resists trying to permanently inhabit the spaces that should only be TAZs. Permanent spaces have to be state-sanctioned; they are not penetrated by the Marvelous.

Of course, 'utopia' means 'no place'. If we are dreaming of 'winning', and turning everyone on to our way of thinking, we are trying to create permanent, pure places that will divide and oppress. If, on the other hand, we are about more modest, local visions, about creating festive TAZs, then these temporal, radical 'non places' are, by that definition, utopian.

So, is the Emerging Church hopelessly utopian? In many senses, I hope so. The utopian instinct is part of our divine humanity for things to change - and thank God for hopelessly utopian figures like William Wilberforce - but we must temper this desire with our also very human instinct to grab power. If we can find that middle way then I, for one, am in.

Technorati: Black Mass | Festival | Jay Winter | John Gray | TAZ