Losing my religion?

All the cool kids are ‘spiritual but not religious’ now, but what does that actually mean?

For many people, it means that they believe in a higher power or powers, but have freed themselves from the perceived domination of any particular doctrine and/or human authority structure.

That doesn’t actually mean they are free of religion though.

Religion as a concept has evolved, from an initial meaning of a subjective experience/attitude of awe in the presence of a deity, to become a response – religion is the practises one adopts as the outworking of a belief system.

It is not simply the doctrines and practises that make up a faith tradition.

If your belief is that we are all one, and that nobody should harm anyone else, you develop a set of practises which go along with that belief. If you believe that God loves the poor and needy, and that he lives and acts through his followers, then you develop a set of practises to reflect that.

You are also liable also to develop patterns and ways of demonstrating worship, veneration and adoration which fall in line with these beliefs. Worship and celebration seems to be something that comes quite naturally to humans, that these practises become part of our religion is equally as natural.

That is religion.

To be ‘spiritual but not religious’ actually doesn’t mean what people think it does. It would actually mean, ‘I believe in things, but don’t let my beliefs impact my life in any way’ (This is something which could be said of many ‘religious’ people). But I don’t think that is what people are trying to express when they talk about themselves in this way  – which is perhaps better summed up as ‘spiritual but not an follower of any of the major faith traditions.’

Religious has become a dirty word, it has become the reflection of an idea that ‘Religion’ or ‘Religio’ is an abstract something – usually something malign and harsh.

In fact, I think we’re pretty much all religious, I’m less convinced that we’re all actively, or consciously ‘spiritual’.  By which I don’t mean that we aren’t spiritual beings – but rather that we’re not conscious of our own spirituality.

OR – maybe there’s another way of looking at it – it would be great to hear your perspective…

Endo’s Silence, and the problem of the impossible question

Whenever one has a discussion about an issue like pacifism with somebody who doesnt share the same convictions, there usually comes a point when an impossible question is posed. In that case, the question is usually something like: ‘What would you do if your family were being horribly slaughtered, and you could only stop it by shooting the assailant dead?’

The question is intended to demonstrate the futility of the pacifist position, the basic faulty thinking that lies behind a pacifist response.

But of course, just because there is an obvious thing that one probably would do – doesnt mean that it would be morally ‘right’.

In his incredible novel ‘Silence’ the Japanese writer Shusako Endo tells the story of a Christian missionary in Japan a few hundred years ago. This was a time when the Japanese were extremely antithetical towards this foreign religion, and there was a great deal of persecution of both missionaries and converts.

Part of the plot revolves around the question of whether the main character should deny Christ, in order to save others from torture. The already suffering peasants are put through terrible pain, because the priest won’t ‘step on the fumie’ or apostasise.

So one could ask a committed Christian, who is sure of his or her faith – ‘but what if your family were being tortured and killed, and you could stop them by blaspheming and renouncing Christ? What would you do then.

This impossible question is perhaps a sister to that asked of pacifists – and demonstrates (perhaps) the futility of a faith position.

What they really demonstrate though are the impossibilities of asking such questions. Endo’s ‘Silence’s is a fantastic book for anyone interested in pursuing such thinking, and meditating on the silence of God amidst pain and hardship. But do consider the pointlessness of such questioning if you are ever challenging a pacifist – what might be thought ‘necessary’ or ‘the only choice’ is not necessarily the right one.

Apophatic or Kataphitic? How should we meditate?

Not often I use strange words like those Apophatic and Kataphitic, but lately I’ve been musing, pondering and indeed meditating, on the nature of meditation, and in specific the nature of Christian meditation, and what forms it might rightly take.

There are basically two schools of meditative practise in the Christian tradition, the Apophatic school, which work on the ‘beyond words, thoughts, feelings etc’ way of meditating, which in many ways draws upon the Eastern traditions, or at least is closely aligned in terms of its use of repeated phrases – known in other traditions as Mantras.This form of meditation is also most closely aligned with what you might describe as secular meditation, including types of TM, which also draw on Eastern philosophies.

The other way is the Kataphitic way, which is a way of meditating which involves or specifically includes the mind, the imagination, and the senses. This may lead on from a reading or memorised piece of text, or may be guided by a teacher.

I have used both of these kinds of meditation, and can see the positive benefits of both. My wondering is whether the first can be called authentically Christian, or whether despite its association with other religions and practises, the focus of the individual is what transforms it to being a Christian practise. If that is the case though, where does such ‘redemptive’ thinking stop? Can one claim any spiritual practise is Christian in such a way? While I have attempted it, and found no personal harm in it, I do find myself troubled by the ‘emptying of the mind’ nature of Apophatic meditation, which seems to allow no opportunity for the mind to interact in some way with the Divine. The late John Main a Benedictine brother who taught a kind of Mantra meditation repeatedly instructs us to keep saying the Mantra – keep saying it.

I recognise that there is real value to be found here, and I think that Main’s claims of the ‘spiritual poverty’ of the Mantra as being of implicit value are powerful, but still I find myself confused as to whether we can see this as being explicitly Christian.

The Jesus Prayer, which I have used also, and which I noted recently that a new film is to cover, seems like a middle ground between these two forms, but I’m not usually one for middle ground (not that we should discount the Jesus Prayer on that score, not at all).

I guess that, unless you lovely readers can provide good and coherent arguments to the contrary, my final opinion for now is that there is value in both, but on the whole one should take the Kataphitic as a starting point, perhaps Lectio Divina, or an Ignation form of visualisation, and immerse onesself in that, before (if appropriate) moving on to an Apophatic form of meditating at relevant times.

Again, sorry for (very) obscure (very) religious jargon, would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Teens becoming ‘fake Christians’?

Two good posts here and here about this article – which suggests that many Teens are becoming ‘fake Christians’ following a God who tells them to be nice and not to have sex or take drugs.

There is a real challenge for all of us to move beyond a religion where we’re basically telling people to be middle class, and have solid conservative values, to actually getting down and dirty, and following Jesus.

I believe its fair to suggest that Jesus would not find a happy home in many of our churches, and that is a sad indictment on our corporate Christianity.

The good news is though that the authors say we as parents can do something about it:

…parents who perform one act of radical faith in front of their children convey more than a multitude of sermons and mission trips.

A parent’s radical act of faith could involve something as simple as spending a summer in Bolivia working on an agricultural renewal project or turning down a more lucrative job offer to stay at a struggling church, Dean says.

But it’s not enough to be radical — parents must explain “this is how Christians live,” she says.

Ready then everyone?

life in contrast

By way of change I have been doing some painting today, not oils and acrylics – emulsion. Yeah, I’ve been a decorator for the day, which has made an interesting change. Anyway, as I rollered a wall with Magnolia I was struck by something which is simple but somehow profound.

When the magnolia went over one colour, it looked very dark, but then when it went over another (darker) colour, it suddenly seemed very light.

The paint was the same, but the effect was very different, and the reason for that is contrast. When the paint is contrasted with a light colour it seems quite different to when its contrasted with a dark one, how true of issues in my life and the world generally.

An issue which can seems extremely important/significant/heavy in one context, seems much less so in another – its all to do with what we’re contrasting things with.

I know its obvious, but that paint was impossible to see as anything but dark when painted over a light colour, just as certain things are impossible to see as anything but extremely important until the context changes.

Which means that we must all learn to have more grace with those who are looking at a different coloured wall to us, and seeing the same paint in a different way.

And yes, I am talking to myself more than anyone else.

Jesus is asked to leave the church…

There’s a lovely piece of writing here from Mark Sayers. See what happens when Jesus turns up in a nice church, how well he goes down with the different congregations, and how, in the end, the pastor has to deal with him.

Funny stuff, but painfully true.

Shane Claiborne and the question of what it means to be a Christian

There’s a really good interview with Shane Claiborne here which really brings out some straightforward but vital stuff. He’s really talking throughout about what it really means to be a Christian, as the writer makes clear from the start, we can call anything Christian, but that doesnt mean it necessarily has much to do with Jesus or the way he taught people to live.

Anyway, read the article, I urge you, it’s encouraging.

As a special treat, here is an edited excerpt, which I think this is a good example of the kind of good stuff he says:

“I think we’ve become infatuated with evangelism to the point that we have an imbalanced focus on discipleship and formation. So what we end up with is a church of believers but very few disciples or followers. And you can worship Jesus without following him…

“So people believe something but even the demons believe we can have faith to move mountains but if we don’t have love it’s nothing, Scripture says.

“So what we’re really talking about I think is recognising that in the evangelical church our evangelism has been a mile long but our discipleship has been an inch deep. We’ve got to really rethink what it means to have lives that are transformed and to have people that because of Christ they’re a new creation and they no longer live on the patterns of our culture. Romans says that we are to be transformed by the renewing of the mind and not to conform to the patterns of our world. So those patterns of racism, consumption, militarism, all the things that don’t look like Jesus, we’ve got to be cultivating people who think with a different imagination than the world around us.

“What monasticism does is put together our belief and our practices so to begin to articulate what are some of the practices of Christianity, what are the ways that it looks? We can learn that by looking at the early church, by looking at Jesus and we can see that the early church shared all their money. They were busting through the barriers of class and race. So we have to relearn our identity, that our identity no longer centrally lies in America but it’s much deeper than that. That we are first Christians and that means we’re a part of a global family and that affects the way that we think about international conflicts, immigration…”

As usual his words are prophetic and timely, and he has this warning for a church which is worried about why its losing young people from its ranks, and desperately trying to make itself ‘hipper’ to stem the exodus.

“I think that part of what we’ve done is we thought in order to stay relevant to a new generation we’ve got to have more drums and drama and high-tech entertainment. The truth is if we lose a generation in the church it won’t be because we didn’t entertain them but because we didn’t dare them and challenge them to really take Jesus seriously in light of the world we live in.”

For me personally, I’m just dead keen to find and work alongside others who think the sermon on the mount should be taken seriously, that it should be used as a way to live, not just something to read. If that’s your kind of Christianity – get in touch.

More about Morocco

More news about the shameful breach of human rights and clampdown on ex-pat Christians in Morocco:

This is the official release from an orphanage in Morocco which is about to lose all its ex-pat staff, and apparently leave some 33 children abandoned again. As the writer puts it:

…Watching the children be told by their parents that they had to leave, that they would maybe never see them again, is the most painful thing I have ever witnessed…

I don’t know these people, their work or their motivations except for what I have read today, but I have no reason to distrust what they are saying, and it backs up other things I have been told. They have been given three days or less to leave the country… I think this is a very shameful action on the part of the Moroccan government.

Thoughts on the Magi, for the Epiphany feast day

So today is Epiphany, which is the feast to mark the arrival of the Magi in Bethlehem, and in some ways it is my favourite part of the Christmas story.

I love the Magi because they confound all our expectations of who and what is to be found with Jesus. There is nothing really conventionally acceptable in Christian doctrine which can allow for the Magi, astrologers from a different culture and religion who seek the advice of the evil king Herod (good architect I know, but that doesnt really excuse the infanticide) and then turn up with some mysterious gifts and pop off home again.

There’s so much that doesnt make sense about the story, that I sometimes think it was written in afterwards, but either way its a brilliant spanner in the works of conventional thinking.

In terms of what doesnt make sense – well here’s a couple of things: You’ve got this kid with all these incredible prophecies/angelic visitations who is then visited by exotic foreign visitors with precious gifts – but a few years later everyone it seems like everyone has forgotten all about it (apart from good old Mary). I would have thought this would be fairly memorable really, what with the whole infanticide episode and everything.

Then there’s the gifts – what happened to them?

Anyway, I am sure there are more learned people out there with tenuous explanations for these mysteries, there’s certainly plenty of cranky conspiracy theories.

But what I love most about this story aside from the strangeness if it, is the way it opens the door to Jesus for those from non conventional backgrounds. Matthew, who first wrote about it, saw many gentiles (non Jews) join his community, and accept Jesus as King, Priest and Deity. This to me is what the Magi represent, the fact that those from many different backgrounds and ways of travelling can arrive at the point where they recognise Jesus as the King, the great high Priest and the one true God.  Forget the religious trappings that surround Christianity, it’s about an encounter with Jesus, and a recognition of him outside of the usual surroundings of royalty, preisthood and divinity. He is to be found in the humble, out of the way place.

Lets not forget too that this gives rise to persecution, that the established powers, represented in this story by Herod, dont like this at all. Its great that these guys turn up, but a whole lot of death and pain follow them. Something to chew on I suppose.

There’s lots more to write, but the day is full of people spouting off about Epiphany, so I’ll let you get on. Have a peaceful day!

My thoughts on Piracy

Kester Brewin has been writing a series of articles about Piracy, and how it can/should be re-understood in the context of the church. It was a long and interesting series, following on from some stuff which I didnt hear at Greenbelt.

Richard Sudworth has made a response to Kester’s series of posts, taking  a stand against some of what Kester has to say, and also bringing in the kind of work that Peter Rollins has been involved in.

Indeed the two are from a similar mould, they both write stimulating and challenging prose which I find intriguing and troubling at the same time, in general I’m a fan. But what about their arguments?

In the first place I should say that I think its important there are people like Kester and Pete out there doing their thing. My personal view is that we need to have people like them asserting points of view which are unpalletable and challenging, whether we eventually agree with them or not. I have written before that we need to ‘re-wild’ the church, and that we need to be a lot less comfortable with our faith/religion.

But having said that, and albeit that I am no theologian, I do have a number of issues with some of the stuff they say, lets take the piracy thing.

First there is the concept of piracy itself – what is it really? Is it the great heresy, full of creativity and innovation? I would argue that it isnt. I would say in fact that piracy is simply free market capitalism taken to its logical conclusion.

Piracy is basically a way of making money and obtaining goods or services by finding a way of getting it from other people at the lowest possible cost to yourself. Capitalism encourages the people at the bottom of the ladder to strive to get up it, and it encourages the idea of taking a short cut if possible. That is called ‘efficiency’. Thus we are all trying to stay ahead of others, and in our own way, through systemic exploitation,  all contributing to the death and destruction, rape and torture of others, but for most of us its a few steps removed from our hands. For the archetypal pirate, its right there in front of them.

Piracy also serves another purpose, that of safeguarding the orthodoxy. While there are pirates in the seas, we must have gunships, soldiers, private military contractors. The threat of piracy is what legitimises the defence of the orthodoxy, the pirates are out to get us, so we must have something to protect us. Piracy therefore is a necessary part of our system, rather than being the innovation, its the bogey man which is used to keep children in their beds. (I dont use bogey men stories to keep my kids in their beds… much.)

Oh and my opinion of why kids like pirates? The idea of piracy is one of having what the world offers, without the need for adherence to an ethical code, its basically getting stuff, without responsibility to others save your loyal buccaneer pals. The dream is to buckle a swash, steal some treasure, and sail off into the sun with not a care in the world, looking for an island full of willing maidens, or even unwilling ones if necessary. Kids like pirates because we socialise them into liking the idea that you could have everything you want, without needing to be the poor sucker at the bottom of the pile who has to clean up the mess. The pirate is top dog, answerable to no man but himself and those he chooses (the pirate ship as democracy scenario), he (yes usually it is a he) spurns the idea of obeying the external rules, and chooses to take what he can instead with a piratical wink and an unaccountable forgiving nature for young people (Long John Silver, Capt Adam Penfeather etc).

So I dont hold with the utopian concept of piracy, I do understand the horrendous situation faced by some of the pirates in Somalia, fish stolen, toxic waste dumped, etc etc, and I can understand why they do what they do. Does that make it right? Not at all. Nor does their action make it right that the US navy patrols the area with gunships and missiles. None of it is right, and it is all caused by the disaster that Somalia has become, a disaster which has been exploited by the richer nations to legitimise their own ways of thinking/behaving, and to be hauled out as another example of what happens when ‘Africa goes bad’.

On another form of piracy, that of ripping off music and films, and the ubiquitous complaint that the anti piracy adverts at the beginning of DVDs are annoying. This aggravates me on two fronts, firstly, the whole DVD piracy thing is actually right. Organised gangs do make lots of money from counterfeit goods, they might not wear jaunty hats, and they may live in houses not boats, but these pirates are responsible not just for one form of crime, but for many forms. Any criminologist can tell you that people involved in this form of organised crime are more likely to be involved in other forms, whether that be drugs, prostitution or whatever. This is just another way of making money.

Does that translate to those illegally uploading and downloading music and films on the internet? No, but there is a difference between music and films, in particular the scale.  Iwould suggest that there is a huge moral question over whether we should watch hollywood films at all. The vast sums of money spent on the industry are obscene, and the disparity between the elite and the oppressed are only aggravated by the development of the film stars. Not to mention the fact that the development of the film industry has spawned brainless TV entertainment which is slowly killing our minds, and also taken us away to a large extent from the interaction of live entertainment, which at one time we might each have been a part of. That’s a discussion for another day.

I think there is a genuine argument that the music industry needs to change its structure and methodology, I find Steve Lawson’s arguments very persuasive on this, and while I personally do not conduct illegal file sharing, nor do I suggest anyone else should, I can understand the suggestion that music is much better given away for free like this. There is a social and economic reasoning behind it which makes sense.

Is that the same for films? No, because films dont have the same dynamics, they cant come live in your living room like a band or musician can, and the cinema and the concert hall are two quite different places. There does need to be new thought on all this, but to moan about anti piracy ads on the front of your dvd makes no sense at all to me. Is it subversive to try and rip off films and music? Or is it just an attempt to obtain goods and services at the lowest possible cost to oneself? The latter being the orthodox view of this society by the way, and one which as I said before inevitably results in piracy of one sort or another.

Do I think that we need heretics (a la Brewin and Rollins) in the church, I do actually yes, I think this links to an earlier post I wrote about re-wilding the church. I think there is a calling on some to be provocative, to be wild and out there, in all directions. They help the rest of us by making us re-examine our comfortable philosophies. Richard Sudworth also correctly points out that any group can be on the margins depending upon its context, no one form of Christian faith community has the monopoly on being marginalised. I am more and more of the opinion that we need to be fully accepting of all kinds of church and Christian practise, and a bit more demanding of ourselves in terms of discipleship.

Richard Sudworth questions the morality of what Kester and Pete are espousing, suggesting that it undermines any notion of an objective truth based morality, and of course it does. Both these guys are very much of the postmodern school (imho) and seem to come close to denying the very pillars of our beliefs. While I can understand the point they are making, I feel that in this case postmodernity misses the point. What we need is rather than a postmodern frame of reference, a pre-modern frame of reference, which requires not disbelief, but an active suspension of disbelief on our part. I’ll write more on this another time hopefully.

So on balance, while I am interested, intrigued and stimulated in my thinking by these questions of piracy and the orthodoxy of heresy, I am less than convinced by all the arguments, well done to Richard Sudworth for taking it all apart much more insightfully and eloquently than I ever could, and lets all keep listening to one another.