(That's right - still playing catch up.)
The Gospel of Mark
On Maundy Thursday we held a reading of the whole of Mark's gospel. It was brilliant, the only thing was there were just six of us there, and four of those were reading! For this reason we'll do it again, and soon.
It's really good to get a picture of the whole flow of Mark - the way the stories roll together and reference one another - gradually building a portrait of Jesus, his ministry and the ways he is misunderstood, even by those closest to him (ouch!). For me personally one of the things i'm most appreciative of in doing this is the implied seriousness with which we're invited to take each gospel on it's own standing. It alleviates the pressure that can be there to mash the four gospels together in a bid to force them to make one coherent, linear whole.
I could only see doing this as a good thing and those there all said similar things - and all with slightly different reasons for the value of it. How peculiar then that we don't do this, and things like it, in church more often. I guess it's part the fault of me and folk like me, and part the expectation of church communities as to what a service looks like. An event like this, is it worship? Yes. Is there teaching / learning taking place? Yes. Is it prayerful, or is there space for prayer to take place around it? Yes. Is there space to hear from God? Yes. There seems such a broad palate from which we can devise what a service is and yet it seems we almost insist on using such a narrow part of it. Even when we do something different, it's exactly that: 'different', and when it's over, even if it's been seen as good, there's a huge sense of "can we go back to 'normal' now, please?".
I guess that's just part of the draw of the status quo...
22 April 2009
20 April 2009
Output.iv
Now then.
I can't post this without acknowledgement of Glen's blog Nah then, but sadly the two have nothing to do with each other beyond their similar sounding titles, so i'll move on.
College retreat, an age ago now, was all about the sacramentalism of the present moment. I've long thought that the only things we really have are moments and memories, so the topic and mode of the retreat wasn't difficult for me to grasp. As far as the idea of a given moment being sacramental is concerned, that also was something that sat quite comfortably.
I always really struggle with the idea of sacrament, largely because of the particularity with which people identify that which is sacramental and that which is not. Even more so when the definition offered is along the lines of 'an act in which God promises her presence and by which his grace is outworked' - my response is always 'oh, so that's only every breath i take then?'. Suffice to say i take a low view of sacramentalism, or, to be more accurate, i take a very high view of the whole of life.
In relation to 'The Now' i had one thought going round-and-round my head which i couldn't get away from, but which seemed largely self-gratifying, pseudo-philosophical, pointlessly whispy twaddle. It was that either The Now is everything; it's all we have - the future doesn't exist yet and the past is gone. Or there is no such thing as The Now at all because of how fine the line between the past and the future is (if it exists at all) means it's impossible to inhabit. We simply live a couple of beats in the past with an eye on the future.
I couldn't work out which of the two perspectives to take, but more importantly, i couldn't work out a way in which either of them mattered; they had no effect and made no difference - and yet it seemed to me that there must be something in it. The following week Kez was preaching from John 12.20-33 where Jesus speaks about his forthcoming death. All the language is 'now...this hour...' etc even in reference to judgement. It does seem as though Jesus' emphasis is in relation to the idea of The Now being everything, inclusive of it being the place where our eschatology is achieved - it also being the place of the Kingdom of God (if we dare play our part now). Of course, from our contemporary view point that 'now' has become a 'then' and so a whole linear take on time is reduced, or at least threatened.
So indeed, as far as the gospel is concerned, the time is now, while it also remains true that (to quote Magnolia) "as the book says, we may be through with the past, but the past isn't through with us".
I can't post this without acknowledgement of Glen's blog Nah then, but sadly the two have nothing to do with each other beyond their similar sounding titles, so i'll move on.
College retreat, an age ago now, was all about the sacramentalism of the present moment. I've long thought that the only things we really have are moments and memories, so the topic and mode of the retreat wasn't difficult for me to grasp. As far as the idea of a given moment being sacramental is concerned, that also was something that sat quite comfortably.
I always really struggle with the idea of sacrament, largely because of the particularity with which people identify that which is sacramental and that which is not. Even more so when the definition offered is along the lines of 'an act in which God promises her presence and by which his grace is outworked' - my response is always 'oh, so that's only every breath i take then?'. Suffice to say i take a low view of sacramentalism, or, to be more accurate, i take a very high view of the whole of life.
In relation to 'The Now' i had one thought going round-and-round my head which i couldn't get away from, but which seemed largely self-gratifying, pseudo-philosophical, pointlessly whispy twaddle. It was that either The Now is everything; it's all we have - the future doesn't exist yet and the past is gone. Or there is no such thing as The Now at all because of how fine the line between the past and the future is (if it exists at all) means it's impossible to inhabit. We simply live a couple of beats in the past with an eye on the future.
I couldn't work out which of the two perspectives to take, but more importantly, i couldn't work out a way in which either of them mattered; they had no effect and made no difference - and yet it seemed to me that there must be something in it. The following week Kez was preaching from John 12.20-33 where Jesus speaks about his forthcoming death. All the language is 'now...this hour...' etc even in reference to judgement. It does seem as though Jesus' emphasis is in relation to the idea of The Now being everything, inclusive of it being the place where our eschatology is achieved - it also being the place of the Kingdom of God (if we dare play our part now). Of course, from our contemporary view point that 'now' has become a 'then' and so a whole linear take on time is reduced, or at least threatened.
So indeed, as far as the gospel is concerned, the time is now, while it also remains true that (to quote Magnolia) "as the book says, we may be through with the past, but the past isn't through with us".
17 April 2009
Output.iii
Overnight Shelter
One of the most significant things that's been going on in the time my blog dried up has been the church's work with the roughsleepers' night shelter project. When this first came to us and we agreed to take it on i thought it would, firstly, be brilliant, and secondly, really be something worth blogging about with easy access to lots of stuff to say.
In hindsight i think i was right on both counts, the issue is i wasn't aware of the extent to which the relationships built up with the people using the service would make blogging about it (and them) feel like some sort of exploitation. It's a tricky thing because i think the story of the impact had on the church by running the shelter is a vital one to tell, but it's that very impact itself (i.e. the change to the nature of the community in terms of the individuals who comprise it) which - if that community is to be genuine - kind of prohibits a 'selling of the story'. I suppose the forums and means used to tell (or show) the(se) story(s) need to be very carefully thought about, as should what is sought to be achieved by their telling.
One of the most significant things that's been going on in the time my blog dried up has been the church's work with the roughsleepers' night shelter project. When this first came to us and we agreed to take it on i thought it would, firstly, be brilliant, and secondly, really be something worth blogging about with easy access to lots of stuff to say.
In hindsight i think i was right on both counts, the issue is i wasn't aware of the extent to which the relationships built up with the people using the service would make blogging about it (and them) feel like some sort of exploitation. It's a tricky thing because i think the story of the impact had on the church by running the shelter is a vital one to tell, but it's that very impact itself (i.e. the change to the nature of the community in terms of the individuals who comprise it) which - if that community is to be genuine - kind of prohibits a 'selling of the story'. I suppose the forums and means used to tell (or show) the(se) story(s) need to be very carefully thought about, as should what is sought to be achieved by their telling.
15 April 2009
Output.ii
The Passion of The Christ.
If The Shack wasn't quite passe enough for you, this should hit the spot. I shan't keep you long, i imagine most of you have seen it, or like me, have deliberately chosen not to see it.
It was Holy Week so on Good Friday we had a showing of this film. I'd originally chosen not to see the film because i had a good handle on what Roman flagellation and crucifixion meant. When i was younger i was at a youth event where one of the speakers went through the whole thing in a manner Mel Gibson would approve of. I therefore didn't have much interest in seeing the film. My head was initially turned though just a few months back when i met someone without any profession of Christian faith who said they'd seen it five or six times and "were always stunned to see what he'd gone through and thought it was worthy of spending some time thinking about". So opportunity arose, £3 copy, Good Friday it was.
On the whole i was right. It did what it said on the tin and in a manner largely devoid of insight. The one moment i will credit it with was where Simon of Cyrene assists in the carrying of the cross. He initially protests, but then agrees on the condition it's acknowledged that he is an innocent man carrying the cross for the condemned man. By the end of their time together he doesn't want to leave Jesus and it's become clear to him somehow that his initial description of the situation is in fact a reversal of the truth.
I'm most critical of how it fails to function according to cinematically affecting methods though. Mel Gibson knows cinema and has directed some reasonably good stuff, but for some reason he opted to ignore the potential offered to him by the medium. It seems that he deliberately chose to show every stroke of the whip and every fall so the audience 'endures it with him' - or something. Only two minor points missed there then. First, it would be impossible for the audience to endure it with him - that's the point, particularly if you go with a substitutionary take on the Crucifixion and atonement! Secondly, if that's what he wanted to do, why ignore the 'less is more' fact of film. Think on what Tarantino achieved with the ear slicing that never was - he had people being sick and walking out. Even the Gorno genre; the likes of Saw and Hostel, know better than to show everything, or at least have a better take on timing and the balance of tension and release.
I was puzzled by the anti-Semitic claims made about the film. Yes, the Jewish leaders are pantomimically sneery but there is a point that i've best heard made by a stand up comic (i believe it's Dylan Moran but i could be quite mistaken). He said everyone's getting all heated about blaming the Jews for killing Jesus" and his response is "Well... it wasn't the Mexicans!" The point being, if God will be incarnate to the point of death, it can only ever happen in one context or other and there will be specifics of those regarded as responsible. All this is beside the point though, because my reading of the film was that the Jews weren't blamed. One of the main purposes of the film was that we're all to blame. It goes to lengths to show all the people who didn't stop it: Jewish leaders, Roman authorities, soldiers, crowds, disciples - everyone. "Why doesn't someone stop this?" is the line from an anonymous source that's left ringing at the end of the trial. If anything, it's about power: the more powerful someone is, the less likely they are to have stopped it. As a white, male, Western, able-bodied, working, educated person, the charge of the guilt of the powerful is not one i can even pretend to shirk.
Anyway, really glad i got all these thoughts out there in time. No one could accuse me of being topical!
If The Shack wasn't quite passe enough for you, this should hit the spot. I shan't keep you long, i imagine most of you have seen it, or like me, have deliberately chosen not to see it.
It was Holy Week so on Good Friday we had a showing of this film. I'd originally chosen not to see the film because i had a good handle on what Roman flagellation and crucifixion meant. When i was younger i was at a youth event where one of the speakers went through the whole thing in a manner Mel Gibson would approve of. I therefore didn't have much interest in seeing the film. My head was initially turned though just a few months back when i met someone without any profession of Christian faith who said they'd seen it five or six times and "were always stunned to see what he'd gone through and thought it was worthy of spending some time thinking about". So opportunity arose, £3 copy, Good Friday it was.
On the whole i was right. It did what it said on the tin and in a manner largely devoid of insight. The one moment i will credit it with was where Simon of Cyrene assists in the carrying of the cross. He initially protests, but then agrees on the condition it's acknowledged that he is an innocent man carrying the cross for the condemned man. By the end of their time together he doesn't want to leave Jesus and it's become clear to him somehow that his initial description of the situation is in fact a reversal of the truth.
I'm most critical of how it fails to function according to cinematically affecting methods though. Mel Gibson knows cinema and has directed some reasonably good stuff, but for some reason he opted to ignore the potential offered to him by the medium. It seems that he deliberately chose to show every stroke of the whip and every fall so the audience 'endures it with him' - or something. Only two minor points missed there then. First, it would be impossible for the audience to endure it with him - that's the point, particularly if you go with a substitutionary take on the Crucifixion and atonement! Secondly, if that's what he wanted to do, why ignore the 'less is more' fact of film. Think on what Tarantino achieved with the ear slicing that never was - he had people being sick and walking out. Even the Gorno genre; the likes of Saw and Hostel, know better than to show everything, or at least have a better take on timing and the balance of tension and release.
I was puzzled by the anti-Semitic claims made about the film. Yes, the Jewish leaders are pantomimically sneery but there is a point that i've best heard made by a stand up comic (i believe it's Dylan Moran but i could be quite mistaken). He said everyone's getting all heated about blaming the Jews for killing Jesus" and his response is "Well... it wasn't the Mexicans!" The point being, if God will be incarnate to the point of death, it can only ever happen in one context or other and there will be specifics of those regarded as responsible. All this is beside the point though, because my reading of the film was that the Jews weren't blamed. One of the main purposes of the film was that we're all to blame. It goes to lengths to show all the people who didn't stop it: Jewish leaders, Roman authorities, soldiers, crowds, disciples - everyone. "Why doesn't someone stop this?" is the line from an anonymous source that's left ringing at the end of the trial. If anything, it's about power: the more powerful someone is, the less likely they are to have stopped it. As a white, male, Western, able-bodied, working, educated person, the charge of the guilt of the powerful is not one i can even pretend to shirk.
Anyway, really glad i got all these thoughts out there in time. No one could accuse me of being topical!
Output.i
The Shack - It's a bit rickety.
I know this is ripe (if not, a bit over-ripe) blog-fodder, but i read it, i have some opinions on it, and i think the book is worth a mention at least.
The Writing
Just a few points or comments here:
- As far as the more thrillery aspects of the writing are concerned, it reads not unlike Harlan Coben stuff, except characters stop and pray together more.
- There were bits which were difficult and moving even for someone who isn't a parent, I'm not sure how i'd deal with reading it if i were someone with young children.
- The ending (without giving anything away) is C grade GCSE stuff sadly; predictable, pedestrian and not offering anything of greater weight or depth to the content that had preceded it.
- The forward and the afterword were written as though by one of the minor characters. I think i liked this, but i don't know why, and i don't really know why the author chose to do it - other than it being a free and easy means of character introduction and exposition.
The Content
- The book's main concern is addressing the prevalent and potent question of how a good, powerful and loving God can allow suffering, particularly the suffering of innocents.
- There are two things the book does very well; one is to continually remind readers that suffering isn't something which is alien or second-hand to God, the second is the way it emphasises God's ideal being found in genuine human relationship and community, from a position of freedom. It seems that the main point of the book is best captured in one of the chapter leading quotes. Each chapter is sort of sub-headed or introduced by a quote gathered from somewhere. One of them is along the lines of 'God's chosen primary mode of being as not that of 'Almighty', but rather, as one who desires relationship'.
- The book lives and dies very hard by the doctrine of the trinity, though, interestingly, it does grant God's wisdom a persona of its own - sort of. The characters it ascribes to the person(s) of God aren't anywhere near as daring as the book thinks they are. Jesus is, well, Jesus - except he's got a contemporary pseudo-lumberjack thing going on - Male, 30ish, likes wood but prefers sawdust. The 'Father' is a rotund African-American woman who cooks, feeds and cleans (stereotype broken... stereotype enforced!) and the Holy Spirit is the mystical Eastern one who's a bit vague, whispy and see-through. Not only this, but the three remain in this state throughout, unlike the much cleverer Joan of Arcadia, (US teenage comedy-drama - a bit like if 'The O.C' went to church, about Joan, from the town of Arcadia, to whom God speaks directly) where, when God appears, it's always in surprising and unassuming guises. This has the two-fold effect of having to get to know the character of God rather than the image (idolatry), and forcing the lead character to live as though anyone they come across might be God.
- In this book the thing that scared me most was that it's presented as though God gets to speak for herself. Therefore, great unfathomable mysteries are unravelled by the author who presumes to speak with the voice of God. I'm not saying there isn't a place for such things, after all, where would we be without the prophets (look how we do with them!). It's just that i think a much stronger level of grace, humility and self awareness than the book offers are required when doing this. I'm much more comfortable with Brian McLaren's 'New Kind of Christian' series where things are worked out by means of dialogue between two people. Everything is much less 'definitive' that way.
- Finally, the book presents a perspective on humanity as 'God' sees it, however, even with all the emphasis on human relationship, human sexuality is conspicuously absent from the discussion. Either a) the author dodged it knowing that one way or another a storm was coming that he didn't want to bear b) it's so apparent that heterosexuality is God's way that it needn't be argued again in the book, or c) there's enough alluded to about love and relationship that not excluding gay relationships was enough of a statement, and the readership are welcome to read between the lines as they are able. I suspect, since both 'b)' and 'c)' are possible readings, that 'a)' is the case.
The book is being raved about. On the one hand it's exciting that a piece of theology is able to appear on the radar in popular culture (largely because of the prevalence of the question of suffering and the power of story - oh that the Church might learn to better use story rather than doctrine), on the other, where it's endorsed by Christians whole and without critique, that leaves me uncomfortable. Plus, if Christians really wanted people to read it they should campaign for it to be banned.
In short, it's not the messiah (as some are treating it), in fact it's just a bit meh..
I know this is ripe (if not, a bit over-ripe) blog-fodder, but i read it, i have some opinions on it, and i think the book is worth a mention at least.
The Writing
Just a few points or comments here:
- As far as the more thrillery aspects of the writing are concerned, it reads not unlike Harlan Coben stuff, except characters stop and pray together more.
- There were bits which were difficult and moving even for someone who isn't a parent, I'm not sure how i'd deal with reading it if i were someone with young children.
- The ending (without giving anything away) is C grade GCSE stuff sadly; predictable, pedestrian and not offering anything of greater weight or depth to the content that had preceded it.
- The forward and the afterword were written as though by one of the minor characters. I think i liked this, but i don't know why, and i don't really know why the author chose to do it - other than it being a free and easy means of character introduction and exposition.
The Content
- The book's main concern is addressing the prevalent and potent question of how a good, powerful and loving God can allow suffering, particularly the suffering of innocents.
- There are two things the book does very well; one is to continually remind readers that suffering isn't something which is alien or second-hand to God, the second is the way it emphasises God's ideal being found in genuine human relationship and community, from a position of freedom. It seems that the main point of the book is best captured in one of the chapter leading quotes. Each chapter is sort of sub-headed or introduced by a quote gathered from somewhere. One of them is along the lines of 'God's chosen primary mode of being as not that of 'Almighty', but rather, as one who desires relationship'.
- The book lives and dies very hard by the doctrine of the trinity, though, interestingly, it does grant God's wisdom a persona of its own - sort of. The characters it ascribes to the person(s) of God aren't anywhere near as daring as the book thinks they are. Jesus is, well, Jesus - except he's got a contemporary pseudo-lumberjack thing going on - Male, 30ish, likes wood but prefers sawdust. The 'Father' is a rotund African-American woman who cooks, feeds and cleans (stereotype broken... stereotype enforced!) and the Holy Spirit is the mystical Eastern one who's a bit vague, whispy and see-through. Not only this, but the three remain in this state throughout, unlike the much cleverer Joan of Arcadia, (US teenage comedy-drama - a bit like if 'The O.C' went to church, about Joan, from the town of Arcadia, to whom God speaks directly) where, when God appears, it's always in surprising and unassuming guises. This has the two-fold effect of having to get to know the character of God rather than the image (idolatry), and forcing the lead character to live as though anyone they come across might be God.
- In this book the thing that scared me most was that it's presented as though God gets to speak for herself. Therefore, great unfathomable mysteries are unravelled by the author who presumes to speak with the voice of God. I'm not saying there isn't a place for such things, after all, where would we be without the prophets (look how we do with them!). It's just that i think a much stronger level of grace, humility and self awareness than the book offers are required when doing this. I'm much more comfortable with Brian McLaren's 'New Kind of Christian' series where things are worked out by means of dialogue between two people. Everything is much less 'definitive' that way.
- Finally, the book presents a perspective on humanity as 'God' sees it, however, even with all the emphasis on human relationship, human sexuality is conspicuously absent from the discussion. Either a) the author dodged it knowing that one way or another a storm was coming that he didn't want to bear b) it's so apparent that heterosexuality is God's way that it needn't be argued again in the book, or c) there's enough alluded to about love and relationship that not excluding gay relationships was enough of a statement, and the readership are welcome to read between the lines as they are able. I suspect, since both 'b)' and 'c)' are possible readings, that 'a)' is the case.
The book is being raved about. On the one hand it's exciting that a piece of theology is able to appear on the radar in popular culture (largely because of the prevalence of the question of suffering and the power of story - oh that the Church might learn to better use story rather than doctrine), on the other, where it's endorsed by Christians whole and without critique, that leaves me uncomfortable. Plus, if Christians really wanted people to read it they should campaign for it to be banned.
In short, it's not the messiah (as some are treating it), in fact it's just a bit meh..
Output
Out of the habit of blogging, lost the rythym and perhaps the ability to discern what's fit to blog and what's not. It's not that nothing's been going on, quite the opposite in fact. What follows is some catch up, assuming anyone is either still there or gives a monkey's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
