Exploring

Ah! What a great thing education is. We can open our minds to receive the wonders of the world.
But last night, I found myself in a difficult situation. I was corrected, not on what was right or wrong but by what the masses believed. I was to take on board and accept that I was a minority in my thinking. This is not new for me, I have always preferred to explore theories before accepting the established thesis. But my liberal understanding was stopped dead. I knew all the details, but my understanding of them was questioned. (I will go into detail later perhaps).

At this moment I query education itself. When we go to school, are we there to broaden our minds, to develop as individuals? To find our own strengths, to grow as individuals and develop, invent new answers?

Or are we there as the name suggests to be schooled? Like a shoal (school) of fish to all follow the same path, to blindly follow the person in front? So we can swim together in harmony, not treading on each others toes. If fish had toes I am sure they would worry about other fish treading on them. But they don't seem to worry, swimming happily together. Fish swim in three dimensions, thousands of fish of one kind at a time can swim together happily avoiding all obstacles and other species of fish.

The question I’m asking is if fish weren’t schooled and couldn’t swim together how could certain species of fish exist? We know if antelope didn’t stay together as a group they would be picked off one by one by predators, safety in numbers. Being schooled as a community is extremely important for us to co exist, to belong to a group and to know how to react and to behave is really important.

So where am I going?
I am not sure, but what I am exploring is the importance of being an individual. To be ourselves and to develop in our own special way seems essential. But an individual needs to know how to conform to his surroundings, his family, peers, colleges and adversaries. Without these skills he/she is an outcast.

So where do we go? What do we conform to? For me there is a path set before me. It is a path set by God. Being a Christian I have my path, I know how to conform with my Christian family and if I truly follow Jesus’ example it is easy to accept and embrace peoples differences, and to care for your fellow human being regardless of race or gender.

I agree this is in itself schooling, Christ’s sheep flocking together. But is there more than one flock? There are many different denominations. Different denominations that can at times be led to kill another. Moslem’s too have conflict within their different identities, I don’t yet know enough about it to comment much, but I believe from their different perceptions of God, he is still telling them the same thing, to love and honor God and to love your neighbor as yourself. I personally feel confrontational events boil down to political and cultural differences rather than religious differences. But even locally we see conflict between one parochial flock and another. If we truly followed Gods word, no matter where our faith stems from then these things would not happen.

So what is important? To conform to the masses or to make up your own mind. Of course it is an element of both. But the difficulty is how. We need to be schooled, taught how to conform and not be anti social or confrontational.
My difficulty is if you don’t have a path, which way do you turn? Children are brought up in a main stream school UK schools have difficulty finding an identity. What is their identity? I can only speak from a southern English perspective, but as an English citizen I too find it difficult. If I was Scottish I could be proud to be Nationalistic. As an English man if I was a Nationalist I could be perceived to be racist.
I am not even sure what flag I should fly, the Union Jack/Flag or what ever it is now called or the George Cross. If I fly the union flag I may look imperialistic, if I fly the George Cross I am perceived to be a Football fan or a Crusader.

We attack ourselves too much in this country, but then we have a lot to attack. Our imperialist history is too recent and sometimes to painful. If we celebrate our patriotic achievements we can appear a war mongering nation, celebrating our heritage is now in question in the media. Living near Portsmouth a Royal Navel port I have grown up around “HMS Victory” I truly believe there is a lot to celebrate and I did recently at in the 2005, 200 year celebrations.

I have missed my point and gone on to far I will come back later.

THL181
Religion: Culture and Context

Ah well, Christmas break over and back to school!

Seems a long time since I was last at Uni, I have been back at work for a week and Christmas seems ages ago. I went to the first session today which wasn't to bad. I am a lot happier than I was when I first read the course details. I am not sure I understand all the programme yet but at least it is going to be interesting.

We start with a field trip to Brighton Hove. We are visiting a Jewish Synagogue and have gone through all the details. It is a morning Sabbath or Sabbat service in an orthodox synagogue so I will have to wear a kippah or skull cap, my best suit and, horror be there on time. Thats 10pm at Brighton on a Saturday morning............

I haven't got a Kippah, but I would love to have one, it would be nice to be prepared and able to show respect. I have worn one, but that was when I was in "The Fiddler on the Roof" at the Minerva Theater, Chichester.

Back to the course, there are 5 lads and about fifteen girls in our group, and much to the girls disgust we will be segregated. The lads can join in with the main service but the girls have to watch from upstairs.

I must remember to take my camera, I won't be able to take pictures of the service but it would be nice to take one of the Synagogue and perhaps the class afterwards.

Looking forward to it but there are a few days of work to yet.

I have submitted my Journal, Yes!
See it here THL141
Now for the wait!

I can look forward to Christmas now. I have a concert tonight, a charity do for a GP practices funding for some type of scanner. If I didn't feel like death warmed up I would be celebrating.

So I am going to have a well earned rest once I have sorted out my music.

Tuesday, 7th November, 2006

Interpretation and Religious Language

I was looking forward to this lecture but it was not what I expected. I have always enjoyed debates on literature and felt I was quite good at interpretation and able to grasp difficult constructs. I enjoy finding meaning. I often realize contact with God as more “Truths” are revealed through reflection. I see new meanings I had not initially seen as I place myself in empathy with other people’s lives. But one statement initially confused me, it was the statement “There is no such thing as fact” ref – Nietzche.

If fact is “truth” then I would have to disagree not only with Nietzche (Which I often do) but also with our lecturer Paul who was able to find agreement with this particular statement.

Fact, truth is essential to life, something we hold dear in our hearts. The meaning to life, a declaration we make in court, or even the sum 1 +1=2. The perception of the truth can be different from one view point to another, but fact is an account deemed to be true.

I visited a woman in her 90s in hospital recently who had lost her daughter 10 days earlier. She was unable to pray to God and had doubts. “Why would he take her instead of me” was her reply. After sitting with her for half an hour and listening, she found some comfort in the fact that I prayed for her.

This is a fact, a true account; there are no lies or hidden meanings. She was devastated and ready to pass on herself, but instead she had to face the death of her beloved child.

My Thought

“If there is no such thing as fact, then there are no lies or dishonesty!”

Tuesday, 31st October, 2006

Knowledge, Faith and Revelation

Halloween Night, and walking through the campus to the lecture, it was like one big fancy dress ball. It seemed all the resident students had dressed up to go out for their spooky evening fun. Their rationale for the event was uncertain, what appeared to matter for them was going out to have a good time.
They took part in what could be taken to be a ritual of tradition, revealed more by man than I feel by God.

Interesting to me was the revelation of this consumer lead custom to dress up for a supposedly supernaturally charged experience, an emotional roller coaster of fear and fun.

Tuesday, 24th October, 2006

Week Off (from Uni at least).
I have created a critique of my journal so far.
Simon's Critique

Tuesday, 17th October, 2006

Experience of the human and transcendent

I just read the follow up reading CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE AND THEOLOGY. Then I had to look up Ontology
This subject means a lot to me and makes so much sense. We learn by receiving what we perceive to be truth, if this is taught by man I know by my experience in the reason session, it is possible to frame something to be perceived as “The Truth”. The perceived truth is often deemed from the perspective one is looking from. As I mentioned in my beggar example a fact is only a small piece of a jigsaw puzzle, and to see the whole picture one needs to collect and assemble all the bits!

My faith has grown over many years, the “Truth” that I am beginning to see comes from the culmination of a lot of parts of a bigger picture, a picture that is growing with every step I take. It is a picture that slowly develops and changes as you look more deeply into it. It may never be complete but with the support of the Gospels and the grace of God it is a map for living in this world, and promise of the next. As I grow I receive little pieces of the jigsaw, nourishing my God given life, building the puzzle, and realising God.

We discussed experience, and I made a stance that we could only experience an event by having an understanding of that event. Paul did reflect on a south sea scenario of a ship coming into port and the native inhabitants not noticing the ship because they didn’t understand it. We can not describe an event as an experience until we have reflected on it. “What happened?”, or “Did you see that”? You only exclaim it’s relevance if you understand the impact it had. If an event happens, but it appears to have no impact, does it become a definable experience? Do you even notice it? It was mentioned by another class member that things must follow the law of physics, there are set rules that most things follow. If you expect things to follow that rule and they don’t these are remembered experiences. Mundane things that happen as they should are more often not even noticed. Even things that are not recognised often pass without event.

Addition - 24^th November

When I do my Chaplains Assistant rounds at the hospital, I regularly speak to people with dementia. But one thing that strikes me is the memory they have for experiences in church, especially as a child. One woman in her late eighties, who I was expected not to get any sense from, articulacy, described a memory as a child. While standing high above, she watched over the Salvation Army band as they passed by Old Portsmouth barracks towards the garrison church. She was dressed in her Sunday best, ready to go into church. It was an event of great impact that has stayed with her.

Sunday, 15th October, 2006

Reason: in Christian Faith and Theology

Last session we had some reasoning exercises. The interesting thing about this was reason became hunting for details of relevance to support our argument. We were reasoning for things we may not necessarily believe, we found we were scavenging to find basis to support and bolster our quest, preparing our mighty arsenal to bury the opposition.

Our quest in this instance was “The case for ID Cards" and “Why cheap air flights were a bad thing". We all found pros and cons with both subjects, but working together as a team pulled us together, and we found common ground. We planned to get the contentious issues we might loose on out of the way early so we could move on and they would be forgotten (including us as it turned out).

This did enlighten me, what became more important was not the cause or grounds for what I believed in when arguing for a principle, but the need to support my colleagues in the venture we were undertaking. I found this disconcerting as I was almost believing the unfounded rubbish I was making up to backup our case, a case I had no real conviction in. I can now see why politicians are expected to tow the party line and I have a better understanding why politicians appear so bipolar.

11th October
I went to a Local Deanery Cluster meeting on Wednesday. It was interesting to see how easily people sided the fence in a debate, opting for one of two sides. The alternative third view point didn’t even get a look in. Still I am sure they will consider it next time.

Sunday, 8th October, 2006

Tradition: as an authority in Christian Theology

I am always reminded of the song from a show I was once in at the "Festival Theater", the musical “Fiddler on the Roof”. The show, demonstrates the image we most commonly perceive when we talk about tradition in Church. The Tradition of my Fathers, their Fathers, thier Fathers Fathers etc.

We see differences and division of perceived tradition in our different Christian denominations, even within the same denomination. To most it is the “This is the way it has always been done” attitude. I myself used to believe I was very “Traditional”, but this description for the practice of my faith has slowly diminished. I can see now why I described myself as Traditional and how it happened. Constantly in my CofE faith, there was the recurrent aspect of “Church Type”. People would say they are of a catholic persuasion, or he is more Liberal, or she is a charismatic, continually trying to type cast. We have a habit of dressing people into a cover so we can comprehend their nature.

Sure I have a classical taste in hymns and prayer, but this is more down to my tastes in music and poetry. It is of note that my pasterol ventures currently deal more with the older generation. My wife in contrast, although sharing some of my tastes in opera and classical music, likes a lot of popular music, is not interested in poetry, is more akin to popular novels and has a preference for the more modern hymn and lighter less formal worship. She also has more contact with the younger generation, but dispite our differences our values are very similar in and out of worship.

To often we label the generic traditional values that we are used to, preventing us from experiencing a wider exposure to worship. Our tastes in worship can direct our understanding in scripture, the customs we perform and relevance to them in our lives. If we regularly say the “Traditional” Creed we will absorb it, understand it and find relevance in it. If we worship without it or cut bits out, we can develop objections to some of it when are exposed to it. For instance I recently had a discussion with someone who thought we shouldn’t mention the Virgin Mary because it might offend some of the unmarried mothers who attended their services. It is a valid point, and does carry some weight in that one context.

One friend does not believe Mary was a Virgin, but to deny that miracle bestowed on a young woman who could have potentially faced total disgrace if it was not for the Grace of God.

I see many situations were peoples worship preference models there tastes in the arts, their social standing or their acceptance of the supernatural in a predominantly secular, scientific world. You only have to look at the average ages attending a 1662 rite service compared to say a New Wine Rock Service to see the evidence that a contemporary service attracts more so called "Up to Date" worshipers. These are Christian extremes I know, but we do create borders that we penn ouselves into and are ultimatly not prepared or expected to cross. Unfortunately this can also be divisional, splitting people with individual tastes or needs, creating an irreverent acceptance of anything else. We are often driven to decide one way or another on the type of service we affirm as a preference, where we can feel safe within our own context, a preference that can separate us from experiencing and enjoying other forms of worship.

My thought fo the day, "Tradition can become a fencing in rather than experience and a reference to reflect on".

I love to see variety and mix of styles in worship that are inclusive and educational. In most cases hymns and prayers, music and poetry of all varieties can be enjoyed by any age or persuasion in certain circumstances. There are often times when people can get together and share their style of worship with others. Frequently enjoyed by all, but often only accepted as long as it doesn’t affect their preferred style of Sunday morning service. Unfortunately this is where a great deal of contradiction, acrimony and denial starts to develop. We get comfortable with our own zone, we fit into our stable milieu, and can feel secure in our faith while confidently forging our beliefs in confined groups. In contradiction we feel out of place when we venture further afield, unable to express our selves and prejudiced to another’s ways. Our parochial church lives can become secluded and what we embrace as important may not necessarily be important to another gathering. When we view nearly 2000 years of gatherings, you can see how even a people who share a common faith, creed or mission statement can develop there own insight into the scriptures. How their contextual lives can take different paths.

The Gospels that we see in the canonised New Testament, can be translated and interpreted differently due to our sometimes secluded experiences of a perceived catholic (whole/one) church. We can become blinkered and end up with a narrow view of what Tradition is. We don't always see what another sees'.

If I can put forward an example. As people walk pass a beggar on a street, they each see a different person. One may interpret them as drunk, another as a drug addict, and another as a person who couldn’t be bothered to take up the social opportunities the state can give them etc. etc. What I would hope we may all see is a homeless person who is in need of help, a human being who has been dejected by society. From each of our view points we may see something different. The truth is it could be any or all of these. But what is really important is why we see different things, how we empathise with another’s view and ultimately prevent these things happening in our so called “Caring Society”. What counts in the end is what we each do about it.

The same goes for our understanding and perceptions of tradition in our scripture. We need to reflect back to the roots of what we know and have discovered over the last two millennia, we need to re-examine what we know and understand what it means to us and to others. We need to continuously return to the Gosples, to go back to the roots of our faith and allow it to grow afresh in our lives as we see it revealed in others. As we do, we allow God to guide us so we may see the true relevance of His message to us and its relevance in our current time.

We may perhaps then reveal the true traditions of the church, and their relevance in our daily lives. We mustn’t judge others by their experiences or actions, but learn and embrace what is good. As St Paul stated “Gal 6:15 It does not matter at all whether or not one is circumcised or uncircumcised ; what does matter is being a new creature.”

It should be no issue whether we call our minister a Priest or a Pastor, Father or Mike, what is important is what we take away from our worship, how we interpret it now in our daily lives and what we do about it outside the church building.

A reference attributed to John Zizioulas by Douglas Knight says, “Tradition is the unceasing existence of Revelation in the Church. Revealed through ongoing Pentecost, by the holy spirit.” http://www.resourcesforchristiantheology.org/content/view/155/42/.

So, do we occaisionally need to cross parish boundaries, venture into wider styles of worship? I am sure this would definatly help, and most importantly help us to practice an ecumenical ministry.

As in“The fiddler on the Roof”. Times may change, the problems may appear to be different, but Gods love reflected in others is what gets you through.

Sunday, 1st October, 2006

Scripture: Source of Christian Theology

It’s been a busy week. What with chaplaincy, training, kiaros, Holy Trinity placement, work, and family. At least I have found a few minutes to do my journal.

I was really surprised in the lecture at the strong feminist reactions that were raised. “Lies in the Bible” was one response. “It wasn’t included because it was written by a woman”, was another statement made about the Coptic (Gnostic) gospel according to Mary Magdalene. They felt it should be added because it was supposedly from a woman’s viewpoint and for the sake of sexual equality.

Forgive me for having a view on this, but evidence states the earliest fragments were clearly written 200 years after the latest of the four Gospels, and had most probably not even been written by a woman let alone Mary Magdalene. Having read through it, it seems to have little to add to the other Gosples, and is clearly written for the Gnostic movement that threatened the divinity of Christ, and the issues at that time relating to the Holy Trinity. The fact that “men” made the decision not to add it to the canon, along with all the other Gnostic texts is circumstantial.

Perhaps it is a male thing, but I have always felt, and mainly due to my mothers influence, that the truth within the Bible was none sexist. It speaks about people, and God revealed in people of all race and gender. “Man” I was taught was the species, it was short for human. Jesus spoke of men, as examples so the parables were seriously considered by all, in a context that was acceptable for both woman and men of the time. Why do we have to continually put things on a male/female basis, why should a Patriarchal view of God being the “Father” be questioned? Even if you can relate your relationship with God, closer to that with your mother as I often do myself, Jesus confirmed God as the Father.

I personally feel I know a maternal God as well. One who was a creator and gave birth to a world, blessed with precious life. But why do people try to rewrite “Sola Scriptura”.

My spiritual advisor is a woman and a priest, and this feels really natural. So why does the gender issue seem so callous, when raised by some women, when for me the quest for equality is never in question?

I accept woman in the Church, still feel victimised by some people, both male and female who believe it is wrong for women to become priests, but by being militant when no such prejudice is being shown does nothing to strengthen their cause for equality in the catholic (whole) church. In fact, even for me at times, it tends to demonstrate a personal disparity for the individual(s) concerned.

The gender issue tainted much of the lecture discussion at break time, forming a division where there was no need for one, a real pity. I was more interested in discussing the validity of apostolic succession of the biblical canon, rather than it’s political correctness. It proved to doubt this gospels right in the canon, could become a male viewpoint.

I say....

Let’s stand for equality, female and male together in the face discrimination. Let’s please not taint Gods truth for all by over addressing male wrongs of the past.

Wednesday, 20th September, 2006

Back again!

Over the last few years I have been used to questioning validity of the Bible, the more I reflect on these things and offer my thoughts to God, and examine them with other people the more secure I become. But reading the preparatory reading has made me wonder how good a theologian I could be. I still feel the gospels are literal events, God interacting with humanity.

Scripture: Source of Christian Theology

How should I put these questions?

Tying Gospels to Old Scripture and the parallel we see in them.

Does the fact the Gospels convey alternative messages, reflecting on events in earlier scripture distract from the plausibility of the event, or did it enforce the message that Jesus was conveying to the devout Jewish community? I believe Jesus had a way to make contact to open their ears so they could listen. Jesus’ actions in the possibly few isolated events that were documented were probably remembered and chosen for their theological content for the messages they contained.

Their Validity and Literal Interpretation

It doesn’t matter if they are not binding statements. Jesus’ life as it is written on paper differs from Gospel to Gospel, as it should, with all the word of mouth, re-writing and translation in those first 60 years. If they were 100% the same we would question the validity of more than one source. Much as we find it difficult to find the exact account in different newspapers reporting the same international event, we find differences and interpretations of the life of Christ in the Gospels and books of the NT. What is important is the events of the last few years of the life of one man and Gods physical interaction through Christ with humanity. If we choose to ignore the literal and only look for the theological embodiment then the scriptures could be argued to have no authority, they could be deemed to be the result of a human philosophical need for a God.

Gods Word or Mans?

I read, in this Introductory essay that Paul’s hand in Romans was of his own interpretation from Gods inspiration and that he had not produced a transcript of Gods own words. If we believe we have autonomy of our own actions this is almost certainly correct. As we see in Romans or the epistles, Paul’s own personality and his experiences with others shape his writing. If it wasn’t for Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, what would he have written at this time in his life? Would he have written at all? The fact that he had a message to all humanity was consequence of God directly impacting on the life of Paul. The essence of Gods message and his will is there for us to recognize in Paul’s writings as it is in any scripture Old or New.

Wednesday, 20th September, 2006

Session 1 - Methods of Theology?

Oh boy, what sort of theologian am I. Am I absolute? Definitely not, but that is about as far as I can currently define. I have been off work today with flu, I have wanted to sit down and write but all I have done is sleep and wallow in self pity about my own aches and pains.

I had been trying to define the following definitions of Knowledge.
Absolute, Transitional, Independent, Contextual.

I didn't bring back the description sheet as we only had one between us, I am hoping one will be copied for me for next week.

What do they all mean? What is my reasoning? Where do my thoughts and reasoning start and finish, if indeed they ever do. I think that is clue to my definition, in that my thoughts never do finish. Whether it be Maths or English, Theology or Science I never stop reasoning.

Theology explores the building bricks of my faith, exercising my beliefs by reflecting in them with God, sharing my faith with others keeps it true.

I have a keen interest in science, but I find more truths, more acceptable answers for the big questions like “Creation” and “Purpose for Life” from within my faith and my relationship with God.

Even in science there is no absolute, scientists find there is not enough mass in the universe to account for it's acceleration. So scientists theory an answer "Dark Matter". Big bang no big bang, there is no absolute in science any more than there is absolute in maths. Mathematicians are currently arguing on the most efficient way to stack oranges! New Scientist Magazine “2006” http://www.newscientist.com

So is "Absolute" a scientific approach?

I think I will go to bed and read some of the Preliminary Readings I was supplied with. All I have managed to do so far is read the first section "Scripture as the source of Christian Theology", Introductory essay.