Archive for November, 2011

Personal opinions – of course – for what they are worth.

  • The happy, expectant and positive atmosphere in the Cathedral before, during and after.
  • The spine-tingling drama of the new bishop’s entry and the welcome-cum-inquisition from Christine McDarmont, of the St Chad’s Bensham Community Project.*
  • The kids who braved the steps of the throne with the bishop.
  • That the service was not called an ‘enthronement’.
  • The organ improvisation after the sermon.
  • That the words ‘humble’ and ‘humility’ were used repeatedly without affectation or embarrassment.
  • The prayers led by members of the Diocesan Young Leaders’ Course.
  • The choir’s singing of ‘Advent Carol’.**
  • The composition, shape and pace of the whole liturgy.
  • Justin, our bishop.

* There were 3 questions echoing, perhaps, the three strikes on the door. Basically – though they were more elegantly expressed -  they asked:  ‘Who are you, then?’  ‘What are you doing here?’ and ‘Where do you get the nerve?’ The answers were good too.

**  Michael Berkley’s setting of Rowan Williams’ poem ‘Advent Calendar’. My own opinion but… the composer himself told me how good it was.

I limited myself to ten. Maybe you can add to the list?

Read Full Post »

A Canon’s Reflections

Durham’s Lumiere festival did what it said on the publicity tin: it gave us ‘four magical winter evenings’. Artichoke gathered artists from the corners of the globe to work their wonders of transformation on our buildings, to delight our eyes, feed our souls and to tease our imaginations. The first reflection must be gratitude: thank you!

We were, of course, astonished by the numbers. Never, probably never ever, have the winding cobbled streets been so full. As I ventured towards the Market Square on Saturday – usually less then ten minutes brisk walk from my home – I found my claustrophobia button being very firmly pressed. ‘It’s like India with coats and hats and scarves’ I tweeted. It was. There was that sub-continental sense of chaos in the air. Of too much humanity and of too much to see, too much to do. This was sensory overload.

And yet, by and large, it was dark. And that’s the strange thing. It was called Lumiere but this festival of light was if anything a festival of the mysteries of darkness. It was an occasion of shadows and shades. Like all great outdoor November events, it stirred the depths and troubled the soul. Memories were being raised and visions conjured.

The twitterverse loved it. But the emailers offering feedback to the Artichoke website were grumpy. The stewards were rude and the crowd control measures ill conceived, they opined. That was not my experience. I wanted to give the stewards hugs or medals. And to keep crowds that large and diverse happy and calm seemed to me a wonder at least as spectacular as Peter Lewis’ waterfall from Kingsgate Bridge. I take my woolly hat off to them all.

It was a festival of reversals. If the crowds at the Cathedral were all too much – then you could head for the top of North Road, enjoy its peace and see the calmly illuminated viaduct. While doing so you could stand on a roundabout or sit on the road. A botanical display called ‘metamorph’ was projected onto a Methodist Church. The background music both encouraged and covered our ‘ooos’ and ‘aahs’. Just down the road the neon lights on the Miners’ Hall told us that ‘Capitalism Kills Love’. Somehow you feel that the penny dropped here a few decades before it did in the south. But who is listening to whom? When? And why?

The art was messing with my mind. As art is meant to do.

And it was messing with the Market Square too. Lord Londonderry was locked up safely in a polystyrene snow scene with ‘I LOVE DURHAM’ in pink lights on the side. It was ha,ha,ha outrageous. It was tacky. It was terrible. And yet compelling. What are we meant to think or feel or remember when we see this disproportionately vast man on his horse? Good questions that will no longer go away.

And so on to Palace Green. It took the best part of an hour. The ‘crown of light’ son et lumière projected onto the north face of the Cathedral was as spine-tingling as it was two years ago. The Lindisfarne Gospels made massive and Bach’s Magnificat bursting joyfully forth after centuries of plainsong was almost too intense. And the whole story was told without words. We saw and felt how the monastery emerged from the marshes and winds and birdsong of the ancient north east. All of which are still part of our region today.

It took another fifteen minutes to get into the Cathedral. It is our Cathedral of course. The city’s, the county’s, the region’s, the country’s, God’s. Not to mention St Cuthbert’s. There is no turnstile here. It’s my Cathedral too. I am, after all a Residentiary Canon. But it was as strange to me as to the people I was coming in with. ‘Naa, I’ve never been in before man’.

My first thoughts were of India again. It was warm and humid with so many people. And dark but for the illuminated miners’ vests suspended through the height of the soaring nave. I remember a visit to the Dalit Temple in Trichy. How it heaved with people all day long. How it was dark, dank, mysterious and smelly. Nothing could be less Anglican, I thought at the time. But this was close. Down the side aisles tray after tray of votive candles blazed like uncontrollable barbeque grills. Prayers were being written on scraps of paper. Cathedral staff and volunteers, some in familiar gowns, most in high vis jackets, were constantly on the lookout for wayward flames and lost children. If my hat had still been on I would have raised it to them too.

Having seen so much electric light outside the naked flame was a surprise. But there was more to come.

The Cloister Garth had become a huge fire garden. Flames were licking from flower pots and an acrid smoke caught our eyes and throats. And outside in the College – one journalist called the area ‘chaste’ – French fire alchemists had created a scene of raw energy and excitement that delighted as it terrified. Was this a medieval scene that I was witnessing, or did it take us to the clunky mechanical energy of the industrial revolution, or was this a some kind of apocalyptic vision of postmodern mayhem? It was all of this and more. It could have been be a scene in a movie. Perhaps it will be.

A colleague from the Cathedral Chapter offered me a chip and we chatted away meaningfully in this transformed space, wondering what all this might mean. We often have polite conversations about mission and hospitality as a Cathedral. But suddenly the floodgates had been opened. Daily we sing and pray New Testament words which speak prophetically of the young Jesus as ‘a light to lighten the gentiles’. But this is not so much about being ‘a light’ as being ‘alight’. The Cathedral was glowing with the glory of God. So too was the town.

And so too were the hearts of those whose eyes had been opened by the interplay of light and dark, the joyfulness of community and the vision of peace and fun which was the magic of those four unforgettable winter evenings.

So the last word is the same as the first: more gratitude. Thank you.

Read Full Post »

What Would Jesus Not Do.

Here’s my list:

  1. Join a pressure group.
  2. Handle money.
  3. Settle down in one place.
  4. Say, ‘it’ll be all right in the end, dear’.
  5. Mount a campaign.
  6. Run, or walk  away.
  7. Strategise.
  8. Ask for help.
  9. Complain, grumble, whinge, whine or moan.
  10. Write a letter, book or blog.

Yours?

Read Full Post »

What Would Jesus Do?

We often hear this question asked. But is it ever expecting an answer?

Given what we know about Jesus from the Bible here is a list of ten things that Jesus might do.

What Jesus would do.

  1. Tell a story.
  2. Have an argument with a religious official or teacher.
  3. Heal someone, cast out a few demons, pronounce forgiveness – or any combination thereof.
  4. Go for a walk with his friends.
  5. Disappear on his own to wrestle with demons and/or to pray.
  6. Tell people not to let on who he was.
  7. Reinterpret traditional religious teaching.
  8. Send his followers off on a mission.
  9. Encourage repentance.
  10. Say what will happen when the kingdom comes.
  11. Have a sociable meal – often in dodgy company.

In a day or two I will blog a list of things that (in my view) Jesus would probably not do.

Meanwhile – what should be added to this list?

Read Full Post »

We Did Talk About Giving

I was wrong.

It was meeting with the Diocesan Stewardship Advisers of the Northern Eastern Dioceses of the Church of England not the whole of the Northern Province.  (If this makes no sense to you at all please see yesterday’s blog).  But it was a room full of people, nonetheless, and the two replies to yesterday’s blog suggested I should be prepared for a ‘Daniel in the Lions’ Den’ experience.

Let me say first of all that they were very well behaved and friendly lions.   Rather than arguing with me – they agreed.  Even when I said, ‘don’t you think that maybe saying that you should give to the church as a generous response to God’s generosity might be a bit manipulative,’ they nodded their heads.

The idea of ‘giving back’ was not where they were coming from at all.  The flow of giving was for them as important as it is for me.  They were keen to see people get into that flow and see the dynamic going forward.  You might say, though no one did, that true giving is about procession rather than recession.

Someone did say that what we are talking about here is furtherance rather than maintenance.  I did not know that ‘furtherance’ was a word, but I nodded wisely to cover my ignorance. And I see now that my spell checker is not objecting. So let me look it up… ah, my dictionary says it is ‘the action of helping forward’. Nice.

So what began to emerge from this positive conversation?  Let me do this in bullet points to save us all time.

  • Without some kind of big picture or vision there can be no mission and without mission the idea of giving to the church makes no sense at all.
  • There is still a place for thinking about stewardship because we need to be careful and wise in our responsibilities – but the place is not quite the limelight.
  • The limelight belongs to the idea, word and practice of ‘GIVING’.
  • The ‘flow of giving’ is a pragmatic as well as theological image, and needs to be defended conceptually.
  • This main problem is that the flow of giving gets blocked.
  • There are lots of ways of blocking the flow – and if the flow of giving is indeed the flow of grace then blockages are serious enough to be called ‘sin’.
  • If the Church is to have theological integrity it needs to reflect the divine and the human flow of giving: this means that charging for entry to cathedrals or talking about parishes ‘paying the parish share’ are deeply problematic.
  • True giving is always an act of freedom and no one should turn it into a duty or demand. Indeed they can’t, because a gift given under duress is not a gift.
  • The role of ministry and ministers is very largely to help people overcome the blockages which impede the flow of giving.
  • It follows that the role of senior leadership in the church is to work strategically to remove blockages and barriers in the flow of giving across the church.
  • Facilitating local church giving can be the most practical and positive of tasks and at the same time the most theologically profound and sublime.
  • It is good to be a stewardship adviser but the job can only be done properly if it is seen as intimately connected with mission and ministry.
  • Giving leads to joy and so the ministry of stewardship advisers and indeed of parish clergy is significantly about filling the world with joy.
  • All of this needs to be translated into everyday language and practical action. That feels like a real challenge but actually the ideas here –the flow of giving, removing blockages, liberating joy, having a vision, sharing in God’s mission – are not exactly difficult at an intellectual level.  (So: why are they difficult?)

After our session the advisers carried on working for a while and then went off to Durham Cathedral for evensong.  As a canon I was there anyway and I read the first lesson. It was Daniel Chapter 6: the story of Daniel in the Lions’ Den.

Read Full Post »

We Need to Talk About Giving

I am so excited to be spending an hour with the ‘Diocesan Stewardship Advisers of the Northern Province of the Church of England’ tomorrow I thought I’d blog about what I was going to say. Tomorrow I will blog about how it went.

This is the context. A couple of years ago the diocese (of Durham) decided to locate the new stewardship adviser in the team which I lead. This was a new departure and it means that suddenly ‘stewardship’ was rubbing shoulders not with accountants and finance officers but with pastoral care, youth work, local church growth, ecumenism and continuing ministerial development.

With a new colleague on the team we started to talk about how things all fitted together.  Very quickly we found that talking about ‘stewardship’ was more than a bit arid. So we started talking about ‘giving’.  And (who would have thought it?) the conversation went on and on and got (excuse the pun) richer and richer.

There is both a positive and negative side to this. On the positive side I have come to the conclusion that we need, as far as possible, and as often as possible, to use the language of giving and to think of the possibility of giving. I mean that. As often as we can we should think, ’how can I be a giver in this situation?’ And, ‘how can I allow others to give in this situation?’

Giving is fundamental to discipleship. That means that all must be givers. And if all are givers then all have to be receivers. It is this mutual and common obligation lies behind the most important idea that has emerged from our conversations – the idea of the flow of giving.

The Flow of Giving

The power of the idea of the flow of giving is immense. It might be infinite. This is no accident.

To talk of giving is to engage in theology. One of the most profound things we believe about God is that God is ultimately and supremely giving. You can dress it up and call it grace or graciousness – but God’s giving needs neither party frock nor sanctuary slippers. Giving is what God does.  The genius of the idea of Trinity is that God’s life is precisely characterised by a flow of giving. Or to put it better, the over-flow of giving.

But there is also a negative side.  It is this.  Much Christian teaching about giving today goes along these lines: God has been supremely generous to us – so we should, in our own small way, be generous back to God. We should give to God. And the form which that giving should take is a planned and proportional financial donation to the local church.  This is what I want to question with the ‘Diocesan Stewardship Advisers of the Northern Province of the Church of England’.

I accept that God is essentially, eternally and supremely giving.  I have said that.  But I do not accept that is giving is the kind that requires of us a grateful response of giving back. Indeed I think that the idea of giving back is a precisely non-theological form of giving. It is the kind of giving of which anthropologists speak. It is not giving so much as reciprocation. But we can’t reciprocate God’s love with a financial contribution – however generous, planned or sacrificial.

The kind of giving which God does, is giving which is intended not to be returned but accepted, delighted in, enjoyed and passed on.  The flow is everything. But the belief that God gives us everything does not mean that we should give, say, 5% or 10% of our after pay income to our local church as  a kind of return.

But We Must Give

Let me emphasise that I think we should, as a matter of practice, fellowship and discipleship give 5 or 10% of our income to our local church. And our clergy should preach and teach and love us into doing so: but not on the basis that this is some kind of payback.

The reason we should give to the church in planned and proportional way is in order to strengthen our discipleship and spirituality with practical seriousness. It is also an expression of commitment to the life of the church; its ministry in the service of God’s mission.

Giving is a spiritual matter. It is about participating in the very best activity there is – and in the only activity which is God’s.

My point is this: God is an overflowing flow of giving. We are products of that overflow and come into our own as disciples and flourishing human beings when the flow is through us.  This is the proper theological basis of all giving.  Actual practical pragmatic giving to the local church should come out of this flow but it cannot sensibly be described as giving back. There is no ‘back’ in the flow of giving, the flow of grace. There is only forward. And that forward is the mission of God. To give from our hearts and from our wallets is to share in that mission.

I wonder how the ‘Diocesan Stewardship Advisers of the Northern Province of the Church of England’ will respond to that. And I wonder how you respond, too.

Read Full Post »

One of the very few, but brilliant, sparks of hope to come out of the debacle at St Paul’s yesterday was the comment from the Bishop of London that when he went to the ‘Tea and Empathy’ tent in the campsite he was ‘surrounded by serious theological conversation’.

It is not, believe me, something you find everyday.  On the whole, people are content to keep their theological thinking, if they do it at all, very much to themselves.

Crisis and suffering can bring it to the surface. When we suffer, or see a loved one suffer, we often ask ‘why?’, or, ‘how can a powerful God allow this to happen?’

The protest has of course bright to new prominence a form of ethical theological question: ‘what would Jesus do?’

It is an interesting and intriguing one. But it must be used with care. It needs to be a conversation starter but is often used as a conversation stopper.  Jesus’ followers found him unpredictable 2,000 years ago. There is no reason to suppose that we would not find him equally surprising today.  If we are confident we know what Jesus would do then we are probably deluding ourselves.   And one of the most important insights that we need, in order to be able to engage in worthwhile theological conversation, to appreciate that our capacity for self delusion is enormous.

Not that this should stop us thinking and talking theologically. And the Bishop’s phrase ‘theological conversation’ is apposite and telling. It is dialogue that matters: the exposure of thought and reflection, insight and analysis to the open and critical minds of others.

But if theological conversation matters who is going to take part and where is it going to happen?

The short answer is, of course, anyone and anywhere.  Theology, talk about God, is hardly a subject that can be policed. No door can keep it out. St Paul’s has been seeking to become a place of theological conversation and public dialogue in recent years. Well, it has certainly become that now.  And the role of ministerial and spiritual leadership is perhaps to take part in the conversation in such a way as to help it to become ever more honest, self-aware, creative, expansive and truthful.

The question of ‘where’ is important too. It is the question of’ context’: and over the last generation or so many voices have helped us to see that all theology is contextual.  A ‘Tea and Empathy’ tent is very different context from the nave of a great cathedral.  Theological conversation can spring to life in many such arenas and  all possible media.

Face to face encounter, whether one to one or in small groups, will always, perhaps, be the normal place of theological conversation. But social media open up new possibilities. You can ‘do theology’ or ‘engage in theological conversation’ on the phone or by text or on facebook or even, by blog.  You can even do it more traditionally and slowly by writing journal articles or publishing books. And there are advantages to that in terms of depth of thought but disadvantages in that the process itself can easily exclude most people who might want to join in.

There are no rules with a capital ‘R’ for public theology but here are some rules with a little ‘r’ that might help make theological conversation healthy and worthwhile in multi faith world where issues of justice and truth are pressing.

  • Agree that while words are integral to the conversation gesture, symbol and silence all play their part too.
  • Desire truth and justice more than being right.
  • Bring your heart and your passion to the party and encourage that others to do the same.
  • Recognize that theological conversation has been going on a very long time.
  • Appreciate that theological conversation is new every morning.
  • Accept that whatever has been said there is always a right of reply or of silence.
  • Try to see your own self-delusions more vividly than we see the vanities of others.
  • If you are a person of faith, read and share your scriptures and your spirituality generously and gently.
  • Be prepared to have this conversation anywhere, indoors or out, in private or in public.

Let’s rejoice that theological conversation is alive and well. And do what we can to help it generate more light than heat.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 214 other followers