Armistice, Remembrance. 11am, November 11th 2008

The young, young soldier is reading from the Bible. Someone standing behind Grace whispers, did you know he saw them two he joined up wiv die out in Iraq?

The two minute silence. The minister breaks in with and Lord, God, Father in heaven we thank you for the election of your great and appointed man, Barack Obama, who will save us all from war. There's crying in the congregation.

(This is Britain. Sometimes we cry about dead teenage soldiers and the dreadful things happening in the Middle East. But crying about the promises made by a politician, that's all very new.)

the problem of studying something which doesn't involve God

One of the most delightful things about academic study involving anything to do with God, theology or faith, is that one can never be wrong. This is because you're dealing with a Being or beings or concepts which, whether they exist or not, exist beyond the limits of human language or understanding. Therefore, one can never be proved to be factually incorrect. One is assesssed purely on one's capacity to reason or argue the point, regardless of the utter crap one may be spouting. This is why, of course, so many Religious Studies graduates apply for advertising internships and end up at law school when they're turned down. Nothing is wrong, everything is possible and most people have the potential to be persuaded of absolutely anything.

By contrast, I'm now sitting here utterly infuriated by the assignment for this course I'm currently doing. The question is clearly phrased, offering one of five possible answers A-E to be explained in only 300 words. And I don't know which of A, B, C, D or E it is because I don't understand B, C or E. And I'm not used to not being able to get away with not understanding by simply justifying why I've written something else instead. And I'm not used to the way in which I've read endless reams about the subject matter won't necessarily help. If I don't pick the "correct" answer I will fail the course, and if I fail the course I will have to keep retaking it until I pass and if I don't pass eventually I will lose my job. Not everything is possible, and eveything other than what's right is wrong.

I'm sure that, with some more thorough reading of the textbooks and a few phone calls to people who can help me understand B, C and E, I will get there. But I'm really, really not used to this...

Happy Birthday Dear Blo-ogletttttttttt

Yes, today is the first birthday of my blog. What a difference a year makes. What a difference. And God has been very, very good. I'm saving my readers from me going all slushy and introspective by the embarrassment of having been utterly AWOL in an intense love triangle with both New Job and Beloved for the past three weeks... and to those to whom I owe phone calls, emails, wine or coffee, I'm very very sorry.

Maybe on the second birthday of my blog I'll reveal the never-yet-told-online story of why I really started it up. But in the meantime, here's a birthday cake. Do grab a plate and all help yourselves to a slice...

Grace and Beloved's Church Search Week 15: Catholic Mass

Whenever I'm in a Catholic church, it always strikes me to wonder quite what the Church of England and Rome have had to argue about*; the liturgies and their underlying theology being so startlingly similar to one another**. My suspicion is that, given that the Anglican communion service has used English since 1549 whereas the Catholic mass has used the vernacular only since 1964, there has been over four hundred years of people not realising this.

The mass we went to proceeded something like this.

CONGREGATION: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.

PRIEST: This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.

CONGREGATION: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.

PRIEST: Right, so let me to inject in here for a minute. This is a Catholic mass, in which we as Catholics celebrate the giving of Christ's body for us as the Catholic church. All Catholics are welcome to receive and we ask that all non-Catholics here do not come to receive unless they have made their Holy Communion as Catholics and that if they aren't Catholics that they indicate clearly that they aren't Catholics to allow me to know that they're not Catholics...

That's a first, far from Catholicism as I've ever yet experienced it. I mean, I understand the Catholic position of the papally-suceeded Church of Rome being the only True Church. And I understand that certain Catholic bishops can give priests quite a bollocking for offering the elements to non-Catholics. And I'd be open to the possibility that there may have been someone for some reasons keeping an eye on this particular priest in such a way as made him feel he needed to labour the pont as he did.

But why, why is Holy Communion [the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper] only for those the Church or church has pre-vetted as Christians? And why is the church or Church often so uptight about ensuring it is?

I mean, who was it that transformed religion, faith and society by making a point of repeatedly eating with those deemed unclean, unworthy and undesirable? How might he feel about us restricting access to his Body and Blood?

*that is, of course, aside from questions of Henry VIII's wives, the Battle of the Boyne and Bloody Sunday...
**well, apart from the Pope...

Is 'lived allegory' a workable definition of prophecy?

Steve Lancaster said... Oh, you have to watch allegory! Or before long you find you've written Dante's Inferno ;).

What you've written here is more than allegory, because it has been lived. (Question: is 'lived allegory' a workable definition of prophecy?

Is 'lived allegory' a workable definition of prophecy? This is the question which has preoccupied me all week. I was hoping to get a response post written, but I still can't make up my mind.

Does anyone else have any ideas, thoughts, perspectives, views to contribute? Or would Steve like to explain further...?

Grace and Beloved's ChurchSearch Week 14: Grace gets lost and makes an unexpected discovery

I was looking for a path. Potentially all very allegorical. I'd heard several rumours of an unmapped footpath through some woodland, which would, if it were where it were claimed to be, enable me to avoid a particularly scary roundabout whilst cycling to New Job. The trouble with that being that, whereas several rumours claimed the path to be there, none could agree its precise location. So I set off into the broad afternoon daylight to try and find it. And I got lost.

I found myself on a bright, leafy, newly-developed estate. I kept cycling through, hoping eventually to run into a main road or at least a road sign pointing to somewhere I recognised. What I finally recognised was the church. An immensely forlorn and dilapidated hut-like little building, right at the centre of the estate. I stood there, blinking, trying to account for this inexplicable sense of remembering. And then I realised. It was, I realised, a church I'd been to few times, years back when it had been temporarily hired for a few evangelistic-type meeting.

Back then, it had been a grim, dire, adjectly miserable-looking estate. The grotty little church had been very much in keeping with its overall character. Now, though, it seemed as though the entire estate, with the exception of the church, had been flattened, re-designed and rebuilt into somewhere fresher and more livable-feeling. The church, though, had remained entirely as it had been prior to the redevelopment. It stood as a centrepiece to the estate, a reminder of what a grim place the area had been.

Why, when the estate and its housing blocks, shopping precinct, pubs and verges were all redeveloped, why was the church left untouched? At first I wondered whether the church was simply a decommissioned, abandoned shell of a building, but then I saw a sign advertising its service times, toddler groups, luncheon clubs and youth activites for the estate. It's still (and its website also confirms this) very much a living, active congregation.

Perhaps the church reveals what the rest of the development doesn't, which is that new frontages and flower beds can be deceptive and that maybe many of the underlying social problems of the estate have not been solved by its redevelopment. Nevertheless, as the final building to retain vestiges of a crumbling, miserable-looking past, the church seems to carry such a backwardly-focused, hope-devoid image of its message. Very, very sad, I think. If I had a few hundred thousand pounds to donate, I'd love to build the church and the community an attractive, cosy, welcoming-looking new building for the centre of the estate...

Oh no not another post on Sarah Palin's daughter

I’d thought that, whilst I was away, the relentless furore surrounding Sarah Palin’s daughter might have abated. It hasn’t. Both Bristol’s pregnancy and her supposedly impending wedding to her boyfriend Levi Johnson are still being exploited to make every conceivable (no pun intended) political, social and religious point about sex education, abstinence-based or otherwise, about teenage pregnancy, about shotgun marriage, about working mothers, about everything conceivably (oops) related to the Family Values agenda. What seems to be missing are the questions of context, of what it means to be 17, unmarried and pregnant as the daughter of the governor of a cold, distant, right-wing US state. What it means, as the daughter of an Alaskan governor, to be 17 and unmarried or 17 and pregnant or unmarried and pregnant is question enough. I can only speak from British experience in observing that, in many educated, middle-class areas, the whole thing would be totally inconceivable, in some minority communities most girls are married the minute they turn 16 anyway and in many marginalised inner-city communities, the idea of marriage is entirely beyond conception at age 27 or 37 let alone 17. So whatever one believes Uncle Sam or indeed God himself to believe, context is everything.

Essentially, though, there are really only two people who know the circumstances of the conception of Junior Johnson-Palin. There are therefore only two can speak honestly about the extent to which the baby and the marriage were planned or wanted (though Levi’s MySpace ‘I don’t want kids’ assertion is a bit of a giveaway) and only two families who know how the Palins and the Johnsons responded to the news.

And aside from questions of context and the relevance of it all to any form of political or moral campaign... I mean, please, Bristol’s 17. 17. Think back to when you and/or your sister or daughter was 17. Would you and/or she have been able to handle the world’s media in your/her face? Could the world’s media therefore please leave Bristol Palin alone?

a fairly stunning piece of writing I found from Julie Burchill

In her latest piece, she's talking about her faith. It was in last Thursday's Guardian, but I've only just read it.

My favourite vicar, the Reverend Gavin Ashenden of Sussex University, never says, "I am a Christian," but rather "I'm trying to be a Christian". Me too. Between the darkness that faces me from within and the darkness that faces me from without, it may just prove to be the hardest thing I've ever done. I love it.

The full article is here.

Ever since I graduated from the Funday Times, I've always loved Julie Burchill. Always wanted to write as startlingly well as her. Always admired her supreme ability to write the most audacious, shocking, shit-stirring things, and then to allow all resulting vitriol and fury to so gracefully slide past her. Not that this piece is excessively over-controversial, or not by her standards, anyway. It's mainly a very genuine encapsulation of faith...

an extremely good poem I found, which says a lot about faith today

Cyber-Psalm 44: On Reading Christopher Hitchins
by David Ker

Religion poisons everything.
god is not great.
god did not create us.
We created god.

The calm voice of reason batters my ecstasy.

Fanatics burn effigies.
Holy men declare fatwas.
Statues weep and trees speak.
Denominations recursively reduplicate.

Theocracies and theologies threaten.

What is the essence within the devout accoutrements?
Who is the divine behind the curtain?
Are we worshipping our own shadow on the wall?
Carpenter? King? Ephemeral Pantokrator?

Why am I still unmoved by the seeming soundness of your mocking?

pneuma has blown away my resistance.
agape has enfolded me in its harmony.
koinonia has broken through my isolation.
logos has spoken the final word.

While reason and religion rage, my heart sings to God.

Did God intend the church?

(Recycled and reposted from my piece from a few weeks back on The Crowded Handbasket)

From a fairly straightforwardly literal reading of Matthew’s gospel (16:13-18), yes.

“But what about you?” he [Jesus] asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [Greek: ekklesia], and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Briefly put, the Roman Catholic understanding is that the ekklesia is built on the rock of Peter, the first Pope and that he and every subsequent Pope has the authority to act as the gatekeeper of heaven. There is no ekklesia but the Church which has inherited the true apostolic succession, and no possibility of salvation outside the Church. The traditional Protestant assertion, however, is that it is not Peter who is the rock but his statement you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that the ekklesia and all routes to God and based simply upon a confession of that truth. The problem is, one could really choose to read Jesus’ you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church in either of the two possible ways. The word Peter (petros) means rock in Greek, and Greek has neither capital letters to distinguish rock from Rock, nor an indefintive article to distinguish a rock from the rock. This is why there was so much bloodshed and pillage at the Reformation and Inquisition over the origins and authority of church or the Church and suchlike. But either way, is this what Jesus intended?

The story of what happens after Jesus suggests, perhaps, not.

Was what Jesus calls the ekklesia anything remotely akin to the church or Church today? In contemporary Greek, ekklesia is simple an assembly of people. Yet the early Jesus Disciples worshipped not in their own assembly or organisation but in the Jewish Temple and then, after the fall of the Temple, the synagogues. What led them to start worshipping separately was not a belief that Jesus had told them to, but the malediction written into the synagogue liturgy, in which everyone wanting to worship in the synagogue had to recite a curse condemning Followers of The Way. So if, in the early days after the Ascension, Jesus’ followers and their Jewish contemporaries had got along together better, would the ekklesia have been necessary?

Soon, though, Gentiles began following Jesus and (after a bit of wrangling between Peter and Paul), the Jesus Fellowers decided the Holy Spirit was telling them that it didn’t make sense ro require them to convert to Judaism in order to follow Christ. This, then, is what really established the ekklesia. Was it a wise decision?

So is the church or the Church in whatever form, is it really what Jesus, what God ever intended for us?

a link to a much more interesting blog discussion than all this talk of my housework

Seaneen, on The Secret Life of a Manic Depressive, is talking about the ethics of eugenics. I don't agree with her and neither do many of those responding... but it's shaping up to be a fascinating discussion...

in which Grace can't stop thinking about Satan

I've moved my post about him to The Crowded Handbasket. Do pop over and join the discussion!

Grace's Spiritual Homemaking challenge: Update #2

Well, I accomplished all the various replacements of household items. But, in the midst of how stressed I was getting with it all, I ended up arguing with Beloved. Not the intention of the exercise. Oh dear. Bad, bad start.

I might have to curl up and watch some Veggie Tales before I resume in the bathroom. Good clean fun and all, anyway...

Grace's Spiritual Homemaking challenge: Update #1

So I made a shopping list. I'd like to claim that I then spent the morning joyously cycling between local organic fairtrade cooperatives and struggling neighbourhood greengrocers and buying lots of Ecover and fresh fennel. That would be a lie. Instead I realised that we needed so much more than I could ever carry that I'd have to email Mr Leahey and get Tesco to deliver the lot in a huge carbon-emitting van tomorrow morning. Sorry planet. Sorry God. Not a good start...

Grace and Beloved's ChurchSeach Week 8.1: Grace seeks to discover the spirituality of homemaking

As in, homemaking, homemaking, homemaking...

If this weren't an anonymous blog, I'd upload you a webcam picture of my tongue poking ever so slightly into my cheek. I was brought up as a liberated young lady, a child of Madonna and Whitney Houston and the early 80s girls days school movement, all primed and Miss Jean Brodied to conquer the workplace with my shoulder pads and trek as a missionary to Darkest Africa. So the idea that I dedicate the next week to trying to find some connection with God through mere domesticity, it's all a bit, er, challenging.

But then, I need a challenge. New Job is not going to be commencing for another few weeks, Beloved is insisting (oh how harsh of him) that I don't busy myself with agency bum-wipings in the meantime and, yes, our Marital Home is needing some hardcore housework. And, as much as I take the mick out of such things, I do want to look after my Beloved.

And, more to the point, unless I can find some spiritual fulfilment in doing the "homemaking", it's not likely to happen to any reasonable standard. Honestly, I can't be bothered. I don't have the OCD-type drive to keep things in order, nor do I derive any particular pleasure or pride in tidyness, nor does Beloved ask, encourage, demand or complain about the state of Marital Home, nor does he take any particular delight in things being neat. So essentially, I'll need God to motivate me off my arse to get started. And I'll give Him a week, to start off with

My tasks for tomorrow then, are as follows
1. To do a big, economically-minded trip to the Budget Supermarket to stock up with 11p tinned tomatoes, Polish drain cleaner, recycled loo paper and the like.
2. To take our final few frame-requiring wedding items to the local frame shop.
3. To replace the teapot someone dropped last week.
4. To replace the sofa cushion someone weed on last year.
5. To scrub Marital Bathroom until it's all shiny.

And in the meantime, I'm sitting here blogsearching and reading about Christian homemaking and Biblical womanhood and the joy of housework and wondering whether, if I truly seek God enough, I could reach such a level of serenity and peace and warmth from scrubbing cat hair out from between the shower tiles

I will update you...

Grace thinks about Satan

[Post now at The Crowded Handbasket]

Grace and Beloved's ChurchSearch Week 7.5: Grace does a virtual tour of Hyles-Anderson College

... and decides that it would take a more trusting, deferential person than her to apply.

I mean, I'm sure they love God very, very much and I'm sure that God loves them too and that they're filled with grace and mercy and all good things... but an online tour really was enough for me for now.

Their promotional video is here.

And their student code of conduct is here. Aptly titled "Maybe you wouldn't like". I don't like the thought of requiring a male to accompany and guide and preserve me from my evil inclinations off campus, no. I deep respect female Muslim friends who've said to me that they feel that having a mahram (basically, a male guide/protector/advocate, proposed through various hadith) helps them learn humility and deference and draw closer to God... but I think I was brought up much more to value my, like, independence and freedom.

The main degree open to women, it seems, is the Associate of Science in Marriage and Motherhood (see p84). Whereas I'd very much welcome some guidance on how to be a better spouse to my Beloved and a more welcoming hostess of visitors and a better pastry-maker, I'm sure my antipathy towards sewing would seriously dent my grade point average.... not to mention my intellectual frustration.

What's really intriguing, though, is how such blog and message board and YouTube activity is generated by what is essentially a small and marginal college. Such as below, in which Principal Hyles explains how Satan composed the New International Version of the Bible. I'd always thought it was the 100+ translators working from virtually the same ancient texts as those who wrote the King James Version. But there you go. Compared to what happened to Salman Rushdie (who, in the Satanic Verses made a much milder but broadly similar allegation), Rev Hyles gets off very lightly...

Grace reads some books instead

From my undisclosed hideout-from-the-world, I've been reading.

The Rabbi's Daughter by Reva Mann
Though marketed as fluffy chicklit (and vilified by a red-faced London Orthodox rabbinate as such), this is a book of huge spiritual depth and subtle, gentle humour. But whereas some of the sex scenes were sufficiently funny or shocking or outrageous to genuinely add to the plot, some seemed fairly gratuitous. We all know that sex sells, but Mann has a compelling enough of a story to tell without needing to rely so heavily on its sexual elements. I was struck by the way in which she has lived through and seen the very worst of organised religion, and yet remains deeply and vibrantly Jewish.

Losing my Religion? Moving on from Evangelical Faith by Gordon Lynch
It all rang very, very true. But what I couldn't quite work out was whether Lynch's "I know I'm an intellectual but I'm going to make sure I explain myself in very simple terms so I can be sure you understand me" style was an ironic attempt to emulate evangelical preaching at its worst, or whether it simply reveals his view of evangelicals as a bit dim. Either way, the tone and style of his writing didn't strengthen his argument.

Madness by Marya Hornbacher
One of those good-but-not-as-good-as-the-first-book sequels, all somewhat lacking in plot. I didn't agree with her framework of philosophy of mental illness, but I knew even before reading that I wouldn't. What I really admired about it was the style and skill of Hornbacher's writing. I wish, I wish I could write that well.

Disappointment with God by Philip Yancey
Yancey's always been a brave figure amongst evangelicals for his telling-it-like-it-is. I first read this a while back and it reminded me of what I've always been sure: it's not God I'm disappointed with, it's the Church. So maybe (despite my comments above) a sequel might be in order?

Power for God's Sake by Paul Beasley-Murray
The title, I suppose, says it all. I think the methodology of the study is a bit dated and somewhat tediously-explained and overjustified... could he not have snuck it in an appendix at the back? But some very good points about Jesus, and what he was like as a church leader.

I can see my page-stats taking a nosedive. I'll come back to life soon, Dear Readers, I promise...

Did God ever even intend the Church?

I'm asking this question on The Crowded Handbasket. Do pop over there and comment...

a person who sins

(This is a post I've slightly recycled from a while back. But given that it sort of touches on what I've been thinking about, I thought it'd be interesting to re-post)

Scene 1: Two friends in the pub, circa 2003

KATH: Did you hear that Kelly's a schizophrenic now?
GRACE: (in self-righteous tones) Yes, but you can't call her that.
KATH: What?
GRACE: A schizophrenic. She's a child of God. Maybe she has schizophrenia or has been told she has schizophrenia or been diagnosed with schizophrenia... but she's still a child of God, first and foremost. The schizophrenia shouldn't define her. Person-first language, and all that...
KATH: But Kelly's calling herself a schizophrenic. Reclamation of language, empowerment, de-stigmatising, you know. And if she's calling herself that, you shouldn't patronise her by refusing to use her choice of terminology.
GRACE: Yes, but I object to the terminology. I'm, like, challenging her, affirming her dignity.


Scene 2: Two friends in the pub, circa 2008

GRACE: Have you seen Kelly recently?
KATH: Yes, she's fine, I think she's working at a bank in Slough. But I was thinking... do you remember that discussion we had, when you refused to allow me to call her a schizophrenic.
GRACE: Yes...
KATH: And you're still into all your church-type stuff?
GRACE: Yes...
KATH: So are you still a sinner? Or rather, am I? Aren't we both?
GRACE: Um, yes. All of us are sinners.
KATH: You're a sinner?
GRACE: Well, saved by faith and grace and all that..
KATH: But don't you see my point?
GRACE: No...
KATH: Well, you go off it with how dismissive and disempowering it is for anyone to call Kelly "a schizophrenic"... and yet, why do you still do the standard Christian thing of referring to yourself as "a sinner"? Aren't you simply a person who sins?"

Very, very good point. Quite a massive theological thought-shift.