Monday, December 08, 2014

Identity, Postcolonialism and the Church

This paper examines the question of non-traditional identity using the postcolonial lenses of binary oppositions (pairs of opposites, for example black and white) and liminality (the place where so-called opposites can meet and mingle). Using Gilroy’s imagery of roots and routes, we note a tension in the Church between those who prioritise traditional biblical interpretation (roots) and those who look to see where God may be at work and follow where they believe he is leading (routes). We then turn to our three liminal case studies: cultural identity in the church (Do you need to become Russian to become a Christian?), new identities of Jesus-followers (Christian Muslim identity) and the homosexual discourse in the contemporary Western church (God created me gay and I worship him).
This is the abstract to a paper entitled, "Identity, Postcolonialism and the Church" which I posted on academia.edu last month. Click here to view the full article.
Michael

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

We are the hope on earth

I have written a paper on the Mission of God and the role of the Church in it. It is entitled, "We are the hope on earth," a line taken from a Rend Collective Experiment song. Here is a link to the song itself: Song

Here is the abstract:

This paper looks at the nature of the church and its mission,  the nature of God and his mission, and the relationship between the two. The church is identified as the collective expression of those who have witnessed something of God through Jesus, and whom God sends out as his emissaries into his world. Its mission is to love, serve, preach, teach, heal and liberate. God is trinity, and that is pivotal to his mission, missio Dei, which is to extend the company of those sharing the divine company, the heavenly banquet. The church’s mission of loving, etc. is thus transformed into one of inviting the nations to this divine party. This is illustrated from the author’s own experience in the Bible translation and language development movements.

I have uploaded it to academia.edu and you can find it here .

Happy reading! Michael

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Our God is a Consuming Fire

This paragraph is from the introduction to a short book I've just finished writing:

I believe the church has done God and the world a grave disservice. “Hell”, as we shall see, does not exist in the Bible. Eternal punishment, yes. A consuming fire, yes. But “hell” in the popularly understand form of everlasting torment has more in common with medieval scaremongering than biblical exegesis. What I find in the Scriptures is something far more awe-inspiring: that what some commentators call “hell” is none other than an element of the LORD God himself, for our God is a Consuming Fire.

Michael

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Creation and New Creation

One of the drawbacks of living in an apartment is that we don’t have a garden. In a garden we see creation at work. You plant a seed and given some sunshine and rain a flower will grow. God is creating and re-creating all the time. He didn’t do a once-and-for-all act of creation at the beginning of time, and then leave things to tick on for themselves. By creating self-replicating plants and animals he is continuously involved in acts of new creation. Acts of new creation which are part of the present creation.
What about the New Creation, the new heavens and new earth that God promises? The Greek word for 'new' here is kainos, not neos. Neos means ‘new’ in the sense of ‘not previously existent’ or ‘brand new’, while kainos is more qualitative and could be translated ‘renewed’ – for example the new (kainos) covenant which is derived from the first covenant.
There is both continuity and discontinuity between the present creation and the new creation of the age to come. Obviously we have not yet experienced the new creation of the age to come, and so a level of conjecture is needed as we consider what it might be like. However, we have two big clues:
There will be no sin, and there will be no effects of sin. All that is sinful in this creation will not be present in the new creation.
There is one instance where the new creation burst through into the present age. That is, the resurrected Jesus. His was a new creation body. It was the same yet different. The disciples recognized him but failed to recognize him. To use fancy language, there was both continuity and discontinuity with his former body. His new body was derived from the old, but also transcended it. Travel was not a problem.
By looking at Jesus’ new creation body we get an idea of what our new creation bodies will be like. But I believe the principle is more widely applicable. We also get a glimpse of what the whole of the new creation will be like. Plants, animals – they too will experience a level of continuity and discontinuity between their present creation form and their new creation form. They too will be the same, yet different. For them, too, the new will be derived from the old. Not a brand new, never-existed-before kind of new, but a renewed kind of new: the ‘old creation’ form is the basis for the new creation form.
Given the continuity between this present creation and the new creation of the age to come, the way we treat the environment in the here and now will have visible repercussions in the new creation. This is because the new creation isn’t brand spanking new but is derived from this creation. The ‘derived’ bit gives the continuity. The ‘renewed’ bit gives the discontinuity.
Every good Lutheran sermon mentions Martin Luther. This is neither Lutheran nor a sermon but still… Luther once said that even if he believed there was no tomorrow he would still plant his apple tree today. We too can plant our trees today and care for all of what God has made, not simply because we love the Creator but also because we will see the fruits of it in the age to come, in the New Creation.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Faith is private. Is it?

A “letter to the editor” recently stated that it is wrong to share your beliefs. They are private.

Here are some randomly listed beliefs:
  • I believe Jesus rose from the dead, and that fact is relevant to how I live my life today.
  • I believe there is no God.
  • I believe widows should be burnt alive when their husband dies.
  • I believe Crimea should (not) be part of Russia.
  • I believe dredging is (not) the answer to flooding in the UK.
  • I believe that when you die you will experience everlasting torture in hell.
  • I believe David Cameron is a poor, misguided fool.
  • I believe Barak Obama meant well but has been corrupted by the system.
  • I believe it is wrong to talk about one’s beliefs.

The relevant question, I believe, is: To what extent is it socially acceptable to try to convince others to change their position and adopt my beliefs? A second question is: When it is right to try to change the world based on my beliefs? Does it make any difference what the belief is?

If you believe that widows should be burnt alive when their husband dies, and I do not share your belief, is it right for me to do my best to convince you of the wrongness of your belief, in order to save the lives of widows?

If I were to believe that you will experience everlasting torture in hell when you die, wouldn’t it be morally inadmissible for me not to do all I could to convince you to take the necessary steps to avoid that fate?

If you believe it is wrong to talk about one’s beliefs, you are the only one who should not talk about your beliefs. Otherwise you are being internally inconsistent. However, if we cannot talk about our beliefs what else is there left to talk about? If conversations simply consisted of the exchange of scientifically verified facts I believe the world would be a dull place indeed.

OK, those who like to insist that beliefs are private generally mean religious beliefs. They object to being proselytized. Fair point. But to say that therefore religious beliefs should be kept private is to miss the point. Beliefs are a community thing. Church at its best is for the whole community. 

As for those of us who have faith in God, whatever the precise nature of that faith: my faith is part of who I am. I cannot relate to you with authenticity and integrity unless my faith is part of that relationship. So I will live my faith, in a way that is respectful of your faith/lack of faith, whatever the nature of it is. 

Michael

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

A beginning

“Take off your shoes. You’re on holy ground.”

“Don’t be so theatrical, God. The bush is neither burning nor being consumed.”

“Take off your shoes. You’re on holy ground.”

I eventually removed them. Socks too.

“Go. Come to the water.”

So I headed off to Water Lake. Immediately I began to admire the reflections: pastel blue sky, trees, the footbridge… Water Lake was a mirror. So I held it up like a mirror to myself and looked at myself. The old song came to mind, When I look at myself and see what you’ve done I should not be feeling crushed… I rejoiced! But the timid wild animal felt exposed down by the lakeside and quickly scurried back into the depths of the forest, singing with real joy Praise, my soul, the King of Heaven… The following year I reflected on this. There should be more. The timid wild animal needs to learn not to escape back to the shelter of the forest quite so hurriedly. And so this year it visited the exposed shore of Water Lake again. It wasn’t so bad. But if it was anything it was just a beginning.

(inspired by Strengthening the Soul of your Leadership by Ruth Haley Barton)