WWUUD stream

πŸ”’
❌ About FreshRSS
There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Before yesterdayimported

A few photos from New Year's Day on Christ's Pieces, Jesus Green and Midsummer Common, Cambridge

1 January 2020 at 15:32
A few photos from New Year's Day on Christ's Pieces, Jesus Green and Midsummer Common, Cambridge All taken with a Fuji X100F, all straight out of the camera jpegs Just click on a photo to enlarge Christ's Pieces Christ's Pieces Christ's Pieces Christ's Pieces Christ's Pieces with the Unitarian Church in the distance on the left Christ's Pieces Christ's Pieces Christ's Pieces Christ's Pieces Belmont Place looking into Jesus Lane Jesus Lane  Public lavatories and hayloft by Midsummer Common  Trees surrounding Jesus College, from Victoria Avenue London Plane tree on Jesus Green  Trees around Jesus College from Jesus Green Avenue of London Plane trees, Jesus Green Avenue of London Plane trees, Jesus Green Trees around Jesus College from J...

Ten black and white photographs around Cambridge at the tail end of the decade

1 January 2020 at 10:49
Ten black and white photographs in and around Cambridge at the tail end of the decade
All taken with a Fuji X100F, all straight out of the camera jpegs
Just click on a photo to enlarge

On the road to Great Haslingfield

Our Lady of the English Martyrs across Parker's Piece, Cambridge

Christ's Pieces, Cambridge

Chandelier and organ in Emmanuel College Chapel, Cambridge

The River Cam at night, Cambridge

Outside the chapel at Emmanuel College, Cambridge

River bank by the River Cam in the Paradise Local Nature Reserve, Cambridge

Advent star and lamp in the Unitarian Manse, Cambridge

The avenue of London Plane trees, Jesus Green, Cambridge

St John's College chapel, Cambridge

Our gift of Life in context see, a pearl of Grace in Eternityβ€”An address in preparation for the New Year 2020

29 December 2019 at 15:56
Spinoza in a window of George's Meeting House (Unitarian), Exeter READINGS Psalm 74:16-17 The day is thine, the night also is thine:  thou hast prepared the light and the sun.  Thou hast set all the borders of the earth:  thou hast made summer and winter. Night and Death (1828) by Joseph Blanco White (1775–1841) MYSTERIOUS Night! when our first Parent knew   Thee, from report divine, and heard thy name,   Did he not tremble for this lovely Frame,   This glorious canopy of Light and Blue? Yet ’neath a curtain of translucent dew,   Bathed in the rays of the great setting Flame,   Hesperus with the Host of Heaven came,   And lo! Creation widened on Man’s view. Who could have thought such Darkness lay concealed   Within thy b...

Christmas Day Address 2019 β€” The Source that Beckoned

25 December 2019 at 08:38
‘The Nativity at Night’ (1490) by Geertgen tot Sint Jans
READINGS:



ADDRESS
The Source that Beckoned

For those of us who have become profoundly sceptical about the historicity of the nativity stories and the many naive, theologically realist meanings given to them by the Christian tradition, one of the simplest ways creatively to enter back into the living spirit of the stories is to remember that they were not written as descriptions of an actual event real or imagined.

To many people this may seem to be bit of an odd thing to say since the stories have gifted us what is an utterly unforgettable and iconic mise-en-scène — literally a ‘placing on stage’ — in the form of the classic nativity scene which is reproduced in paintings, plays and models around the world.

Our back-reading of these stories over some two-thousand years have made them stories seem to us so obviously to be descriptions of this mise-en-scène that we have utterly lost sight of something which was of central importance to their writers, traditionally named Matthew and Luke.

One of four views of Tintern Abbey by Frederick Calbert (1815)
To help you sense what this ‘something’ is (or might be) I need to bring before you the insightful reading of Wordsworth’s poem ‘Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey, on revisiting the banks of the Wye during a tour, 13 July 1798’ made by the Britsh contemporary philosopher and Buddhist, Michael McGhee. Here are the poem’s opening eight lines again:

Five years have passed; five summers, with the length
Of five long winters! And again I hear
These waters, rolling from their mountain springs
With a soft inland murmur. Once again
Do I behold these steep and lofty cliffs,
Which on a wild secluded scene impress
Thoughts of more deep seclusion, and connect
The landscape with the quiet of the sky. 

McGhee observes that the point:

. . . is not that the steep and lofty cliffs should stimulate the idea of a more deep seclusion than the greatest that can be imagined, but that the scenery speaks for, is correspondent with, the possibility of a state of mind and it is that which, if it achieves reality, becomes the object of further comparison . . . [the state of mind] beckons towards deeper experience which in turn resonates with the words: indeed we discover the source of the resonance that beckoned (Michael McGhee: Transformations of the Mind: Philosophy as Spiritual Practice, CUP 2000, p. 126, his emphasis)

I realise that this is quite a difficult paragraph to understand, especially on a first hearing but the key thing to grasp is that McGhee thinks Wordsworth has felt that the physical scene before him corresponds in some powerful way with his ‘state of mind’ and his associated insights into how the world is and his place in it. Wordsworth writes about the landscape, therefore, not in order to describe it to us as a writer of a straightforward guide book might try to do, but in order to set up the possibility that it will resonate with us in a similar fashion such that it brings about in us what he hopes will be the same (or at least very similar) state of mind.

I cannot emphasise enough that the point here is ‘the state of mind’ not the description of the landscape scene. Wordsworth’s wider hope is that if his poem can help this state of mind achieve a certain reality for both him and we the reader then we can begin to talk with each other about that, and this is something we can do anywhere, even ‘in lonely rooms, and ‘mid the din / Of towns and cities.’

His further hope is that by comparing our different experiences of this state of mind we will both beckoned towards a deeper experience which continues to resonate with the words of the poem and which, ultimately, may help us, as Wordsworth thought, ‘into the life of things’ and so, perhaps, discover the source of the resonance that beckoned.

In this poem ‘the source’ seems to be something that is pantheistic in nature, perhaps something akin to Spinoza’s ‘deus sive natura’, god-or-nature, whom we evoke at the beginning of every morning service here. In any case, as Wordsworth says Aside from this, for us ‘with an eye made quiet by the power / Of harmony, and the deep power of joy’ we are, he feels, able to ‘see into the life of things’ and experience, as some lines later in the poem tell us, ‘a sense sublime . . .

Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.

On a very day to day practical level Wordsworth felt that all this could bring to us

that blessed mood, 
In which the burthen of the mystery, 
In which the heavy and the weary weight 
Of all this unintelligible world, 
Is lightened.

Anyway, it has long seemed to me highly likely that the writers of the nativity stories were attempting to achieve something similar.

The stories were written because in observing the process that leads up to and includes the birth of any child (not Jesus himself, of course, for the writers were writing many years after Jesus actual birth of which there is absolutely no first-hand account) the authors had themselves experienced ‘certain conditions in which their minds were set in motion’ (p. 124) which, to quote William James from his ‘Varieties of Religious Experience’, allowed ‘something [to] well up in the inner reaches of their consciousness’ (William James quoted by McGhee p. 17). The authors then tried to communicate this whole experience to us through means of ‘aesthetic ideas and images’ centred on this person called Jesus; in other words they ‘gave us an approximation of this experience and, in so doing, gave it the semblance of objective reality’ (McGhee p. 119) — namely a child who was god, a god who was a child, a god who is in the world with us (Immanuel), and our world which, all in all, is in god.

But whether my personal sense of their state of mind is right or wrong, the semblance of objective reality they gave their state of mind were, without doubt, their respective (and actually very different) nativity scenes. The problem for those of us, in a rational, freethinking, Radical Enlightenment inspired church tradition such as this, stems from the fact that the semblances the writers created were so stunning and attractive that over the intervening two-thousand years their aesthetic ideas and images have all too often degenerated into forms of naive theological realism within our culture.

As an intellectual and religious community we have, quite rightly, rejected all such naive theological realisms and this was a very good, and very necessary, thing to do. But the downside of our protestations, and I think it is a significant downside, is that at Christmas (and, actually in many other situations) we have been too quickly led to dismiss stories — like those about the nativity — as being nothing more than pretty but ultimately meaningless and dispensable faulty descriptions of the world.

But what might emerge for us if we could reconnect with the thought that perhaps the writers of the nativity stories (and other examples of religious stories) were not trying to describe or explain things in naive, theologically realist ways, but simply trying to communicate to us a certain, ultimately shared, state of mind?

That seems right to me and so I’d encourage you to contemplate this thought further in the coming months and years.

All I can say on this, as on most Christmas mornings, is that the resonances set up by the steep and lofty cliffs above Tintern Abbey create in me a state of mind that seems strongly related to the resonances set up by looking at the nativity scenes and the associated state of mind they help create in me.

As I read and look at the nativity scene, especially in the picture ‘The Nativity at Night’ (1490) by Geertgen tot Sint Jans — where, you will see, he has left an empty space by the crib-side in the central foreground so you can yourself join the holy family, assorted angels and ox and donkey in pondering the Christ-child — my state of mind can only be described, as I have already indicated, as pantheistic in a way close to that talked about by Spinoza, and so I cannot but help see before me in the Christmas mise-en-scène a motion and a spirit, that impels all thinking things, all objects of all thought, and rolls through all things.

Was this what the gospel writers actually intended? Was their state of mind and my own the same? I cannot, of course, ever know for sure.

But of one thing I can be absolutely sure. We must never be seduced into thinking that the nativity stories can be reduced to being naive theological realisms. That we are here together this morning indicates that in the nativity stories there is a hum of a creative, natural energy with which we can/do resonate.

So go on, why not risk moving close to the crib once again and see what state of mind the resonance sets up in you? Perhaps, if we’re attentive enough, we might still just sense **the source** of the resonance that beckoned and find ‘that blessed mood, / In which the burthen of the mystery, / In which the heavy and the weary weight / Of all this unintelligible world, / Is lightened.

Happy Christmas to you all.

Mary ponders and a muddy pond clearsβ€”that for which, in Advent, we await (a post-election Advent address)

22 December 2019 at 15:32
The nativity scene in the Cambridge Unitarian Church READINGS  The Shepherds and the Angels (Luke 2:8-19) In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. Then an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign for you: you will find a child wrapped in bands of cloth and lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying,  ‘Glory to God in...

Scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts; putting down the mighty from their seat; exalting the humble and meek; filling the hungry with good things β€” an Advent address written to outline the task before a progressive, liberal-rel...

15 December 2019 at 15:12
READINGS The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) in David Bentley Hart’s translation (2017) And Mary said, ‘ My soul proclaims the Lord’s greatness, and my spirit rejoices in God my saviour, because he looked upon the low estate of his slave. For see: Henceforth all generations will bless me; because the Mighty One has done great things to me. And holy is his name, and his mercy is for generations and generations to those who fear him. He has worked power with his arm, he has scattered those who are arrogant in the thoughts of their hearts; he has pulled dynasts down from thrones and exalted the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty. He has given aid to Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, just ...

A Christmas Tree & a food bank collection boxβ€”a shameful juxtaposition and a representation of the "new normal"

13 December 2019 at 15:34
This morning (Friday 13, 2019) at the Cambridge Unitarian Church we put up our Christmas Tree but, look behind it at the food bank collection box(Trussell Trust) and remember that, as from today, food banks across the UK will form part of the new normal . . .

Vladislav Surkov’s dark arts and their appearance in the UK during the current General Election campaign

10 December 2019 at 15:17
During Easter 2018 I wrote about the dangers presented by the methods used by Vladislav Surkov in Putin’s Russia. During this General Election Dominic Cummings & the Tory Party have shamelessly begun to use the same methods. For what it’s worth at the following link you can read my old warning: ADDRESS “ After this, nothing happened ” —What Vladislav Surkov’s dark arts can teach us about Black, or Holy Saturday

β€œThis General Election is a Choice Between the End of Democracy or the End of Neoliberalism” by Abbey Innes from the LSE

9 December 2019 at 09:22
Abby Innes, Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the LSE, has just written this powerful piece entitled “This General Election is a Choice Between the End of Democracy or the End of Neoliberalism”. I strongly recommend reading it in full before Thursday's General Election.


Here’s her opening paragraph:

“Given the dismal empirical record of forty years of pro-market reforms, the only way this Conservative Government can create the low tax, low regulation, law and order state of Neoliberal fever dreams is under the cover of other projects. Brexit offers a unique opportunity: it allows a government of economic extremists to manipulate our cultural identity to endorse a rewriting of the entire institutional rule-book. The recent assertion by Michael Gove that Brexit offers no lesser a liberating moment than the fall of the Berlin Wall is exactly wrong. Electoral success for the Conservatives will complete the capture of state authority by private business actors and consolidate the Conservative Party as a self-serving broker, first and foremost, between the residual powers of the state and the now largely unrestrained economic power of large private business and increasingly extractive financial interests.”

Advent and Christmas for Free Spiritsβ€”The bloom and magic of things that are nearest

8 December 2019 at 16:21
READINGS: Luke 2:13-14 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” From ‘History’ by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Used as the epigraph to the first edition of Nietzsche’s “The Gay Science” (1882) To the poet, to the philosopher, to the saint, all things are friendly and sacred, all events profitable, all days holy, all men divine.  Friedrich Nietzsche in the 1886 preface to “Human, All-Too-Human” (1879), trans. R.  J. Hollingdale, Cambridge University Press, 1986). A step further in convalescence: and the free spirit again draws near to life—slowly, to be sure, almost reluctantly, almost mistrustful...

Some photos from today's demonstration against the visit to Cambridge by the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

5 December 2019 at 15:10
As my post yesterday will have revealed, I was one of those invited to attend the opening of the new mosque here in Cambridge. However, only yesterday afternoon, I became aware that the ceremony was to be attended by the Turkish President  Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This  meant that, with the deepest sadness imaginable, I was simply not able to attend the event. I was going as the minister of a  local  free-thinking, democratic, liberal-religious community (the Cambridge Unitarian Church) joyfully to celebrate the opening of the building with  local  Muslims. But I could not, nor ever will, take part in an event that willingly draws into the wider Cambridge community a world leader whose entire way of being in the world runs totally c...

The shocking news that Recap Tayyip Erdogan has been invited to the opening of the new Cambridge Mosque

4 December 2019 at 21:31
The shocking news that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been invited to the opening of the beautiful new Cambridge mosque tomorrow has meant that, with the deepest sadness imaginable, I will simply not be able to attend the event. I was going as the minister of a local free-thinking, democratic, liberal-religious community (the Cambridge Unitarian Church) joyfully to celebrate the opening of the building with local Muslims. But I cannot, will not, take part in an event that willingly draws into the wider Cambridge community a world leader whose entire way of being in the world runs totally counter, not only to everything for which my own religious tradition stands, but also counter to everything for which a modern, democratic, cosmopolitan city such as Cambridge stands.

Naturally, in the future I will continue to engage in a positive and friendly way with the mosque and it's associated communities but tomorrow, I fear, I will be absent from what should have been a joyous occasion for the whole city.

In the mad world in which we live I was deeply concerned that this story might not be true but I have checked on the website of the Turkish President and, alas, it seems painfully true. You can read the page yourself at the following link (or click on the picture below) to read the text.

https://tccb.gov.tr/en/speeches-statements/558/113757/president-erdogan-to-visit-the-united-kingdom

A few photos from an early winter walk to Emmanuel College and the Cambridge University Botanic Garden

2 December 2019 at 17:02
I haven’t posted many photographs recently for which I apologize — I mostly post them on Twitter on this account @caute — but here are a few from today. Susanna and I often visit the Cambridge University Botanic Garden on my days off (Monday and Tuesday) by going via the lovely chapel at Emmanuel College where Susanna does the flowers. This lovely, sunny and frosty early winter morning we did just that and here are a few photos taken both in Emmanuel College and at the Botanic Garden. Enjoy!

All taken with a Fuji X100F and all are straight out of the camera jpegs. 

Click on a photo to enlarge.


















A few thoughts about the role an ontology of motion and a performative new-materialism plays in my work as minister at the Cambridge Unitarian Church

28 November 2019 at 15:47
The park opposite the Cambridge Unitarian Church this morning In recent days I've had the opportunity to talk at length with a member of the Unitarian congregation here in Cambridge who is a post-graduate philosopher at one of the nearby colleges. The conversation we had was both about conversation itself and also the role of a minister when open conversation is as foregrounded as it is here in the Cambridge congregation (see the morning order of service). During the course of our conversation I mentioned a piece I recently wrote called Being an umpire not a player  which drew heavily on some ideas borrowed from the philosopher Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990). Since then we have had a useful exchange of emails and below is my own reply t...

If anything will level with you water willβ€”a meditation on flows, folds and fields, the material conditions of nature as she appears

24 November 2019 at 16:18
Mary C. Durst, Bathing at Hunstanton Cliffs , Norfolk, 1888 READINGS Isaiah 26.4 Trust in the Lord for ever,    for in the Lord God    you have an everlasting rock. Isaiah 44.8 Do not fear, or be afraid;    have I not told you from of old and declared it?    You are my witnesses! Is there any god besides me?    There is no other rock; I know not one.  Isaiah 51:1 Listen to me, you that pursue righteousness,    you that seek the Lord. Look to the rock from which you were hewn,    and to the quarry from which you were dug. IF ANYTHING WILL LEVEL WITH YOU WATER WILL  by A. R. Ammons Streams shed out of mountains in a white rust  (such the abomination of height)  slow then into upland basins or high marsh  and slowing drop...

The great mutual blindness darkened that sunlight in the parkβ€”A Remembrance Sunday memorial address for all those killed in war, including those who were, or still are, our enemies

10 November 2019 at 15:20
Blue skies and sun in the park opposite the church this week To see a pdf copy of the order of service please click on this link. OPENING READING  Matthew 5:38-45 [Jesus said:] ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for ...

Jesus' proclamation about the need to show love, not indulgenceβ€”Dad’s Army, Knud Ejler LΓΈgstrup and the ethical demand

3 November 2019 at 16:01
The main cast of characters in Dad's Army  INTRODUCTION  A couple of weeks ago I had occasion to answer a question in the conversation after the address by using a scene from an episode called “A Man of Action” from the British 1970s comedy series ‘Dad’s Army’ in which Private Frank Pike gets his head stuck in the railings of a park gate. Today, I want to use it again in order to help me take a serious look at something about the structure of the ethical demand that was noticed by the twentieth-century Danish philosopher, theologian and ethicist Knud Ejler Løgstrup (1905–1981). So here’s the story again but, as I begin, I should note that it’s taken from the version aired on the radio rather than the television. You ca...

In this cockeyed world there are shapes and designs, if only we have some curiosity, training, and compassion and take care not to lie or to be sentimentalβ€”Some reflections following the discovery of the 39 men and women found dead inside a Bulg...

27 October 2019 at 15:26
The Mann Gulch fire, 1949 Luke 12:54-57 Jesus said to the crowds: ‘When you see a cloud rising in the west, you immediately say, “It is going to rain”; and so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, “There will be scorching heat”; and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time? ‘And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? —o0o— Norman Maclean (1902-1990) from his notes written as a possible fore piece to Young Men and Fire. As I get considerably beyond the biblical allotment of three score years and ten, I feel with increasing intensity that I can express my gratitude for still being aroun...

A non-prophet organisation?

21 October 2019 at 12:54

In his memoir, the philosopher Norman Malcolm recalls that Ludwig Wittgenstein once observed ‘that a serious and good philosophical work could be written that would consist entirely of jokes (without being facetious)’ (Norman Malcolm in Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, p.28).

This thought, to which I will return in a moment, was very much in my mind throughout the process of creating the new website and publicity material for the Cambridge Unitarian Church because, as you can see there and here, the logo makes use of a deliberate joke in the form of a play upon the words ‘non-prophet’ and ‘non-profit’. Both the designer, Rob Kinnear from the ‘Out of House’ design agency, and we hope that the juxtaposed meanings of these homonyms, additionally juxtaposed with three very traditional words, ‘Cambridge Unitarian Church’, will make people stop and chuckle and then wonder what on earth might be might meant by this non-facetious joke; to ask, what kind of church would that be like?

Before exploring this question directly, if provisionally, it’s worth noting one of the most attractive things about juxtapositions is that they don’t brow-beat a person with the kinds of pre-determined messages usually given out by churches but are, instead, open invitations to the reader to ask themselves what the juxtaposition might mean, to what might it be pointing or suggesting, and so on.

As Raymond Geuss points out, such juxtapositions can be particularly helpful in inviting a person, ‘to pay attention to something usually overlooked or taken for granted, which seems to have a unity that upon inspection dissolves. The world can occasionally turn itself inside out or upside down’ (Geuss, A World Without Why).

So, in the joke ‘A non-prophet organisation’ juxtaposed with the traditional name ‘Cambridge Unitarian Church’, what overlooked or taken for granted thing or things are we asking people to pay attention to and think about?

Well, in the first place it’s the idea that membership of a church community requires from a person a belief in the primary way by which traditional, metaphysical religion has gone about providing the world with ‘answers’ — namely through prophets and prophecies.

The problem is, of course, that this way of providing answers, having the status of coming from some putative, authoritative God, has all too quickly and all too often, turned them into repressive and rigid dogmas which, even when our knowledge about the world has significantly changed, have successfully impinged upon our our freedom to be tomorrow what we are not today.

It’s not the case, of course, that in this local church we’re unconcerned about the need to seek appropriate, provisional, contemporary answers to life’s perennial questions but, to draw upon Rilke’s insight found in his ‘Letters to a young poet’, it’s simply that we feel it’s always important to be patient towards all that is ‘unsolved in our hearts’ and to try to ‘love the questions themselves’ by ‘living the questions now’ (p. 35). For many years we have sought to do this by engaging together in critical and creative conversations which genuinely seek to draw and build upon the knowledge and insights of the many rather than upon the pronouncements of any single, charismatic, (self)authoritative figure (whether understood as human or divine). In this community, we have come highly to value the exploratory, tentative footprints made by all kinds of people walking convivially together in creative conversation (‘pedesis’) more than we do demands that we must all follow some predetermined blueprint imposed upon us by one prophet or another. Here, our faith is rooted in the belief that it is only by working together conversationally upon life’s questions that we’ll be able to move on appropriately by continuing, again as Rilke said, ‘to live along some distant day into the answer.’

In our exploratory, attentive walking together — as scientists, historians, poets and artists — we are discovering more and more that the world in which we live is always open and being endlessly made and remade out of complex flows, folds and fields of natural matter and that indeterminacy plays a vital role in all things. This means that all the details about the future are never fixed in any absolute sense and so we cannot know for certain, in the present, what all aspects of the future will be like. This is especially true when it comes to the complex, indeterminate flows, folds and fields that make up humanity’s ever-changing and developing cultural, religious, artistic, technological, political and economic ways of being. Because of this, there can, in truth, be no such things as prophets and prophecies, by which I mean people who can, unerringly and for all time, deliver up to people the eternal truth of how the world will and must be, religiously, morally, politically, economically, financially or ecologically.

Because the future cannot be known in any absolute way (because the future is never already there before us but something always to be made in the present) it is, therefore, up to us always to be doing the best we can now, hand in hand with each other and consciously working within the natural limitations nature has gifted us in this neck of the vast cosmos.

This means that our task is not to become prophets articulating unerring prophecies about the future but people able to live well in the present—as Rilke said, by living the questions now. The best we can hope for is that this modest, experimental, non-hubristic, inquiringly conversational way of living in the present may at times prefigure in the here-and-now better ways to think about how we might live in the future. Wasn’t this, after all, exactly what Jesus did? This means we can only truly live prophetic lives by refusing to be prophets able to utter unerring, true prophecies. Such static, dogmatic prophesies will never, thank heavens, come true because life is always-already more beautiful, complex improvisational, temporary and risky than that.

Now, when you look closely at the historic development of the Unitarian movement we can see that we have always been suspicious of prophets and have instead, and on the whole, preferred exemplars. In his important work ‘De Jesu Christo servatore’ (1578) our earliest important theologian, Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), rejected the idea of that Jesus was a prophet with a fixed prophetic vision of the future kingdom of God and, instead, he saw Jesus as an exemplary figure showing what a selfless dedication to God (or we might say today ‘nature’ or ‘reality’) in the present looked like. As this idea developed and deepened within our communities over the next four centuries the world’s great religious figures such as Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha and so on, all came to be seen, at their best, as exemplars and not prophets. To us they became people who helped show us (albeit often incompletely and imperfectly) some of the positive ways humanity might choose to go on their exploratory, conversational way. But, be clear, these figures did not show us—nor ever could have shown—the only way we must go on.

The many ways we actually go on (for we are nothing if not committed to a kind of pluralist cosmopolitanism) are best thought of as lines of movement which are constantly being made and remade in the present as the complex flows, folds and fields of exemplary people (and ideas) knot, conjoin and converse in this way here, and that way there, and so on endlessly. It is this constantly intermingling and mixture which ensures that the future always remains open and is never something finally arrived at because it’s something always being woven. If one word runs through the whole of nature like the word “Clacton-on-Sea” ran through my childhood stick of rock, it is the word futurability.

Our fervent hope is that, more often than not, the future will be shaped most powerfully, not by prophets and prophecies but, instead, only by the ongoing collective actions of gentle, well-educated, genuinely free-thinking thinking men and women committed to task of living well through informed, democratic conversation and inquiry.

Let me now turn my attention to the unwritten implication in our non-facetious joke that this is also a ‘non-profit organisation’. This appears to be the less theological and religious half of the joke but I hope you will see this is not at all the case.

Being a non-profit organization is a central concern of the radical, progressive religious, political and ecological vision we’re seeking to articulate here. Here, we try never to see people, ideas or natural entities merely as ‘resources’ from which we can extract some surplus profit for our own individual, or some putative god’s, or the church institution’s, theological or financial benefit and gain but, instead, to find ways to superadd meaning and worth to every life and every thing in a way that helps us develop a deep sense of being at home together in the world, reciprocally commingled with all other sentient and non-sentient entities.

Holding this view we have become increasingly aware that the capitalist myth (especially in its neoliberal forms) which believes we can, forever and ever, continue to extract from people and the wider world increasing profits via constant production and growth, is destroying both our own well-being and that of the whole planet. As the ‘Debt Resistors’ Operations Manual’ put it ‘[t]he financial establishment colludes with the government to create rules designed to put everyone in debt; then the system extracts it from you’ (p. 1). Given this, clearly one important job at hand—religiously, politically, economically, financially and ecologically speaking—is to resist this kind of world-view by consciously not making a profit from what have been called the world’s ‘natural resources’ but, instead, to be living the kinds of lives where everything is gently and consciously folded back into the life-giving flows, folds and fields of life for the mutual, reciprocal benefit of the whole. Here, we are people who feel, as Greta Thunberg feels, that: ‘For too long the people in power have gotten away with ... stealing our future and selling it for profit. But we ... are waking up and we promise we will not let you get away with it anymore’.

But the word ‘non-profit’ also speaks about what have been called ‘spiritual resources.’ Christianity (the specific religious tradition out of which our own community was born) has in various ways through the centuries consistently tried to extract some kind of spiritual profit from people via its systematic misuse and abuse of its conception of ‘original sin.’ It’s important to see that the Christian schema of sin operates in a similar way to the loan shark. To rephrase the thought mentioned earlier from the ‘Debt Resistors’ Operations Manual’ we may say the religious establishment has colluded with the theologians to create rules designed to put everyone in religious debt; then the religious system has extracted it from us. We here are all aware that for over two-millennia we have been told we are in spiritual debt thanks to some putative original sin in which we did what any sensible, intelligent, thinking person would have done, namely, to make an attempt to pluck and eat the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Surely, seeking an understanding of in what consists good and evil is a sensible and vital, if endlessly revisable task, and we would have been mad not to try (and continue to try) to pluck, taste and share at the common table in mealtime conversations this tree’s most precious fruit?

But, having been convinced by our religious establishments and theologians that this act was a sin, we find that this has only served to put us in debt with an interest rate that was not only exorbitant but infinite. In short, the Christian story was unfolded for/by us in such a way that we came to believe this debt could only be paid off by the violent execution of a God-Man Jesus who stood in our place whose expiatory death paid off the debt for us. But we have discovered this act of violence didn’t pay the debt off at all but, instead, was only an example of selling the debt on in a fashion analogous to the infamous collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) that lay behind so many of the financial crimes of the 1980s to the 2000s and sowed the seeds of the eventual crisis of 2008. This is the spiritual profit (often tied to financial profit in the form of, for example, indulgences) that formal Christianity has so often attempted to extract from our lives. It’s a way of proceeding that makes the PPI scandal or the financial crimes leading up to 2008 look like mere storms in a teacup.

[Let’s not forget here, by the way, that Jesus actually asked in his famous prayer that we should be forgiven our debts and not our trespasses. The use of the word trespasses rather than debts was a deliberate attempt to hide from view the Church’s spiritual profit motive in which we have for centuries been (mis)sold what we might be tempted to call gilt-edged guilt].

But many people today, are now seeking a different kind of naturalist, religious myth, one that is based not upon destructive spiritual profit-extraction but, once again, upon ideas of true sustainability and endless reciprocal recycling of the common-wealth of nature.

So, all in all, I hope you can see that our joke is genuinely a non-facetious one because we truly are seeking to be a local church community that, on the one hand, refuses to make and/or take a financial or spiritual profit from the earth or from its people and, on the other hand, that we truly believe the best way to proceed is by genuinely seeking to draw and build conversationally upon the knowledge and insights of the many rather than upon the prophecies of any single, charismatic, (self)authoritative prophet.

We are, indeed, a non-prophet/profit organisation in both senses of the word and proud of it.

I hope our non-facetious joke makes a few people laugh; I hope our non-facetious joke makes a few people think that maybe this church isn’t necessarily what they thought it might be and that it might (just) be worth checking out; I hope our non-facetious joke encourages a few more people to begin to work conversationally together, living the questions now, gently to shape an appropriate future that knows we must never come to believe, as prophets and their prophecies have all too often claimed, that they have delivered up to all humankind the full and final answer/s.

And lastly, I hope our non-facetious joke allows some people to glimpse that life is much more complex, beautiful, open and creative than the prophets of old have told us and so are able, finally, to allow themselves, joyously and lovingly, to immerse themselves into life’s ever-moving, plural plenitude.

What porcupines can tell us about loving our neighbour who is also our enemy

20 October 2019 at 14:46
An Old World Procupine (Photo: Andrew Butko)
INTRODUCTION

After last week’s address I had a very interesting and helpful conversation with C about what might any actual attempt to follow Jesus in showing love our neighbours look like, particularly those whom we feel to be our enemies? The conversation was had because, when all is said and done, loving one’s neighbours who are also enemies is something which continues to feel like a task that can never properly be done — it remains an impossible ideal.

But before going on to our readings and my address which follows I need to note four things. 

The first is that everything I say here overlaps significantly with loving any kind of neighbour but, today, I want only to focus on the hugely problematic matter of how to love (or we may say, show mercy to) the neighbour who is (or is perceived to be) an enemy. 

The second thing to be clear about is that I am using the word ‘enemy’ in it’s widest sense to include not only those against whom we might be fighting in some obvious violent, war-like way, but also those with whom we very, very, strongly disagree in our own contemporary national religious and political contexts.

The third thing to note is that showing love/mercy to one’s neighbours who are also enemies clearly isn’t going to be about showing, in the same kind of ways, precisely the same kind of love/mercy one shows to neighbours who clearly are not our enemies. The two are related, of course, but not the same.

And, lastly, since we are going to be considering the parable of the Good Samaritan in some detail, the fourth thing to note is that it isn’t concerned to suggest that having or distributing money is central as Margaret Thatcher mistakenly revealed she thought it was at the very end of a famous 1980 TV interview with Brian Walden when she said ‘No-one would remember the good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.’ 

Whilst it is undeniably true that the Good Samaritan used his money to help facilitate the showing of his love/mercy to his a neighbour who was also his enemy (and I’ll explain why they were enemies later on in the address proper) it’s vital to see that to focus on the money is to be sent off after a veritable red herring. It isn’t money that is central to the parable but rather the way the Samaritan used his money to reveal the actual something that is, in fact, central to Jesus’ teaching about how we might most appropriately (we might say best) show love/mercy to a neighbour who is also our enemy.

—o0o—

READINGS

Luke 10:25-37

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’

But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while travelling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, “Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.” Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’


There was once, so Schopenhauer tells us, a colony of porcupines. They were wont to huddle together on a cold winter’s day and, thus wrapped in communal warmth, escape being frozen. But, plagued with the pricks of each other’s quills, they drew apart. And every time the desire for warmth brought them together again, the same calamity overtook them. Thus they remained, distracted between two misfortunes, able neither to tolerate nor to do without one another, until they discovered that when they stood at a certain distance from one another they could both delight in one another’s individuality and enjoy one another’s company. They did not attribute any metaphysical significance to this distance, nor did they imagine it to be an independent source of happiness, like finding a friend. They recognized it to be a relationship in terms not of substantive enjoyments but of contingent considerabilities that they must determine for themselves. Unknown to themselves, they had invented civil association.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
What porcupines can tell us about loving our neighbour who is also our enemy

The thing to see clearly in the parable is that when it comes to anything to do with what is meant by the word ‘neighbour’ and our expressions of, or lack of, love/mercy to them, finding the appropriate distance in our relationships is key, as is memorably displayed in the nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer’s (1788-1860) parable of the porcupine that so attracted the twentieth-century English philosopher and political theorist Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990)

Once you have realised this we can see that in the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus places before us a number of examples of inappropriate and appropriate modulation of distance between the injured Jewish man and the people who see him at the side of the road, each of whom — through their different kinds of distance — succeeds in either displaying appropriate love/mercy to their neighbour or showing its lack. Let’s walk through the story closely to see what I mean.

The first modulation of distance shown is that which existed between the Jewish man and the robbers. Obviously, in order to mug him the robbers firstly had to come very close to the man. But the quality of their closeness reveals clearly how far away from the man they really are, at least in terms of showing love/mercy. Then, after having been so close to the man, the robbers put a relationship breaking farness between them and him by disappearing entirely from the scene leaving the man alone and seriously injured by the side of the road. In short we can see that the way distance is modulated between the robbers and the Jewish man is throughout inappropriate.

The second and third modulations of distance shown are those which existed between the priest and the Levite who pass by in quick succession. Now it’s important to see that in religious, national, political and ethnic terms, the priest, the Levite and the injured man are in fact very close — they are, after all, all Jews, kinsmen if you like, people who, in any normal way, would be considered neighbours one to another, and neighbours who are not enemies. But something about their closeness together (a closeness to do with shared religious beliefs about ritual cleanliness and purity) clearly reveals how far away from the injured man they are, at least in terms of showing love/mercy. As we know this very closeness is what helps drive the priest and the Levite to cross to the other side of the road putting a relationship breaking farness between themselves and the injured man and they disappear entirely from the scene in order to keep themselves ritually pure and undefiled. In short we can see that the modulation of distance between the priest, the Levite and the Jewish man are also all inappropriate.

The fourth modulation of distance is seen with the arrival of the travelling Samaritan who, when he sees the injured man ‘was moved with pity.’ Here it is absolutely vital to remember that the majority of the first Jewish hearers of Jesus’ parable mistrusted and even hated Samaritans — they were perceived to be an enemy. A major reason for this state of affairs was that in ca. 112/111 BCE the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim had been destroyed by Yōḥānān Hurqanōs (John Hyrcanus, 164 BCE-104 BCE), an action which is generally thought to have been the cause of the final split between Jews and Samaritans. Not surprisingly the majority of Samaritans reciprocated this distrust and hatred and, during Jesus’ childhood (c. 9 CE), these old tensions were revived because the Samaritans had desecrated the Jewish Temple at Passover by scattering human bones in the porticoes and throughout the building (Josephus, Antiquities 18.29-30). In short we need to see clearly that the Good Samaritan and the injured Jewish man were considered by most people of the time (including themselves) to be enemies. Notice, too, — and how striking this is — that Jesus the Jew chooses the alien and enemy Samaritan to be the ‘hero’ of his parable. 

As we all know, the distance between the Good Samaritan and the injured Jewish man is significantly narrowed when the Good Samaritan, moved by pity, choses to cross the road to tend directly to the injured man’s wounds by bandaging them and pouring soothing oil and wine on them. He then puts the man on his own animal, accompanies him to an inn, and takes care of him. Their closeness to each other at this point is being flagged up by Jesus as being appropriate in the way that the earlier examples of closeness were not.
  
Now, at this point in the story many of us are tempted to chase after the red herring of closeness seeing it as primary. But let’s now recall our cold porcupines. 

As my earlier explanation will have revealed, Samaritans and Jews were spiky creatures — the encounter between them in first-century Israel/Palestine was always one in which, as neighbours who were also enemies, they were constantly experiencing either the cold of separation from each other or the painful pricks of each other’s quills in their close encounters in places such as the road which ran between Jerico and Jerusalem and through each others historic lands.

Given that the injured man was Jewish, the Good Samaritan would all to easily have been seen as being just the kind of enemy person to have perpetrated such a crime in the first place. Consequently, it is perfectly understandable that he would not have wanted to stick around for too long. Although it is likely that the Samaritan had his own pressing personal reasons to be quickly on his way it is not at all too far fetched to suggest that the Jewish innkeeper, his staff and the other Jewish guests at the inn may have quickly come to resent the moral and ethical spikes that the Samaritan’s expression of neighbourly love/mercy to an enemy was driving into their own consciences — spikes which would naturally have hurt the pride of those who must have know that they should have showed love/mercy to one who was so obviously a neighbour to them.

So what does the Good Samaritan do? Well, he seems to have understood that to continue to show an appropriate love/mercy to his neighbour/enemy he must now quickly put some significant, but appropriate relationship maintaining farness between them — unlike the earlier, inappropriate relationship breaking farness that the robbers and the priest and the Levite put between themselves and the injured man. The Good Samaritan does this, as you know, by leaving the innkeeper with some money (about two days wages) which would have the additional benefit of helping to prime the pump of neighbourly love which had so clearly dried up in the injured man’s neighbours who were not enemies. The Samaritan adds the possibility of there being a continued real and appropriate connection across the distance he was about to open up by saying ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend’. We do not, of course, know whether he did or did not return but his words must surely have been an encouragement to the innkeeper et. al  to begin to continue to show their own appropriate mercy/love to their neighbour. There’s actually more to say about this bit of the story but for now I’ll leave it hanging.

Anyway, I hope you can see that it is precisely by creating a new appropriate farness distance between him and the injured Jewish man that the Good Samaritan is able to continue show to him an appropriate love/mercy. In short we can see that throughout their encounter the modulation of distance between the Good Samaritan and the injured Jewish man was, unlike the other examples, always appropriate.

Let’s now briefly return to the porcupines.

The muggers got inappropriately close to the Jewish man — their quills, deliberately and violently forced home, pricked the Jewish man almost unto death and then they got too far apart only making the situation worse, colder. 

The priest and Levite went through a similar process; their initial closeness in religious/ethnic terms caused the spiky quill that was fear of ritual uncleanliness to drive them away from the injured Jewish man which, once again only made the situation worse, colder. 

In his actions, however, the Good Samaritan reveals himself to be a wise and good porcupine. He knew that he could best show his love/mercy to his neighbour (who was also his enemy) by engaging in a careful, constant modulation of distance, moving close to the injured neighbour who was an enemy at a certain point and moment, and moving away from him at another point and moment as local circumstances changed. 

So, let me now return to my opening question: what does any actual attempt to follow Jesus in showing love our neighbours — particularly those whom we feel to be our enemies — look like?

It seems to me that it must look something like the porcupines in Schopenhauer’s story. We love our neighbour (even those whom we’d call enemies) not by creating a wholly unrealistic, unsustainable and idealistic closeness together but by creating appropriate rather than inappropriate distances between us (sometimes close, sometimes far); we do it by always seeking to find and/or create various temporary places where together we can all regain some meaningful sense of belonging rather than not belonging together as neighbours; we do it by always seeking to discern when is the right rather than the wrong moment to do whatever thing it is that can actually be done by us in that moment. 

In short loving one’s neighbour who is, in some fashion, our enemy, can never be a straightforward simple rules-based exercise which looks the same in every situation. It’s always something that must be improvised anew on the actual roadsides and in the inns of life in each actual moment of life as it unfolds. 

For what it’s worth — which I realise may be not much — in my opinion the key thing to remember in our present febrile national situation is, following Schopenhauer/Oakeshott, always to be wise and good porcupines constantly seeking to modulate appropriate distances from each other so as to be able, as best we can, 1) to continue to show real, actual love/mercy to each other, 2) to continue to delight in one another’s individuality and enjoy one another’s company, and 3) to continue to recognize our relationship in terms not of substantive enjoyments — i.e. all enjoying, loving, thinking exactly the same things in exactly the same way — but in terms of contingent considerabilities that we must always be determining for ourselves and which are the basis of any genuine and decent civil association.

SenhΓΆstblad (Late Autumn Leaves) by Lars-Erik Larsson (1908–1986)

15 October 2019 at 17:17
This year, as we move inexorably into the season of autumn, I have stumbled across a composer new to me, the Swedish musician Lars-Erik Larsson (1908–1986) and particularly his work for string quartet which has been wonderfully recorded by the Stenhammer Quartet on the Daphne label. The whole CD is a delight but the opening Op. 20 pieces, collectively known as Senhöstblad (Late Autumn Leaves), are proving to be the perfect accompaniment to my current autumnal and melancholic written and walking meditations. I'd highly recommend checking his music out and, below the two autumn pictures I took last week near Grantchester Meadows (just click on them to enlarge), you will find a YouTube link to the final adagio to the aforementioned piece. Enjoy.




The subjunctive of potentialityβ€”a meditation on some words by Robert Musil pushing against the rhetoric and reality of nationalism

13 October 2019 at 14:50
READINGS  Matthew 5:43-45 NRSV [Jesus said:] You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. From The Gospel in Brief by Leo Tolstoy , ( Harper Perennial, 2011, p. 41) The fifth commandment. In the previous law it was said: do good to your own people and do harm to the foreigner. But I say to you: love not only your own countrymen, but also the people of other nations. Let others hate you, let them attack you and insult you; but you must praise them and do good...

Some photos from an early autumn walk across Grantchester Meadows

8 October 2019 at 17:33
Some photos from an early autumn walk across Grantchester Meadows
All taken with a Fuji X100F
Click on an image to enlarge it 





























Short-circuiting the parable of the mustard seedβ€”a harvest meditation giving thanks for all the children involved in the School Strike for Climate movement

6 October 2019 at 14:03
Jan Luyken from the Bowyer Bible. Photo: Harry Kossuth
INTRODUCTION 

Today is our Harvest Festival, a time when, as the author of Exodus in Tyndale’s memorable English we give thanks for reaping ‘the first fruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, in the end of the year: when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field’ (23:16).

We tend to think of the traditional fruits of our labours (although it is, in truth, nearly always the fruits of other people’s back-breaking labour) in terms of tasty grains, fruit and vegetables, all of which are ubiquitously and unproblematically necessary to us, as well as unconditionally welcome, beautiful, lovely and desirable. But some aspects of harvest, at least as presented to us in the gospels, open a window on different ways to understand the festival’s possible meanings.

As you will be aware, the anonymous authors of the gospels place a number of harvest associated images into Jesus’ mouth. But, despite over two hundred years of historical-critical scholarship, it remains far from clear how many of these images and their interpretations were those Jesus gave rather than the gospel writers’ own.

In short, we’re on our own and need to do our own interpreting, something which, on balance, it seems is what Jesus always knew, if not expected, would be the case with his parables. Standing on the edge of a crowd listening curiously to him (and, as Monty Python suggests, perhaps sometimes mishearing him — “blessed are the cheesemakers” . . .) we can imagine ourselves hearing the parable we are talking about today and being forced to ask ourselves what, on earth, does the mustard shrub and the harvest of seed we gather from it tell us about what the Kingdom of God might be like?

—o0o—

READINGS

Matthew 13:31–32 in John Dominic Crossan’s presentation in The Essential Jesus (Castle Books 1998, p. 51)

The Kingdom of God is mustard
 a seed small enough
  to get lost among others
 a plant large enough
  to shelter birds in its shade.

Matthew 13:31-32 Authorized Version

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Birch seeds
In Leo Tolstoy’s translation (‘The Gospel in Brief’, Harper Perennial, 2011, p. 33)

In the soul, the kingdom of heaven flourishes out of nothing, but it gives everything. Like a birch seed, the smallest of all seeds, when it grows up, it is larger than all the other trees and the birds of the heavens build their nests in it.


—o0o—

ADDRESS
Short-circuiting the parable of the mustard seed—a harvest meditation giving thanks for all the children involved in the School Strike for Climate movement

Today, when it comes to the parable of the mustard seed, we find it very hard avoid the traditional meaning that has become attached to it. We’re tempted to say straightaway that it’s obvious, it’s a simple and straightforward lesson about growth that we can read off the face of nature — i.e. that something which will eventually become large and expansive begins with something very small and compact. It was this kind of understanding which led Tolstoy to think he could simply and unproblematically replace the mustard seed with the very small birch seed for his Russian audience who had little or no access to, or knowledge of, mustard.

Well, perhaps. But, here we should do well to remember the fallacy of appealing to what appears to be going on ‘in nature’ in order to make a claim about what ought to be going on in our own lives. My favourite, salutary example of this fallacy at work in our own liberal religious tradition can be found in some words written by the leading nineteenth-century British Unitarian theologian, James Martineau (1805-1900). In comparison with other Christian churches we were always a very, very small religious movement and this was true even when we were at our largest and most influential during the nineteenth century when Martineau was at the height of his intellectual and spiritual powers. In an essay about an earlier, eighteenth-century Unitarian and scientist, Joseph Priestley, Martineau wrote with an astonishing mixture of the humble and the hubristic that:

‘Unitarianism, we think, must avail itself of more flexibility of appeal, must wield in turn its critical, its philosophical, its social, its poetical, its devotional powers, before it gain its destined ascendancy over the mind of Christendom’ (Essays, Reviews and Addresses, Vol. 1, London, Longman Green and Co., 1890, p. 14 — emphasis mine).

Well, look around you my friends and note well that our ‘destined ascendancy over the mind of Christendom’ has not and, in my opinion, is unlikely to occur. Our mustard seed (if that is what we were, or are) has not become ‘the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree.’

However, despite this disappointment for us (or was it, perhaps, a piece of luck?), we can see that sometimes small things do become large; mustard seeds do become large plants and, whilst calling them tree-like is a stretch for even the most imaginative of us, they do grow to a height of three or four feet. Jesus must surely have had this in mind when he told his parable. But was that all he had in mind?

To answer this question let’s first do a little bit of what the contemporary Slovenian philosopher and all-round bête-noir, Slavoj Žižek, calls ‘short-circuiting.’ Žižek notes that:

‘ . . . one of the most effective critical procedures [is] to cross wires that do not usually touch: to take a major classic (text, author, notion) and read it in a short circuiting way, through the lens of a “minor” author, text or conceptual apparatus (“minor” should be understood here in Deluze’s sense: not of “lesser quality”, but marginalized, disavowed by the hegemonic ideology, or dealing with a “lower”, less dignified topic). If the “minor” reference is well chosen, such a procedure can lead to insights which completely shatter and undermine our common perceptions’ (‘The Monstrosity of Christ’, Slavoj Žižek and John Millbank, MIT, 2009, pp. vii-viii).

Žižek thinks that sometimes this process doesn’t simply bring to light something new in the text or tradition, but it can also serve to make us ‘aware of another — disturbing — side of something [we] knew all the time’ (ibid. p. viii).

A fine example of the art of short-circuiting in connection with the parable of the mustard seed is offered to us by the John Dominic Crossan whose translation of the parable you have already heard. The first ‘minor’ author Crossan uses as a lens through which to look at Jesus’ parable is the Roman author, naturalist, natural philosopher, naval and army commander of the early Roman Empire, Pliny the Elder (23–79 AD). Crossan reminds us that Pliny wrote:

‘Mustard ... with its pungent taste and fiery effect is extremely beneficial for the health. It grows entirely wild, though it is improved by being transplanted: but on the other hand when it has once been sown it is scarcely possible to get the place free of it, as the seed when it falls germinates at once’ (Natural History: 19.170-171).

The second ‘minor’ author, or rather authors, Crossan uses as a lens though which to look are those who redacted the early third-century AD Jewish text, the Mishnah which later on came to form part of the Talmud. In the Mishnah the authors tell us that, because of its tendency to run wild, the planting of mustard seed in a garden was forbidden in Jewish Palestine (Mishnah Kilayim 3:2). There is a very high degree of probability that Jesus would have been aware of this teaching and, given this, Crossan feels, along with the historian of first-century Palestine Douglas Oakman, that: ‘It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus deliberately likens the rule of God to a weed.’ Crossan, continuing to look through these lenses concludes that the point of Jesus’ parable:

‘. . . is not just that the mustard plant starts as a proverbially small seed and grows into a shrub of three or four feet, or even higher, it is that it tends to take over where it is not wanted, that it tends to get out of control, and that it tends to attract birds within cultivated areas where they are not particularly desired. And that, said Jesus, was what the Kingdom was like: not like the mighty cedar of Lebanon and not quite like a common weed, but like a pungent shrub with dangerous takeover qualities. Something you would want only in small and carefully controlled doses — if you could control it’ (John Dominic Crossan, ‘Jesus - A Revolutionary Biography’, Harper San Francisco 1994, pp. 64-66).

Well, well, well. As Žižek noted this surely makes us ‘aware of another — disturbing — side of something [we] knew all the time’. It’s something we can most easily see through the lens of an old gag I am, perhaps, overly fond of telling, namely, that although Jesus promised us the kingdom of God, what we actually got was the Church. It’s worth asking whether Jesus might have planted the wrong seed by mistake or, perhaps, whether he planted the right seed but poor growing conditions caused it to mutate over the years into a different species of pungent and fiery plant, namely, an institution with equally dangerous takeover qualities and which we, alas, let get wildly out of hand? This was an institution which, as it grew ever larger, began to bring with it terrible consequences as it provided branches in which too many people who desired imperial, kingly or purely personal power and oversight could settle and who were filled with an insatiable appetite for swooping down upon the land and the people to inflict upon them violence, corruption, crusades, inquisitions and so much more besides.

This is neither a pleasant historical memory nor present thought . . .

But here’s a much more hopeful, present thought. Perhaps we can say that the tiny mustard seed of the kingdom of God Jesus planted in the soil of this world was simply not able to germinate anywhere near as quickly as either he, or we, had hoped it would.

I do not know, of course, whether the short-circuited interpretation of Jesus’ parable that I am now going to offer you will turn out to be anywhere near the mark but in the possibility that it is (or at least gives us a better and more useful interpretation of an ancient parable), here goes . . .

It’s not an unreasonable to suggest that the inspiring example of Greta Thunberg may stand as a classic example of the mustard seed growing as it originally seems to have been understood by inhabitants of first-century Jewish Palestine. In August 2018 outside the Swedish Parliament she began, completely alone, a ‘School strike for climate’. An action in which, only one year later, she is now regularly being joined by several million students across the globe.

Again and again over the last years it has struck me that, perhaps, Greta Thunberg (Sweden), Ridhima Pandey and Aditya Mukarji (India), Wangari Maathai and Kaluki Paul Mutuku (Kenya), Nina Gualinga (Ecuadorian Amazon), Autumn Peltier (Anishinaabe people of Canada), Leah Namugerwa (Uganda) and the School Strike for Climate movement together make for a better candidate for being the fruit of the mustard seed than historic Christian Church ever was.

To conclude this address let’s walk through Crossan’s conclusion again with this thought in mind.

It is not just that our children start out as proverbially small and grow into creatures only a couple of feet higher than mustard plants, it is that they, too, tend take over where we stick-in-the-mud adults often don’t want them, they tend to get out of our control and their hearts and minds, like the branches of the mustard plant, tend to attract new and swift-winged, scientifically informed ideas within areas of our lives which we adults have cultivated with often problematic, destructive, out-dated and outmoded ideas and practices. Of course, we adults don’t desire this kind of thing to happen because it brings with it a serious challenge to our old ways of being-in-the-world, not least of all to our selfish and excessive consumption and waste, meat-eating, fossil fuel, car and aeroplane use which are clearly destroying the basic ecosystem upon which all life on this planet depends.

Now recall this famous teaching of Jesus’:

‘People were bringing even infants to [Jesus] that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it. But Jesus called for them and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.”’ (Luke 18:15-17)

And now reflect that our children’s activity in these School Strikes for Climate is precisely what Jesus said the kingdom of God would be like: not like the mighty cedar of Lebanon and not quite like a common weed, but like a pungent shrub with dangerous takeover qualities — dangerous, of course, only to our old ways of being which we know we must now urgently change.

Maybe, just maybe, the harvest of the mustard seed promised by Jesus is only now just beginning to become ready for an ingathering.

If this is the case then I simply say to you, just as Jesus once did:

‘The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest. Go on your way’ (Matthew 9:37-38).

I trust that we, the supposed adults in the room, will heed this call and set about helping our children — our beautiful, fiery and pungent mustard seeds — bring in in a well-ordered and gently controlled fashion the harvest of a better, healthier, kinder and more intelligent world — perhaps even one that looks something like the kingdom of God Jesus once promised us.

The cost of civilityβ€”A politico-theological meditation following the judgement hand-down at the Supreme Court this week

29 September 2019 at 14:56
READINGS Exodus 19:16-25, 20:1 (NRSV) The moments before God gives the Ten Commandments and other laws to the people El Greco: View of Mount Sinai  On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, as well as a thick cloud on the mountain, and a blast of a trumpet so loud that all the people who were in the camp trembled. Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God. They took their stand at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the Lord had descended upon it in fire; the smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln, while the whole mountain shook violently. As the blast of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses would speak and God would answer him in thunder. When the Lord descended...

A baker’s half-dozen photos of an early autumn walk to Grantchester through the meadows

23 September 2019 at 17:32
A baker’s half-dozen photos of an early autumn walk to Grantchester through the meadows
All photos taken with a Fuji X100F
Just click on an image to enlarge it







The Muslim/Unitarian encounter and some personal reflections following a visit to the Darul Uloom Birmingham Islamic High School

22 September 2019 at 14:52
Darul Uloom Islamic School INTRODUCTION On Monday last week I had a very interesting and positive visit to the Darul Uloom Islamic School in Birmingham. I was invited by the school’s new headmaster, Dr Dawud Bone, who is an old colleague and friend of mine (click on this link and go to page 11 of the magazine to see the two of us together in 2009), in order to give the school assembly and then to teach three classes for eleven, fourteen and sixteen year-old student on the subject of the long, interesting and creative relationships between the early English Unitarians and Islam. [Incidentally, Dawud’s grandfather, Walter Bone (1897-1944), had been a Unitarian minister at Gloucester (1937-1944) then at the Hibbert House in Alexandra, E...

Some photos of an early autumn walk along Fleam Dyke, Cambridgeshire to Mutlow Hill and back through Fulbourn Fen

21 September 2019 at 18:02
Some photos of an early autumn walk along Fleam Dyke, Cambridgeshire to Mutlow Hill and back through Fulbourn Fen

All photos taken with a Fuji X100F
Just click on an image to enlarge it  

The end of Fleam Dyke as it drops down to Fulbourn Fen

Fleam Dyke

Fleam Dyke

Fleam Dyke

Mutlow Hill to the left of the beech tree 

Mutlow Hill and the beech tree

Mutlow Hill to the left of the beech tree

Fleam Dyke beyond the gate

Mutlow Hill to the left of the beech tree

Fleam Dyke from underneath the beech tree

Mutlow Hill and the trees beyond

Mutlow Hill under the branches of the beech tree

Fleam Dyke

From Fleam Dyke

A magnificent oak tree on Fulbourn Fen

A magnificent oak tree on Fulbourn Fen

This morning on King's Parade, Cambridge at the Climate Strike

20 September 2019 at 13:06
This morning on #KingsParade #Cambridge at the #schoolstrike4climate #ClimateStrike #FridaysForFuture #ClimateAction #ClimateEmergency @xr_cambridge @xryouthcambs @Strike4Youth @MarchForScience

Just click on a photo to enlarge it




On the need to take even strokesβ€”A meditation on some words by Henry Bugbee

15 September 2019 at 14:04
The picture of Henry Bugbee which hangs in my study   Given last week’s address in which I briefly introduced to you Heidegger’s idea of the fourfold I thought I’d bring before you another idea that has for a long time now helped me deal with the challenges life continually throws us. As with last week’s offering I simply speak about it in case it can help some of you too. It’s taken from a book called ‘The Inward Morning’ by the little known, late-twentieth century philosopher, Henry Bugbee (1915-1999), whose thinking has been described as being a kind of mix between Heidegger, Zen Buddhism and Henry David Thoreau. This is a near perfect combination in my book! Something of what this mixture looked like in person can be g...

Dwelling in the simple oneness of the four

8 September 2019 at 14:31
Some of my own notes on Heidegger's 'fourfold'  INTRODUCTION This address was written after attending a meeting last Thursday between a few members of XR and various members and ministers of half a dozen local churches. The aim was to discuss and then organise a further, public, meeting where people can talk about how their Christian faith informs their environmental activism. I have to confess that this kind of meeting always fills me with dread because I think it would be dishonest of me to attend such meetings without admitting that I, personally, hold very few conventional Christian beliefs and admitting this doesn’t always go down well. I’m glad to say that this didn’t seem to be the case on this occasion. Anyway, as most of ...

The dangers of a Schmittian and/or Pilatian Decisionismβ€”Some politico-theological thoughts arising from current events in British politics

5 September 2019 at 11:15
In April of last year, on Palm Sunday, I took a look at what many biblical scholars think is the completely fictitious story found in all four gospels concerning Pilate’s binary question to the crowd about whether to release Christ or Barrabbas.

The least offensive version of the story is found in Mark’s gospel but, in Matthew’s telling of the story, the reader is deliberately led to believe that the Jews displayed their full guilt in the matter by shouting out, ‘Let the responsibility for his death fall on us and on our children!’ (Matthew 27:25). This verse was a key element in the creation of the most virulent forms of both Christian and secular antisemitism imaginable which, across the next two millennia, directly and indirectly, led to deaths of millions upon millions of Jews. It’s an evil that remains with us to this day and, as the biblical scholar Robert Funk noted, ‘There is no black deep enough to symbolize adequately the black mark this fiction has etched in Christian history’ (‘The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus’, Poleridge Press, San Francisco, 1998, p. 153)

I encourage you to remind yourself of that address at this link but, here, for reasons that will become clear, I would simply like to concentrate on the kind of ideology that all too often lies behind asking the kind of binary question the story contains. (Just to be clear, this current pieces re-uses unchanged a fair number of sections from my address in April.)

As I noted last April it’s been many years now since I was able to read the Christ or Barabbas story without simultaneously thinking of something deeply disturbing that the German jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) wrote in his ‘Political Theology’ of 1922. His thinking in that book about questions concerning sovereignty and the effective wielding of political power has been, and remains, highly influential. But his book reveals a deeply problematic way of thinking about the world because, not least of all, it’s bound up with his own reasons for his close association and juridical-political allegiance with Nazism. Indeed, he has been called by some the ‘crown jurist’ of the Third Reich.

Schmitt thought that when faced with the question of Christ or Barabbas?, ‘Liberalism, with its contradictions and compromises’ could only proceed by accepting ‘a proposal to adjourn or appoint a commission of investigation.’ Schmitt then noted sneeringly that:

‘The essence of liberalism is negotiation, a cautious half measure, in the hope that the definitive dispute, the decisive bloody battle, can be transformed into a parliamentary debate and permit the decision to be suspended forever in an everlasting discussion’ (‘Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty’, Chicago University Press, 2010, p. 63)

As is clear Schmitt did not like ‘liberalisms’ commitment to the value of ongoing dialogue at all and he sought to counter it by promoting what is called a philosophy of decisionism, a philosophy with some very nasty authoritarian overtones.

In a 1960 paper about Schmitt’s concept of the political Charles E. Frye said of Schmitt’s philosophy that ‘perhaps its most characteristic aspect is the pervasive sense of the loss of orientation.’ In short, Schmitt thought that when a culture began to experience this loss one effective way of getting it back was to explore the possibilities which might emerge if you could force people to consider only either/or questions such as ‘Christ or Barabbas?’ It’s important to be aware that the underlying binary question for Schmitt was always ‘friend or enemy?’. It’s vital to realise that Schmitt believed these terms were to be taken:

‘. . . not as metaphors or symbols, not mixed and watered down by economic, moral, and other ideas; nor are they to be taken psychologically as the expression of private feelings and tendencies. . . . Here we are not concerned with fictions and normatives, but with reality as it is and the actual possibility of this distinction.’

Frye then points out that for Schmitt the ‘enemy’

‘. . . is not just any competitor or adversary in general. “Enemy is ... in the last analysis a fighting, human totality; but it is at least this. Whether it is fighting or not depends upon the actual circumstances.” And then he indicated the source of his choice of these particular terms as the specifically political concepts: “The concepts friend, enemy, and battle have a real meaning; they obtain and retain this meaning especially through their reference to the real possibility of physical killing.” Schmitt’s concept of the political ultimately derived from the specific and actual possibility of death in battle, from the most limiting of all human situations — death’ (‘Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political, Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political, Charles E. Frye, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 28, No. 4, Nov., 1966, pp. 818-830).

Now, in the disturbing context in which we have found ourselves this week in the UK, my chief point today is that our own British culture (although some may say, with some justification, that it is in fact primarily English culture), has clearly lost it’s orientation and we have, shockingly, allowed into power an executive that contains people actively pursuing just such a ‘philosophy of decisionism.’

It’s a philosophy which deliberately seeks to present people with a series of ongoing, false binary questions, the answers to which actively seeks simplistically to divide the world up into various versions of the friend/enemy dichotomy. It’s a philosophy which believes we are not moving forward or doing anything meaningful or valuable unless we can be seen to be making clear binary decisions about X or Y and then acting upon them, come what may with no ‘ifs and buts’.

These binary questions are deployed by Schmittian decisionists in the belief (or, perhaps, hope) that this method will revive in ‘the people’ or ‘the nation’ a belief that by answering these kinds of binary questions they are, in some meaningful and exciting way, going to be heading purposefully towards a glorious future with a restored national political, religious and personal sense of identity and confidence.

But this is a very, very dangerous route to start walking down. To see this we need only recall that ancient, fateful question “Christ or Barabbas?” and note well that it was never going to be able to deliver the ‘Last Word’ on anything we might then, or now, have considered to be good and decent and of lasting worth and that, in fact, it was ultimately only able to deliver up to us all kinds of unfulfilled (and unfulfillable) expectations that led inexorably to ever greater mistrust, hatred and, at its worst, to an almost unimaginable level of cruelty, repression, violence and, ultimately, genocide.

Well, in the figures of Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Gove, Dominic Cummings (the special adviser to first Gove and now Johnson as PM) we, alas, seem to have allowed into our executive some very committed Schmittian decisionists. We should not forget here to add to this list the name of their extra-parliamentary alter ego, Nigel Farage.

Now, this is not just my own eccentric point of view. Nick Pearce, the Professor of Public Policy & Director at the University of Bath, former director at the Institute for Public Policy Research and Head of the No10 Policy Unit under Gordon Brown between 2008–2010, noted in a piece first published in 2014 recent that exactly this tendency was displayed by Gove and Cummings whilst they were both at the Department of Education.

Back in April last year I said that I hoped the ‘Christ or Barabbas?’ story might stand for our disorientated culture as a salutary, Holy Week warning not to make the same kind of fateful mistake in our own time and context and adopt a politics of decisionism; the last few weeks have, of course, revealed to me that this warning was not heeded although, thankfully, the executive is now facing some real, concerted, democratic and parliamentary resistance.  

Now, at this point in writing this piece I thought I would be able to conclude with something like the following paragraph:

‘Given the foregoing, it seems to me that as a community which continues to find it’s basic religious raison d’être in following and promoting a way of being in the world based on the example of the human Jesus, we must not forget that his central proclamation to love our neighbour as ourselves — a proclamation which, remember, includes even those we perceive (or are being encouraged to perceive) as enemies — has always, and will always, represent a direct challenge to leaders and/or rulers who are Schmittian decisionists. We, therefore, have a duty to challenge in all our actions such a way of attempting to govern us.’ 

Now I think something like this can confidently be said but only if you are both prepared and able to follow Jesus in an incredibly minimalistic and humanistic way by dissolving all (and I mean all) our old metaphysical theologies, theories and beliefs about God and the New Testament into a this-worldly call to justice and charity to one’s neighbour and that the doctrine of the kingdom taught by Jesus means, henceforth and forever, that God was, is and will be present ONLY in and as one’s neighbour which, remember, includes our enemies (“What comes after Christianity?” A God who gently but firmly pushes you away from himself in the direction of each other).

If you can do this then I think my paragraph (or something like it) can, perhaps, stand. But, and this is where things got for me significantly more thorny and problematic and reminded me of the well-known adage that ‘people living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.’ You will recall that this piece began with me noting that many biblical scholars think the ‘Christ or Barabbas?’ Story is a completely fictitious one.

To put it simply, the gospel writers — or, more accurately, the earliest sources upon which the gospel writers drew to create their texts — made it up. They did this, I suggest, because they too were lured by a kind of Schmittian decisionism, let’s call it a Pilatian decisionism.

The truth is that formal Christianity — from its earliest to its most recent times — in its attempt to build some pure kingdom or Christendom, has all often deliberately placed before people many false either/or binary questions. It has a terrible record of wanting to separate cleanly and clearly insider from outsider, the faithful from the heretics, the saved from the damned, the sheep from the goats, the chaff from the wheat and so on. Throughout the New Testament and on into nearly all the structures of formal Christianity I find again and again many, many of examples of Schmittian or Pilatian decisionism.

When I began writing this piece I thought I might be able to say in conclusion that the way our current executive has chosen to try and govern over the past couple of weeks is profoundly ‘un-Christian.’ But that’s an unsustainable claim. What we have seen attempted by the current executive is painfully close to the way formal Christianity has often chosen to govern its empires, states and churches. This fact — and continuing tendency — must never be forgotten.

But what I am prepared to say is that promoting this kind of Schmittian or Pilatian decisionism is a way of governing that really does deem to run completely counter to the minimalist understanding of what and how Jesus seemed to teach people to behave outlined above and, therefore, it is, at the very least, one more good reason to reject the divisive and destructive politics of Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Gove, Dominic Cummings, Nigel Farage, et. al..  

Question and answer are held together, and related to one another, by the event of the search

1 September 2019 at 14:10
READINGS: Matthew 15:1-10

From ‘The Gospel and Culture’ (1971) by Eric Voegelin (‘The Eric Voegelin Reader’, ed. Charles R. Embry and Glenn Hughes, University of Missouri Press, 2017, pp. 247-248)

This book . . . begins by asking what is the meaning of the fact that we exist. 
This does not mean that we begin by taking up a non-Christian attitude. 
It simply means that we, too, as Christians, are men with enquiring minds. 
We must always be ready and able to explain how our faith is the answer to 
the question of our existence” (De Nieuwe Katechismus, 1966). 

Th[is] passage [from the Dutch Catechism], though wanting in polish, is philosophically very much to the point. Its well-intentioned clumsiness sheds a flood of light on the difficulties in which the churches find themselves today. Note above all the difficulty the church has with its own believers who want to be Christians at the price of their humanity. Justin [the Martyr (d. ca. 165)] started as an inquiring mind and let his search, after it had tried the philosophical schools of the time, come to rest in the truth of the gospel. Today the situation is reversed. The believers are at rest in an inquiring state of faith; their intellectual metabolism must be stirred by the reminder that man is supposed to be a questioner, that a believer who is unable to explain how his faith is an answer to the enigma of existence may be a “good Christian” but is a questionable man. And we may supplement the reminder by gently recalling that neither Jesus nor his fellowmen to whom he spoke his word did yet know that they were Christians—the gospel held out its promise, not to Christians, but to the poor in spirit, that is, to minds inquiring, even though on a culturally less sophisticated level than Justin’s. Behind the passage there lurks the conflict, not between gospel and philosophy, but rather between the gospel and its uninquiring possession as doctrine. The authors of the Catechism do not take this conflict lightly; they anticipate resistance to their attempt at finding the common humanity of men in their being the questioners about the meaning of existence; and they protect themselves against all too ready misunderstandings by assuring the reader they do not mean “to take up a non-Christian attitude.” Assuming them to have weighed carefully every sentence they wrote, this defensive clause reveals an environment where it is not customary to ask questions, where the character of the gospel as an answer has been so badly obscured by its hardening into self-contained doctrine that the raising of the question to which it is meant as an answer can be suspect as “a non-Christian attitude.” If that, however, is the situation, the authors have good reason to be worried indeed. For the gospel as a doctrine which you can take and be saved, or leave and be condemned, is a dead letter; it will encounter indifference, if not contempt, among inquiring minds outside the church, as well as the restlessness of the believer inside who is un-Christian enough to be man the questioner.  

From Letters to a young poet by Rainer Maria Rilke (pp. 34-35)

. . . I want to beg you, as much as I can dear sir, to be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and to try to love the questions them­selves like locked rooms and like books that are written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Per­haps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer. Perhaps you do carry within yourself the possibility of shaping and forming as a particularly happy and pure way of living; train yourself to it—but take whatever comes with great trust, and if only it comes out of your own will, out of some need of your inmost being, take it upon yourself and hate nothing.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Question and answer are  held together, and related to one another, by the event of the search

Eric Voegelin (1901-1985)
For Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) ‘question and answer are held together, and related to one another, by the event of the search’ (‘The Gospel and Culture’ in ‘The Eric Voegelin Reader’, ed. Charles R. Embry and Glenn Hughes, University of Missouri Press, 2017, p. 249). The search for an answer to ‘the enigma of existence’ was central to his life as it is to the lives of most of us here. Naturally, any search requires us to ask questions and this is why, for Voegelin ‘man . . . is a questioner.’ However, despite this, Voegelin is clear that ‘man . . .

‘. . . can also deform his humanity by refusing to ask the questions, or by loading them with premises devised to make the search impossible. The gospel, to be heard, requires ears that can hear; philosophy is not the life of reason if the questioner’s reason is depraved (Romans 1:28). The answer will not help the man who has lost the question; and the predicament of the present age is characterised by the loss of the question rather than of the answer, as the authors of the Catechism have seen rightly’ (ibid p. 249).

Given this predicament one of Voegelin’s aims was to recover the lost question because without the question to which the gospel was perceived to be the answer we simply have no chance of knowing what the gospel might actually have been and, perhaps, still is, or can be, for us today.

As we proceed it is vitally important to fully to appreciate the point I made a moment ago that, in Voegelin’s mind, the question and the answer are not things that can be pulled apart as if one could exist independently of the other. For him neither an answer which put a final end to questioning, nor a questioning which couldn’t at least hold out the reasonable promise of delivering up some kind of practical answer to the enigma of existence’ could ever be seen as satisfactory or sufficient for us.

Now, every search requires the existence of some kind of ‘pull’. To keep to the language of the gospels, two everyday examples of this pull are the valuable lost coin you know you mislaid in the house or the single sheep lost from your flock (Luke 15:1-10). Their loss are events which insist we ask all kinds of questions and which, in turn, we hope will help us successfully to search out and find the coin, the sheep or whatever. In the case of coins and sheep there is, of course, always the possibility that the questions will lead to disappointment because they fail to help us find these very specific known and knowable things or, if the questions do help us find these things then, in general and all things being being equal, the pressing need for further questions about the matter quickly begin to fade.

But with ‘the enigma of existence’ this is not the case. There is by now many hundreds of thousands of years of evidence which strongly suggests that we’ll never find a final answer to this enigma and so there will always be the need for us to ask questions about it. But, and it’s a vital but, Voegelin thought that despite this we could still find appropriate ways of living with the endless questions about the enigma that, in a special, existential way, do come to constitute a certain kind of practical and satisfactory enough ‘answer.’ In other words the tension experienced in the event of the search becomes itself the very place where an answer to the enigma of life is gifted to us. The existential answer about which I’m talking is found in the movement — the tensional push and pull — that takes place in between the question and answer; it is there that ‘we live, move, and are’ (Acts 17:28).

For me, no one has put this thought more beautifully and succinctly than the poet Rainer Maria Rilke (1875–1926) in one of his famous letters (written 1902-1908, pub. 1929) to the young poet Franz Xaver Kappus (1883–1966). You will recall that Rilke encouraged Kappus to ’love the questions them­selves’ and to proceed, not so much by seeking final answers right here and right now (which we couldn’t yet understand anyway) but, instead, by learning how to ‘live the questions now.’ For Rilke the hope was that by doing this he might ‘gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.’

Now, one of the many great tragedies about Christianity as it developed into a formal Imperial, and then State, religion was that instead of always-already being prepared to enourage people to ask genuine questions about ‘the enigma of our existence’ and then enabling them freely to work towards some provisional answers which were, in turn, ever open to further questions and inquiry, it became, instead, a religion which insisted people rested wholly content in, ’an uninquiring state of faith’. I hope it is clear that this was to create a religion which believed it could eliminate the need for questions and, therefore, eliminate any need for ‘man the questioner.’ Indeed, all too often, as the writers of the ‘Dutch Catechism’ realised (for us, astonishingly and depressingly) it has become the case that to ask questions is believed by many Christians ‘to take up a non-Christian attitude.’

Speaking personally, this is one of the major reasons I simply had to leave behind any form of traditional Christianity. From individual conversations with you I know that this is the case for many of you too.

In short, traditional Christianity tried to make the pole of ‘the answer’ supreme and to separate it from the question and the movement of the search. It attempted to do this by making the answer — its ‘gospel’ — via various theological doctrines elucidating God’s attributes and actions etc., into something knowable, fixed and final. In turn, this meant that once a person came to know the doctrines and possessed their eternal truth then the need for them to ask any further questions ceases. That person believes they have found the answer to ‘the enigma of existence’ in this known thing called the ‘gospel’ just as they might find their lost coin or sheep. Job done, questions over, all tension resolved, all movement stopped.

In passing today, but importantly nonetheless, it’s worth being aware that what is true in such Christian circles is as true in other doctrinal, ideological settings such as those found in certain kinds of political circles.

Anyway, it is no surprise that, basing itself on the supremacy of ‘man . . . the questioner’ (especially in his or her role as scientist or philosopher), as our modern, Renaissance and Enlightenment, humanist inspired culture has developed it came ever more to reject such a ‘gospel’ because it was clearly so often being used to shut down the need for any further questions.

This was an intolerable situation and so there was much that was right and proper about this humanist move. But Voegelin recognised there was a real danger here because it tempted us into thinking that because the answer couldn’t be found in a dogmatic and fixed gospel the ‘Church’ it now had to be found wholly in a known and knowable humanity and, of course, in the natural world of which we are so integral a part.

Much more needs to be said about all this but, for now, let me just sum-up by saying that Christianity came to believe the answer to the enigma of existence was to be found only in a dogmatic gospel about a known and knowable God, whilst the secular, humanist world came to believe the answer to the enigma of existence was to be found only in a known and knowable humanity and natural world.

Voegelin’s great insight was to see how wrong-headed this is. This is because what it is for us to exist as the kinds of being we are is always-already to feel ourselves in what Plato called metaxy — the In-Between; it is always-already to be inextricably situated, pushed and pulled, in-between the poles of question and answer, in between what for us is a never fully known and knowable humanity and natural world on the one hand, and what we feel to be an unknown and unknowable transcendent (or divine) reality on the other.

The mistake we often commit is to make the human and divine poles the only really-real or truly-true things and to forget that the only thing that we can assuredly say is real or true for us is the movement, the push and pull, that is set up between those felt poles. Our whole existence always-already takes place completely inside the movement of the event of the search and the only answer to the enigma of existence which will ever satisfy us (and have half a chance of being as true as anything can be) is one that remains consciously in the metaxy — the In-Between.

As Voegelin writes:

‘The search itself is the evidence of existential unrest; in the act of questioning, man’s experience of his tension (tasis) toward the divine ground breaks forth in the word of inquiry as a prayer for the Word of the answer. Question and answer are intimately related toward the other; the search moves in metaxy, . . . in the In-Between of poverty and wealth, of human and divine, the question is knowing, but its knowledge is yet the trembling of a question that may reach the true answer or miss it. This luminous search in which the finding of the true answer depends on asking the true question, and asking the true question on the spiritual apprehension of the true answer, is the life of reason’ (pp. 248-249).

With these words I’m now able to bring this address to a tentative and provisional close because I think we’re now in a position see reasonably well the lost question Voegelin thought he had recovered to which the gospel was perceived to be the answer.

It is the life of reason understood as the learning how  to how to live, well and fruitfully, in the always ultimately unresolvable tension of the metaxy, in the searching movement of the In-Between; in-between the push and pull of questions and answers which must always be held together without one of them ever winning over the other. This is surely something akin Rilke’s advice to the young poet.

For Voegelin, the only religions and philosophies that are truly worth their salt are those which offer people practical ways to live well and fruitfully in the metaxy, the In-Between and not to seek fixed and final answers from either the gods or humanity/nature alone. The moment a religion or philosophy believes it has found the answer to the enigma of existence by absolutising either the divine on the one hand or the human/natural on the other they have become religions and philosophies which have lost sight of what it is to be human and threaten to introduce tyranny into our lives.

Voegelin felt that the ‘gospel’ — which centrally involves the idea of a life of seeking which involves giving up one’s life to gain it — did, in fact, offer just such a practical answer to this question.

But today what, in detail, Voegelin the atheist thought consisted in the gospel is something I might endeavour to explore some other time. All I wish to do today is place before you the question to which Voegelin thought the ‘gospel’ was one possible ‘answer’: How do we live well in the metaxy — the In-Between? In-between the question and answer; in-between the gods and humanity?

A meditation on a dark and evil heirloom following the proroguing of Parliament yesterday

29 August 2019 at 19:56
My uncle's signature on the flyleaf
The last three years of the whole Brexit affair, Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament yesterday and a heated family argument about it and its meaning have all caused me to reflect this evening upon something that has continued to hung very darkly over me since my very early teens.

My uncle Ed was in so many ways a wonderful man. By all accounts (I have heard or read) he was fine chiropodist who truly cared for his elderly patients. He was also a great supporter and promoter of amateur athletics. Additionally, he was passionate about the natural world and on occasional walks on the North Norfolk coast he taught me many wonderful things about the local flora, fauna and geology, things for which I will remain eternally grateful.

But during the late 1970s and 1980s, especially at Christmas, I began to see and understand that his presence at family events brought into our circle a dark and evil spirit. At some point during the festivities he would start to spout various bits of racist nonsense, the most ludicrous and offensive example of which was his theory (got from God knows what insane source) that ‘we’ white people were descended from dolphins whereas ‘those’ backward, black people were descended from apes. ‘Our’ descent from dolphins ‘proved’, or so he thought, that ‘we’ were the superior, master race. His views were shocking to me then and they remain deeply shocking to me today.

Anyway, by the time I was fourteen or fifteen (1979/1980), whenever he started down this track I felt uncontrollably compelled to challenge him, an action which, inevitably, descended into a very heated exchange. I was distressed enough by his words but what was equally distressing to me personally was that it was always me who was ticked-off, clipped round the ear and sometimes sent out of the room in disgrace for having ‘ruined the family Christmas’ whilst he was left unchallenged. Well, ‘fuck ruining the family Christmas’ was always my response because it was clear to me that here was a man set upon attempting to ruin everything that seemed to me be decent about the way I believed ‘we’ were now in a modern United Kingdom, a nation which, after all, had successfully fought fascism and brought an end to the dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini. Why was I not being supported in challenging my uncle and his blackshirt inspired ways? Why, why, o why was not having a family argument more important than challenging his racism and fascism? I just didn’t understand.

By my early twenties I had pretty much rationalised the situation by persuading myself that my wider family had, in fact, (more wisely than me) somehow recognised that my uncle represented a strand within British culture that was definitely dying out and would, very soon, be consigned to the history books. In short, I told myself my family’s actions were really a form of saying, ‘just let it go, for his is a view that will soon be gone for ever.’ And perhaps that was, and is, how they truly saw things.

Then, one day in the 1980s (I forget the exact date), he was gone. Shortly after he died — for what reasons I know not — I was given five things from his estate: his Book of Common Prayer, his King James Bible, a presentation walking-cane from the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, his captain’s chair and, to my horror, his copy of ‘Mein Kampf’ by Adolph Hitler, on the flyleaf of which he had written his own name (see photos in this post — click on them to enlarge).

I still remember the profound chill of seeing his name — it seemed to me proudly — placed so close to that of Hitler’s. Holding the book that day it was almost as if, from beyond the grave, he was still goading me. So what to do? Well, I chose to confront this darkest of ‘gifts’ head on and to read it. Consequently, I came to know, first hand, what a pernicious and evil book it is and that my uncle knew this too yet still chose to value and promote the message it contained.

I took the decision to keep the book always to remind me that I was, indeed, right to have challenged him every time he spouted his racist hate. Of course, it’s a volume that has always been tucked away out of sight on my bookshelves but, I told myself, there it could function as a reminder of something evil within British culture that was, thankfully, past, gone, dead.

Many years later, between 1997 and 2000 whilst I was training for the Unitarian ministry and studying theology at Harris Manchester College, Oxford, I had the pleasure and privilege of getting to know the historian Alan Bullock who was, himself, a Unitarian. Lord Bullock wrote a book which I first read when I was about sixteen or seventeen called ‘Hitler: A Study in Tyranny.’ It had an incredibly powerful influence upon me and was one of the major reasons I felt empowered both to continue to challenge my uncle and also to become more and more involved in avowedly anti-fascist politics.

One Sunday after service in the college chapel over a cup of coffee I asked Lord Bullock the question, ‘What, after all your years of academic study of Hitler and Nazism, is it the single thing you'd like to pass on to someone like me?’ He replied immediately by saying something along the lines of ‘Whenever you hear someone spreading fascism, even if it is in the queue in the Post Office, challenge it.’ In other words, he was saying to me, draw a line, don’t let it spread, never let it become quietly normalized. I was, unsurprisingly, profoundly grateful that, at least with regard to my uncle, I had challenged it in the family situation.

But, as I have already admitted, I thought that the dark and evil spirit that inhabited my uncle — that was my uncle — was dead to us, but the last three years have made me realise that it seems I was sadly, badly, and perhaps culpably, wrong; it was not dead but only dormant. It is clear to me that the events of the last three years have only served to give it the opportunity to begin to flicker and flit back into life within certain though, thankfully, still very limited sections of our culture.

Now, I want to be clear, absolutely clear, that most people who voted for Brexit and who continue to support it via the undemocratic means currently being employed by Johnson, Cummings et. al are NOT racists or fascists. Their reasons for voting the way they did and continuing to support Brexit in the way they are, are very, very complex and often rooted in many real economic, political and social injustices and inequalities. But the nasty and polarising way the whole situation is unfolding (and sometimes being encouraged to unfold) is, to my mind, serving to revivify the same dark and evil spirit that I saw burning in my uncle all those years ago. To be frank with you, seeing it makes me both very angry and very frightened.

It is very clear to me that Lord Bullock’s warning needs to be heeded by us as it has never been heeded before:

‘Whenever you hear someone spreading fascism, even if it is in the queue in the Post Office, challenge it.’

And not only that, under no circumstances must we allow our liberal democratic parliamentary structures to be so weakened that this dark and evil spirit could ever gain even the slightest foothold within them.

Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand . . .

A postscript to β€˜Of course there is no God. But we must believe in Him’

26 August 2019 at 10:24
Eric Voegelin (1901-1985)
In response to my last post, Of course there is no God. But we must believe in Him, an always insightful and helpful correspondant of mine, DK, asked a pertinent question: 

That was very interesting. Something really bugs me about it though. If Voegelin stands up for his civil theology in the face of the truth, what is the hope underlying that stance? I mean, it seems that in proposing a more moral alternative to the truth, even if its a fiction, he trusts, or at least hopes, that it can lead to something real.

Does that make sense?

In the (admittedly, unlikely) event that it will prove useful/interesting to anyone else, here’s my immediate response.

—o0o—

It does make sense.

It seems to me—which does not mean this is the case!—that, because Voegelin doesn’t believe (see n.7 in Poirier’s essay) we are able to transcend our subject consciousness in our quest to know the real and the true we cannot, therefore, make contact ‘in some sense with what is real, i.e., with what is as it exists independently of their subject consciousness’ (see n.7 in Poirier’s essay).

In short, Voegelin doesn’t believe that we can talk about anything ‘underlying’ anything. He is clear that for him there is no independently existing real Ground. As Poirier says,

‘It (the Ground) existed only as an expression of the existential consciousness of that experiencing subject. It had existence only as a subjectivity for Voegelin, a shared one perhaps—shared with all other human beings—but still only a subjectivity.’

The following passage from Poirier’s essay seems vitally important here:

‘So important was this that he himself chose knowingly to live by a standard that he knew to be no standard at all, that is, he chose to live his life by placing all of the emphasis and focus on his experience of a Ground that, for him, did not exist independently of his experiencing consciousness.’

Voegelin’s hope is not, therefore, of a metaphysical kind but of an existential, wagering kind. And his wager is simply that whenever we live by the truth that ‘there is no God’ the repercussions for us ‘were just too horrendous . . . for any of us who are decent, to contemplate.’ As Poirier notes, ‘he had the Twentieth Century to prove it’ and that, therefore,

‘Man must acknowledge God, not because there is a God, but because our consciousness, and the concomitant experiential life that arises therefrom, is structured that way, and also because if we were not to acknowledge this Subjectivity, this Ground, and instead live by the truth, we would become savages of the worst sort, of which there are a large number of examples in modern times.’

Consequently, it seems to me that his hope (or lack of) is all on the surface in our existential situation and not in any kind of underlying metaphysics. One way of putting this might be to paraphrase the example concerning friendship and love I sent to you a while ago from Michel Onfray’s book ‘A Hedonist Manifesto’ and say that, for Voegelin there is no such thing as ‘truth’, but only existential proofs of ‘truth’: no ‘underlying hope’, but only existential proofs of ‘underlying hope’.

When you say that Voegelin has hopes that it ‘can lead to something real’ I think you’re onto what is going on. Voegelin is simply wagering that in the practical business of going on together we do this best—most civilly—by living frankly by an untruth. To borrow from Wallace Stevens in order to put this more palatably, we might say we go on together best of all when we have available some kind of shared, ‘supreme fiction.’

All of this reminds me of a passage from Nietzsche’s ‘The Gay Science’:

‘We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live — by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody could now endure life. But that does not prove them. Life is no argument. The conditions of life might include error’ (§.121, trans Walter Kaufmann).

The conditions of life—human life anyway—do seem to me (and I think to Voegelin), inevitably and irrevocably, to contain error and untruth and we simply have to learn to live with this massive limitation—and learn to live with it in civil ways. This recognition (the ‘terrain on which I cannot comfortably travel’) is why I have recently been concerned to re-examine and explore some of the implications of John Keat’s ’negative capability’. Keats, remember, did not use the word ‘negative’ in a pejorative sense but, instead, to help us see that our potential as human beings is far from being completely defined by what we possess (eg ‘truth’) because we are clearly defined as much by what we do not—and perhaps never can—possess. Keats saw that, despite our strong determination to work everything out we continue to need to develop and nurture a very specific kind of active passivity that is a willingness to allow whatever is mysterious or doubtful to us to remain just that. Of course, one can and should at times and in the appropriate contexts probe these things—some of which will, in time, yield to our probing—but the likelihood is that there will always remain things which continue stubbornly to resist rational understanding and with which we will always need to live, humbly and patiently.

But, to repeat, this is all to engage in an existential wager in a ‘supreme fiction’ and it is not to act based on firm belief (hope) that what we do is, somehow, underlain by any actually existing (metaphysical) Ground.

β€œOf course there is no God. But we must believe in Him”

25 August 2019 at 13:53
Voegelin’s essay open in the Manse’s shady back-yard
Today, my last Sunday off before I rejoin the fray after my summer leave, I decided to reread a 1971 lecture called “The Gospel and Culture” by Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) as well as a 2009 paper by Maben Walter Poirier called “Eric Voegelin’s Immanentism: A Man At Odds With The Transcendent?”.

As a sceptic with a naturally religious mind I continue to find both the lecture and the essay interesting because, as Poirier notes:

In a memoir entitled The Professor and the Profession, recently published by the University of Missouri Press, Professor Heilman reported that Voegelin, on one memorable occasion, said to him: “Of course there is no God. But we must believe in Him” (p.8).

Despite this statement a majority of Voegelin’s supporters still seem to hold that he was a Christian. As Poirier says it is interesting also to note that

His atheist opponents also think this to have been the case, despite the fact that Voegelin is much more in accord with them than they realise. The fact is that he differs from his “atheist opponents” only to the extent that he wishes to draw on his immanentised understanding of Christianity—read solely as a civil theology—to mitigate what he sees as the disastrous effects of the civil theology that is modern millenarianism. In short, he is more prudential than they, but he is not less an atheist (n. 8, p. 6)

A year after first reading it I find myself responding positively to Poirier’s point that “the motive behind Voegelin's advocacy of an immanentised Christianity [was to have] ‘his’ Christianity act as the basis on which to erect a new civil theology, a civil theology that would be less millenarian than were the civil theologies that issued out of the Enlightenment” (n. 12, p. 7). This motive seems not unconnected to the concerns I expressed in the piece I posted earlier this morning called Being an Umpire and not a Player

Here are a three more relevant paragraphs from Poirier’s essay which, to quote Poirer from elsewhere, leads Voegelin, Poirier, and me too, “onto a terrain on which I cannot comfortably travel”:

Parenthetically, one of the implications of Voegelin’s prudential approach to this most important of issues is that it forces us to conclude that Voegelin was primarily not a philosopher, if, by “philosopher,” we mean someone who devotes himself to speaking candidly about as much of the truth as is available to him regarding the human condition, and damn the consequences. Voegelin never damned the consequences. 

Voegelin was a social and political thinker who deeply wanted his fellow human beings to experience civility in their relations with one another (a far from unworthy goal in these modern and violent times) more than he wanted them to know the truth, and unfortunately this civility, in Voegelins estimation, could only be purchased by their knowingly pretending to credit what he, and they, conceived to be an untruth. This is the cost of civility, for Voegelin, and we have no choice but to pay the price if we mean to be decent and moral. Simply put, the origin of civility is in the lie that we knowingly tell ourselves about this most important matter, namely, “there is no God, but we must believe in him” even if there is no God, for the alternative is too terrible to live through. 

And so, in a subtle way, Voegelin was a specifically modern variant of Aristotles “continent man” (spoudaios) more than he was a philosopher. He was someone who believed that under current conditions, which may be the norm at all times, it is not appropriate to dwell solely on speaking the truth. In fact, it may be reckless for us to do so, which is something that one ought never to be. It would almost seem as if Voegelins sense of morality demanded that the horrendous consequences of speaking the truth be brought to the attention of those who may be inclined to be irresponsible and improvident enough to want to speak it, and this alone should suffice to induce them to be prudent where speaking the truth is concerned. Evidently, Voegelin saw a conflict between being moral and being truthful, which is something that no classicist or scholastic would acknowledge (p. 10).

This is clearly terrain upon which it is not comfortable to travel but, given the current state of affairs I find all around me (both locally, nationally and globally), I have no choice but to continue to traverse it.

Time for an afternoon gin and tonic I think . . .

Being an β€˜umpire’ and not a β€˜player’

25 August 2019 at 09:15
A CAVEAT

I publish the following piece with an important caveat which borrows some words of Herbert Fingarette (1921-2018) found in his ‘The Self in Transformation’ (Basic Books, New York 1963, p.1). I want to make it clear that this piece is an outcome rather than a realised objective and, as such, it simply forms an intellectual footprint and not a blueprint. If it helps you personally to find your place on the intellectual map and the existential position in which you point, all well and good. If not, so be it, I wish you well in your own place and in following your own direction of travel.

BEING AN ‘UMPIRE’ AND NOT A ‘PLAYER’

This occasional piece finds its genesis in a chance encounter with a fellow, free-thinking, minister of religion who, on hearing Susanna and I were caring for Susanna’s terminally ill daughter, offered us in a gentle but, in terms of his personal belief anyway, a ‘hot’ message of hope involving belief in the survival of personality beyond the grave and the existence of, what seemed to me, to be an almost Kantian kind of ‘kingdom’ or ‘realm’ of ends in which an all-good God (or principle) eventually brings all people to some kind of salvation and so, along the way, gifts our transient life (and, therefore, death) with some kind of ultimate and eternal ‘meaning.’

Neither Susanna nor I share my colleague’s beliefs but we did not take his proffered gospel of hope unkindly for this person has always seemed to us to be a genuinely good and kindly soul. Nevertheless, something about the encounter unsettled me but I couldn’t immediately quite put my finger on what it was. It was only a few days later when I began to read through the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott’s 1962 book ‘Rationalism in politics and other essays’ that I began to see with a small measure of clarity what it was that had disturbed me.

To be able properly to reveal to you what this was I’ll begin by noting that the encounter high-lit a profound tension between my colleague’s and my own understanding of in what consists the primary role of a minister of religion.

The traditional role of every minister of religion (of whatever persuasion) remains to teach and preach to a particular, voluntarily gathered community (and, oftentimes, also to the wider world) some kind of positive religious/philosophical doctrine for which they are personally prepared to go out to bat. In short, an important defining characteristic of this kind of minister is to be a ‘player.’ In offering Susanna and me his particular, Kantian-flavoured gospel my colleague was simply and uncontroversially engaging in a traditional kind of religious ministry.

But, for all kinds of reasons, many of which I have related in this blog, I have found myself less and less able to do likewise. It’s not that I’m not prepared to continue to make some personal, albeit very minimal religious/philosophical wagers about how the world is and my place in it—of course I do. But, in my twenty-year long public role as a minister (which has always run alongside a continuing series of private philosophical and theological studies and reflections) I have become ever more acutely aware that when it comes to my own religious and philosophical wagers—and political wagers for that matter—I’ve often been certain, but wrong, and that, in the future, even when I am once again very, very certain, on too many occasions the conditions will be such that it will be unlikely I’d ever be able to realize how wrong I am.

Consequently, in my public role as a minister, all I am able (and prepared) to do these days is tentatively to bring my own very minimal and provisionally held wagers about how the world is and my place in it into an ongoing and radically open-ended conversation in which ‘the participants’, as Oakeshott says,

‘. . . are not engaged in an inquiry or debate; there is no “truth” to be discovered, no proposition to be proved, no conclusion sought. They are not concerned to inform, to persuade, or to refute one another, and therefore the cogency of their utterances does not depend upon their all speaking in the same idiom; they may differ without disagreeing. Of course, a conversation may have passages of argument and a speaker is not forbidden to be demonstrative; but reasoning is neither sovereign nor alone, and the conversation itself does not compose an argument. . . . In conversation, “facts” appear only to be resolved once more into the possibilities from which they were made; “certainties” are shown to be combustible, not by being brought in contact with other “certainties” or with doubt, but by being kindled by the presence of ideas of another order; approximations are revealed between notions normally remote from one another. Thoughts of different species take wing and play round one another, responding to each other’s movements and provoking one another to fresh exertions. Nobody asks where they have come from or on what authority they are present; nobody cares what will become of them when they have played their part. There is no symposiarch or arbiter; not even a doorkeeper to examine credentials. Every entrant is taken at its face-value and everything is permitted which can get itself accepted into the flow of speculation. And voices which speak in conversation do not compose a hierarchy. Conversation is not an enterprise designed to yield an extrinsic profit, a contest where a winner gets a prize, nor is it an activity of exegesis; it is an unrehearsed intellectual adventure. It is with conversation as with gambling, its significance lies neither in winning nor in losing, but in wagering. Properly speaking, it is impossible in the absence of a diversity of voices: in it different universes of discourse meet, acknowledge each other and enjoy an oblique relationship which neither requires nor forecasts their being assimilated to one another (‘Rationalism in Politics’, Liberty Fund, Carmel, 1991, pp. 489-490).

The defining characteristic of a person engaging in the the kind of ministry which seeks to promote such a conversation is NOT to be a ‘player’ like my colleague—taking the field to bat passionately for his/her own religious/philosophical wagers—but to be an ‘umpire’ carefully attending to the arrangements, rules and by-laws which both enable and govern this conversation.

I began to see that Oakeshott’s understanding of in what consisted the best way to govern the (British) nation state was, quite unexpectedly, analogous to the way I have (always very imperfectly) tried to be a minister by putting just such a conversation at the heart of things and, in the next four paragraphs, you will hear Oakeshott (‘Rationalism in Politics’, Liberty Fund, Carmel, 1991, pp. 433-434) gently paraphrased, and sometimes directly quoted, again and again.

On taking up my first ministerial position in 2000 I quickly learnt that one of my key public-facing roles—especially in the increasingly fraught post-9/11 context—was not to inflame religious passion and give it new objects to feed upon but, instead, to inject into the activities of already too passionate men and women an ingredient of moderation; to restrain, to deflate, to pacify and to reconcile; not to stoke the fires of desire, but to damp them down. I saw how important it was to make it clear that, although I did not believe myself to be an agent of a supernatural God or some other benign providence, a custodian of a moral law, or an emblem of a divine order, I was still able to alert people (both inside and outside any local congregation) to the existence of something shared which they could easily recognize as valuable; something that, to some extent, they were already experiencing in the ordinary course of their own religious and, for that matter, political, lives.

I also came to recognise that I needed to find ways to ensure that in any local, liberal religious congregation the aforementioned restraint upon passionate religious belief was imposed upon its members, not by my own inappropriate suggestion or cajolery, or by any other means than by, if not legally binding laws (as is the case in the nation state), them at least by the congregation’s own shared and collectively agreed upon local by-laws and patterns of (broadly speaking) liberal/free-Christian and Enlightenment inspired behaviour (rather than belief). I saw that into the heat of our engagements, into the passionate clash of our personal beliefs, into our individual or shared enthusiasm for saving the souls of our neighbours or of all humankind, week by week, it was important constantly to bring into play the scepticism which most people neither have the time nor the inclination to do for themselves. In more poetic terms, I have come to see that my job as a minister is, therefore, primarily to provide people with something like the cool touch of the mountain that one feels in the plain even on the hottest summer day. Or, to leave that metaphor behind, to be like the ‘governor’ which, by controlling the speed at which its parts move, keeps an engine from racketing itself to pieces.

Lastly, I also realized my role included finding ways to strengthen already existing, but occasionally forgotten—and, alas, sometimes deliberately obscured—congregational structures which ensure that no single person is ever given (or is allowed to take) too much power or opportunity for advancing their own favourite religious or political projects. For me, as a minister, what has come to count above all else is, not my own religious/philosophical wagers, but the meaningful continuity of the four-and-a-half century old, free-thinking religious tradition to which I belong and which includes, remember, a genuine defence of the freedom to become tomorrow what we are not today.

In short, I have come more and more to see the value of a creating a free-religious congregation whose (lowercase ‘c’) conservatism imposes upon us all an orderliness without unduly directing the enterprise of any individual member’s own free-thinking and seeking and which, at the same time, concentrates all our duties to our tradition’s rules/by-laws in such a fashion that in our conversations together there is still plenty of room left for genuine delight and discovery. The hope was, and remains, that everyone who becomes a member of such a community is prepared to accept such a liberal/free-Christian and Enlightenment derived ecclesiastical order (polity), not because they believe it to represent some unassailable religious truth, but merely because it helps restrain any indecent competition from breaking out between our different substantive religious wagers and which, as Hume said, also moderated ‘the plague of a too diligent clergy.’

Now, in order to bring this piece to a satisfactory enough—though very provisional—close, I need to return to the distinction I pointed to at the beginning and note that Oakeshott also said:

‘An “umpire” who at the same time is one of the players is no umpire; “rules” about which we are not disposed to be conservative are not rules but incitements to disorder; the conjunction of dreaming and ruling generates tyranny’ (‘Rationalism in Politics’, Liberty Fund, Carmel, 1991, pp. 433-434)

I now realise that my chance meeting with my colleague so unsettled me because it unexpectedly brought back into mind my strong intuition that when and wherever a person in a formal representative or leadership position (such as a minister of religion) is a player in whom dreaming and ruling are conjoined there will always exists the very real danger of generating tyranny, and this is so even when the person concerned is kind and gentle in so many ways, as is my colleague.

If my intuition is correct (although in the conversational spirit outlined here I recognize I might be mistaken), I hope you can see why, as a minister, I cannot be a ‘player’ but only an ‘umpire’: i.e., a person whose primary concern is not for my own religious/philosophical dreams and wagers but, instead, for the well-being and maintenance of the arrangements, rules and by-laws governing the kind of conversation outlined above in which ‘thoughts of different species take wing and play round one another, responding to each other’s movements and provoking one another to fresh exertions.’


POSTSCRIPT

I add here the Object and Constitution of the General Assembly of the Unitarian and Free Christian Churches (on whose roll I am a minister) because it seems very germane to my reflections above.


Preamble

We, the constituent congregations, affiliated societies and individual members, uniting in a spirit of mutual sympathy, co-operation, tolerance and respect; and recognising the worth and dignity of all people and their freedom to believe as their consciences dictate; and believing that truth is best served where the mind and conscience are free, acknowledge that the Object of the Assembly is:

Object

To promote a free and inquiring religion through the worship of God and the celebration of life; the service of humanity and respect for all creation; and the upholding of the liberal Christian tradition.

To this end, the Assembly may:

Encourage and unite in fellowship bodies which uphold the religious liberty of their members, unconstrained by the imposition of creeds;
Affirm the liberal religious heritage and learn from the spiritual, cultural and intellectual insights of all humanity;
Act where necessary as the successor to the British and Foreign Unitarian Association and National Conference of Unitarian, Liberal Christian, Free Christian, Presbyterian and other Non-Subscribing or Kindred Congregations, being faithful to the spirit of their work and principles (see appendix to the constitution below), providing always that this shall in no way limit the complete doctrinal freedom of the constituent churches and members of the Assembly; Do all other such lawful things as are incidental to the attainment of the above Object.

(Adopted at the General Assembly Annual Meetings, April 2001)

Appendix

In reference to Clause 2 of the foregoing, the following is a statement of the Objects of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, as set forth in Clause 2 of its Constitution [as worded at the time of adoption of this Constitution]:

“The diffusion and support of the principles of Unitarian Christianity, including the formation and assistance of Congregations which do not require for themselves or their Ministers subscription to any doctrinal articles of belief; the publication and circulation of biblical, theological, scientific and literary knowledge related to Unitarian Christianity; the doing of all such other lawful things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects or any of them”

The following is a statement of the Objects of the National Conference of Unitarian, Liberal Christian, Free Christian, Presbyterian and other Non-Subscribing or Kindred Congregations, as set forth in Clause1 of the Constitution:

“To consult, and when considered advisable to take action, on matters affecting the well-being and interests of the Congregations and Societies on the Roll of the Conference, as by directing attention, suggesting plans, organising expressions of opinion, raising funds to carry out the foregoing objects.”

The time to β€œLove the hell out of the world” is right now, because time is not on our side

28 July 2019 at 14:38
READINGS: 1 John 3:18-22 (David Bentley Hart) Little children, let our love be not in talk or on the tongue, but in action and truth. By this we shall know that we belong to the truth, and assure our heart before him: That, if our heart should offer condemnation, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved ones, if our heart offer no condemnation, we have confidence toward God, because we receive from him whatever we might ask, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight. An brief introduction to George de Benneville (1703-1793) George de Benneville (1703-1793), born in London in 1703 to aristocratic Huguenot French parents in the court of Queen Anne, was a Christian Universalist phy...

A set of black and white photos of the Cambridge Unitarian Church (1927) on Emmanuel Road

23 July 2019 at 18:00
It was a very hot day here in Cambridge reaching 32 degrees celsius. Apparently, on Thursday, it may reach 35 degrees celsius. Hmm . . . it's a reminder of why both I, personally, and the congregation collectively is supporting the Extinction Rebellion movement by making the building available to them for free.

Anyway, today, the coolest place in my neck of the woods was that same church which is immediately next door to the manse where Susanna and I live. So, during the hottest part of the afternoon, I decided to take my camera and, in the spirit of my photographic hero Edwin Smith, to try and capture something of the modest beauty of the church I am privileged to serve as minister. I post nearly all the photos I took (in the order in which they were taken) so that somewhere online there is available a reasonably good overview of the place. If you'd like to know more about the building then please click on the link below which will take you to a pdf of the book written in 1914 by the building's architect, Ronald P. Jones, called Nonconformist Church Architecture. The building which he there imagines and describeds in Chapter 5, p. 43ff was finally built in Cambridge in 1927.


All photos taken with a Fuji X100F
Just click on a photo to enlarge it

















































Not toleration but a civic philosophy of reciprocity?

21 July 2019 at 14:14
READINGS

From “A History of Unitarianism; Socinianism and its Antecedents”, Vol. 2 by Earl Morse Wilbur (Boston, Beacon Press, 1945/47, p. 5)

It is intended here, therefore, to present not so much the history of a particular sect or form of Christian doctrine, as to consider broadly the development of a movement fundamentally characterized instead by its steadfast and increasing devotion to these three leading principles: first, complete mental freedom in religion rather than bondage to creeds or confessions; second, the unrestricted use of reason in religion, rather than reliance upon external authority or past tradition; third, generous tolerance of differing religious views and usages rather than insistence upon uniformity in doctrine, worship or polity.

From “A Letter Concerning Toleration” by John Locke (first edition, London, Awnsham Churchill, 1689, p. 5)

The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light. I will not here tax the pride and ambition of some, the passion and uncharitable zeal of others. These are faults from which human affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed; but yet such as nobody will bear the plain imputation of, without covering them with some specious colour; and so pretend to commendation, whilst they are carried away by their own irregular passions. But, however, that some may not colour their spirit of persecution and unchristian cruelty with a pretence of care of the public weal and observation of the laws; and that others, under pretence of religion, may not seek impunity for their libertinism and licentiousness; in a word, that none may impose either upon himself or others, by the pretences of loyalty and obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity in the worship of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men's souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth.

From “What is wrong with tolerance: The ideal of religious tolerance has crippling flaws. It’s time to embrace a civic philosophy of reciprocity” by Simon Rabinovitch

The purpose of religious tolerance has always been, and remains, to maintain the power and purity of the dominant religion in a given state. Most dominant religions in most states today profess tolerance, but they also seem to feel especially threatened. Religious nationalist movements in the United States, Europe, India, Turkey and Israel all want to strengthen the relationship between state identity and the dominant religion. In each case, democratic elections have reinforced the significance of the majority’s religion to the meaning of state and nation, elevating the power of that religion. We can see a rising chauvinism in the mix of Catholicism and politics in eastern Europe today that portrays liberals and communists (often a code for ‘Jews’) as enemies. We can see a similar dynamic in the Turkish celebration of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. And we can also see it in the reemerging influence of Evangelicals in the US, as defenders of ‘religious liberty’ in their associations and businesses, and against ‘Sharia’ – as they imagine it – in the public sphere.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Not toleration but a civic philosophy of reciprocity?

In 1945 Earl Morse Wilbur offered up what he thought were the three defining principles of our, by then four centuries old, free-thinking, liberal religious tradition which are still often cited by us as being characteristic of our particular way of doing religion. As you heard in our readings they are freedom, reason and tolerance.

But, as with all such things, things change and time takes its toll and in the context of our own age and situation they are beginning to look very worn. Indeed, it seems to me that although, as an ideal, the first of them, “complete mental freedom in religion” remains reasonably serviceable (although I strongly resist the idea that any of us is actually capable of complete mental freedom because we are all so deeply and unconsciously shaped by many inherited misapprehensions and prejudices), the second and third principles, reason and tolerance, are in very much poorer states of repair and right now they are in need of some serious and significant reassessment.

Some of you will know that in recent months I’ve spent a fair bit of time reassessing the idea of “unrestricted use of reason in religion” so, today, I won’t explore this characteristic in any detail and will confine myself simply to noting the headline point I’ve been making.

Whilst the use of reason in religion remains absolutely vital it is a fundamental mistake to forget that reason has significant limitations. This is why I have returned on a number of recent occasions to Keats famous idea of “negative capability”. Keats, remember, did not use the word “negative” in a pejorative sense but, instead, to help us see that our potential as human beings is far from being completely defined by what we possess because we are clearly defined as much by what we do not — and perhaps never can — possess. Keats saw that, despite our strong determination to work everything out we continue to need to develop and nurture a very specific kind of active passivity that is a willingness to allow whatever is mysterious or doubtful to us to remain just that. Of course, one can and should at times and in the appropriate contexts probe these things — some of which will, in time, yield to our probing — but the likelihood is that there will always remain things which continue stubbornly to resist rational understanding and with which we will always need to live, humbly and patiently.

Today, however, what primarily concerns me is the third principle pointed to by Wilbur, namely, the “generous tolerance of differing religious views and usages rather than insistence upon uniformity in doctrine, worship or polity.”

To see the problem here it is important to remember that for us the origins of religious toleration lie in the religious conflicts which came out of the sixteenth-century Reformation and continued until the mid-seventeenth century during which the stamping out of heresy became to many people a positive indicator of true religious devotion. Eventually, as much thanks to sheer exhaustion as any deep display wisdom, it became clear to everyone that this state of affairs simply could not continue. However, and this is key, it was always and only the majority religion that was ever going to have the power and wherewithal legally to impose upon the minority religions the then new and life-saving idea of religious toleration.

I do not want to belittle or underplay the role the idea legally defined religious toleration played in the creation of our modern British society, not least of all because, considered retrospectively, to us it seems to have been a necessary condition for the ending of large-scale religious violence in our neck of the woods. The enactment of legislation legally to force upon a whole nation religious toleration has undoubtedly saved millions of lives including many within of our own minority Socinian and Unitarian communities and it allowed us to worship in freedom and without fear of our lives. This should not be forgotten. But this undoubted benefit came with a high cost in the form of the strengthening of the majority state religion firstly via the Corporation Act of 1661, and then the Test Acts of 1673 and 1678. Together they insisted that only those who were taking communion in the established Church of England were deemed to be eligible to serve in any public office. In a nutshell toleration excluded us from having any role in the day to day running of our own, wider, civic communities.

I hope this helps you see that from its very beginnings our idea of religious toleration was conceived primarily as a one-way relationship between the tolerating and the tolerated, a relationship which explicitly attempted to keep tolerated minority groups outside of full membership of the dominant, majority group.

It is also very important to note — although in passing today — that this model of religious toleration was then exported to many places around the globe thanks to the expansion of the British Empire into north America, India, Australia and huge parts of Africa and the Middle East between the early seventeenth and late nineteenth centuries.

But notice I said a moment ago that an attempt was made promote religious toleration by using this legal and, quite literally, divisive model. I say “attempted” because we now know that on the ground the legal division created between the majority and the excluded minorities, though very real, was never as watertight as many people (sometimes on both sides of the divide) hoped it would be. Instead, it was always a leaky affair and this allowed, albeit very slowly, a process of creative religious, social, political and cultural exchange to occur between the majority group and the minority groups which, over time, radically changed everyone in some fashion or another. As time unfolded the exchanges became ever more widespread and increasingly dynamic and this, in turn, meant that the division became ever more leaky, so much so that when the Test Acts were finally repealed in 1828 and 1829 very little public comment or protest was made. This was because, by then, the division — or at least massive sections of it — had simply dissolved away to almost nothing.  

Now, in what might at first seem to be an outrageous non-sequitur, many of you know that I am very interested in ghosts, not because I believe in them but because when they are explored as cultural constructs they help reveal to us what is haunting and, therefore, unhealthily and, even apparently spookily, still shaping any given culture or time.

I mention this because it seems to me that although the legal division set up by the Corporation Act, the two Test Acts and the Toleration Act of 1688/1689 has dissolved or died, its ghost, still bearing the name and ghostly memories of seventeenth-century “Toleration”, continues unhealthily to haunt us.

By this I mean, often without realising it, we are still tending to frame our contemporary relationships with other religious minorities primarily, not in terms of reciprocal interchange, but in terms of one-way relationships between the tolerating and the tolerated which, by default remember, attempts in some fashion to keep tolerated groups outside full membership of the dominant, majority group.

As a minority, liberal religious tradition the major difference for us between the seventeenth-century and now is that, today, we consider ourselves to belong to (or are at least completely integrated within) the majority group. This means that we, along with many others in the majority, can now all too often and too easily, fall prey to seeing ourselves as the insiders who are in need of protecting ourselves from dangerous outsiders. In today’s increasingly unpleasant and febrile national populist context, these dangerous religious outsiders are, for the most part, not the kind of minority Christian groups such as was our own, but minority groups from other religions with Jews and Muslims being singled out as particularly problematic.

This developing situation, frankly, scares me witless not least of all because we know where this kind of thing can lead and, alas, does seem to be leading once again.

As a minority religious group ourselves which still has in certain congregations and individuals a long institutional memory it seems to me that it is incumbent upon us to speak out as best we can and say that the seventeenth-century conception of toleration didn’t work — at least not as its devisors thought it would — because the central pillar upon which it rested — namely a putatively clear division in the civic world between the majority insiders and the minority outsiders — never could work. This is because there is nothing in reality — whether conceived in scientific of cultural terms — that is not, ultimately, porous and leaky. It is because of this leakiness that despite attempts to stop it occurring there is only and always occurring religious, social, political and cultural exchange in the civic sphere. One can never hold this tide back — as wise old King Cnut knew. Given this isn’t it about time we as a community laid to rest the ghost of seventeenth-century toleration and began to encourage amongst us the development of a new conception of toleration that is, from the outset, an explicitly porous and leaky concept?

As Simon Rabinovitch, an assistant professor of history at Boston University who has written on this subject notes, it needs a new name because the ideal of religious tolerance has been shown to have crippling flaws. For him this is an indication that we are entering a “time to embrace a civic philosophy of reciprocity”.

The need for this kind of exchange is particularly pressing at the moment because we find ourselves in a rapidly developing situation where “one set of ideals (for diversity, pluralism and exchange) is being challenged by another (for intolerance or, at best, a return to a highly contingent tolerance)” and this, in turn means that “a space has opened for a new civic philosophy” — that of reciprocity.

Rabinovitch feels that for this concept to develop further we need to begin “to teach it, study it and write about it” and this address is simply my own first, tentative and exceedingly modest contribution to the project. But, most of all, he thinks we should all be talking about it in a way that helps shift us “away from a binary vocabulary that counters intolerance with calls for tolerance, and toward a discussion of shared histories and mutual obligations.”

Rabinovitch begins to draw his own essay to a close by pointing out that in *The Constitution of the French Second Republic* which was “enacted during the wave of democratic revolutions known as the *Springtime of the Peoples*, which swept through Europe in 1848” we find “one simple article that grants no right or power to either the state or the people. Article VI states only: ‘Reciprocal duties bind the citizens to the Republic and the Republic to the citizens.’”

Rabinovitch then concludes by stateing his feeling that

Reciprocity makes this claim but goes further: the more we acknowledge what reciprocally binds each group to the society, and the society to each group, the better off we will all be.

I can’t help but feel he is right. It is, surely, time to lay the ghost of seventeenth-century religious toleration to rest and begin, instead, to conceive and bring to birth new and creative way of being together in our differences, namely, a civic philosophy of reciprocity.

De-denominationβ€”a few thoughts following the publication of the new British Attitudes Survey

14 July 2019 at 14:06
READINGS  The “Overview” taken from the chapter on religion in the new British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey Rise of the ‘nones’ Most of the shift in the religious profile of the nation has been towards non-affiliation, with 52% of the public now saying they do not regard themselves as belonging to any religion. Of these, most were simply not brought up with a religion, with a smaller minority having lost a childhood faith. Those who do not regard themselves as belonging to a religion are increasingly secular, that is, likely to say they are “very” or “extremely” unreligious. The number of people with no religion, who were not brought up in one, has increased from 11% in 1998 to 23% in 2018. Consolidation of attendance T...

Even the gods speak of God: The Primacy of Appreciationβ€”a meditation on a poem by David Whyte and some words by Edward F. Mooney

7 July 2019 at 13:30
An view of the moon that stopped me in my tracks READINGS: SELF PORTRAIT by David Whyte from Fire in the Earth  ©1992 Many Rivers Press It doesn’t interest me if there is one God or many gods. I want to know if you belong or feel abandoned. If you know despair or can see it in others. I want to know if you are prepared to live in the world with its harsh need to change you. If you can look back with firm eyes saying this is where I stand. I want to know if you know how to melt into that fierce heat of living falling toward the center of your longing. I want to know if you are willing to live, day by day, with the consequence of love and the bitter unwanted passion of your sure defeat. I have heard, in that fierce embrace, even the go...

My brief speech about the need for "Re-story-ation" given at today's wonderful Extinction Rebellion (XR) Streets for Life action in Cambridge

6 July 2019 at 17:20
It's been a pleasure and honour to have been able to welcome so many of you to the many XR events that have been held in the Cambridge Unitarian Church over the past few months. Thank you, too, for inviting me to say a few words here today.

I have no doubt that all of us gathered here today are people completely committed to playing a real part in the necessary restoration of our planet and its associated ecosystems. Even without the mountain of scientific evidence which clearly shows that our current growth-obsessed, industrialised and financialised cultures are destroying the world at an unprecedented rate it is now possible for everyone to see that humanity simply has to start living in very different ways from those we are currently pursuing. As events such as these, and the inspiring school climate strike movement, are showing, there is now ever more widely in play a new ethical demand to protest against and to begin actively to disrupt our old ways of living.

However, as we do this we must never forget that as a movement we are not only concerned to protest against something and to disrupt it but also — through the creation of intelligent, scientifically informed, plural, inclusive and democratic Citizen’s Assemblies — we hope to articulate and then to bring into law, radically new public policies designed to protect the world from any further rapacious exploitation and wilful destruction and, secondly, to introduce policies which will help all of us play a part in the slow, careful, loving process of restoration.

In connection with this necessary process of restoration today I want simply to add a single, brief thought to our collective conversation which I learnt from the environmental film maker Steve Dunsky.

He realised that any true and lasting restoration of the world needed to be intimately accompanied by the need to “re-story” our world and he memorably insisted that “[b]efore we make new policies, we need new metaphors.”

Dunsky could see that our metaphors, in the form of the stories we tell each other, continually shape us; indeed, it is no exaggeration to say WE ARE the stories we tell each other and ourselves.

What is now clear to us all is that the old, growth-obsessed, industrial and financial stories that have prevailed in our world for too long must now urgently be abandoned. As loving, thoughtful gardeners of the earth we need lovingly to dig into the rich and fertile soil of global human literature, music, art and philosophy and religion to encourage the appearance, growth blossoming and fruiting of new stories, new metaphors suitable for our own times.

Our present political, financial and industrial leaders refuse to do engage in this work of re-story-ation and endlessly say to us TINA — There Is No Alternative — to their way of doing things.

But, if we take seriously the need to re-story ourselves, we will find not the TINA beloved by our current political and industrial leaders but the far more wonderful TATIANA — That, Astonishingly, There Is AN Alternative.

Today, we are gathering as a people who know, deep in our bones that, astonishingly, there is an alternative.

But these alternative ways of being in the world — prefigured for a summer afternoon here in Cambridge — will not take root, blossom and fruit unless we all take time to re-story ourselves. For it is only out of our own individual and collective re-story-ations that there can come the right kind of new policies which are truly able to protect and nurture this our most beautiful, but often bruised and hurting world.

So let’s raise a glass and a cheer to TATIANA — that, astonishingly, there is an alternative and we, through our new stories, will be ourselves TATIANA embodied.

—o0o—

I took a few photos at the junction of Emmanuel Street and St Andrew's Street where I spent the day with a lovely bunch of people. I post a few of them below for your pleasure — just click on them to enlarge. We talked and sang and thoroughly enjoyed the blessed lack of traffic . . .





We were even joined by a bride on her wedding day!






In nature and β€œAgainst Nature”—including some photographs from the Cambridge University Botanic Gardens

1 July 2019 at 17:26
This morning I read through Lorraine Daston’s masterful and “pithy work of philosophical anthropology that explores why humans find moral orders in natural orders.”  Speaking personally, I’d highly recommend getting hold of a copy and, to help you make up your mind, I paste below the publisher’s summary of the book.

Her insightful and helpful questions and thoughts helped shape my own philosophical reflections all afternoon, not least of all whilst I walked around the peaceful and beautiful Cambridge University Botanic Garden with my camera in hand.

As always, I hope you enjoy the photographs (just click on them to enlarge) all of which were taken with a Fuji Film X100F and are just as they came out of the camera (with only some occasional, minor cropping).

Against Nature by Lorraine Daston

Summary

Why have human beings, in many different cultures and epochs, looked to nature as a source of norms for human behavior? From ancient India and ancient Greece, medieval France and Enlightenment America, up to the latest controversies over gay marriage and cloning, natural orders have been enlisted to illustrate and buttress moral orders. Revolutionaries and reactionaries alike have appealed to nature to shore up their causes. No amount of philosophical argument or political critique deters the persistent and pervasive temptation to conflate the “is” of natural orders with the “ought” of moral orders.

In this short, pithy work of philosophical anthropology, Lorraine Daston asks why we continually seek moral orders in natural orders, despite so much good counsel to the contrary. She outlines three specific forms of natural order in the Western philosophical tradition—specific natures, local natures, and universal natural laws—and describes how each of these three natural orders has been used to define and oppose a distinctive form of the unnatural. She argues that each of these forms of the unnatural triggers equally distinctive emotions: horror, terror, and wonder.

Daston proposes that human reason practiced in human bodies should command the attention of philosophers, who have traditionally yearned for a transcendent reason, valid for all species, all epochs, even all planets.





Hop Hornbeam

Hop Hornbeam

Hop Hornbeam

Hop Hornbeam









A walk to Fen Ditton in the company of texts and poems by Jacob Bauthumley, Thomas Hardy and Derek Starkswood

29 June 2019 at 15:19
At the beginning of the week I wandered over to St Mary the Virgin church in Fen Ditton (the photo to the right is of one of the splendid eighteenth-century gravestones in the churchyard  — click on it to enlarge ) to eat an apple, drink a flask of tea and re-real a little of my favourite text from the English Revolution, the (still to me astonishing) The Light and Dark Sides of God (1650) by Jacob Bauthumley. Here's a taste of it taken from the text’s opening section: O God, what shall I say thou art, when thou canst not be named? What shall I speak of thee, when in speaking of thee, I speak nothing but contradiction? For if I say I see thee, it is nothing but thy seeing of thy self; for there is nothing in me capable of seeing...

Working Together in Conversational Motionβ€”or why we are more like a wing than a conventional church community

23 June 2019 at 13:50
A Boeing 777 READINGS:  WORKING TOGETHER David Whyte from The House of Belonging ©1996 Many Rivers Press We shape our self to fit this world and by the world are shaped again. The visible and the invisible working together in common cause, to produce the miraculous. I am thinking of the way the intangible air passed at speed round a shaped wing easily holds our weight. So may we, in this life trust to those elements we have yet to see or imagine, and look for the true shape of our own self, by forming it well to the great intangibles about us. Written for the presentation of The Collier Trophy to The Boeing Company marking the introduction of the new 777 passenger jet. EVERYTHING IS WAITING FOR YOU David Whyte from Everything is Waitin...

Being, in a round about way, a meditation on a verse by Abu al-β€˜Ala’ al-Maβ€˜arri: ”When a blind man goes by, pity him and know for sure that ye are all blind, even if ye have sight”

16 June 2019 at 14:14
Sculptor Fathi Muhammad with his bust of Al-Ma'aari READINGS: Traditions come from the past, of high import if they be True; Ay, but weak is the chain of those who warrant their truth. Consult thy reason and let perdition take others all: Of all the conference Reason best will counsel and guide. — Al-Ma'arri (trans. Nicholson, poem 209) Ye have gotten a long, long shrift, O kings and tyrants, And still ye work injustice hour by hour. What ails you that ye tread no path of glory? A man may take the field, tho’ he love the bower. But some hope an Imám with prophetic voice Will rise amid the silent ranks gaze. An idle thought! There’s no Imám but reason, To point the morning and the evening ways. — Al-Ma'arri (trans. Nicholson, po...

Not the beginning of a new religion (re-ligio) but its end (de-ligio)?β€”A new-materialist reading of Pentecost

9 June 2019 at 14:24
READINGS: Poem No. XXII in “A Shropshire Lad” by A. E. Housman      From far, from eve and morning         And yon twelve-winded sky,      The stuff of life to knit me         Blew hither: here am I.      Now—for a breath I tarry         Nor yet disperse apart—      Take my hand quick and tell me,         What have you in your heart.      Speak now, and I will a nswer;         How shall I help you, say;      Ere to the wind’s twelve quarters         I take my endless way. NB: The creating wind in Housman’s poem is not “the Spirit of God” that “moved upon the face of the waters” as recounted in Genesis but, instead, a Lucretian breeze of folding, flowing and fielding matter wh...

Not β€œascension” but a mingling in the weather-world?β€”An Ascension Sunday Address

2 June 2019 at 13:47
The weather-world, Cambridge, Ascension Sunday morning . . . READINGS The Ascension of Jesus (Acts 1:6-10) So when they had come together, they asked him, ‘Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?’ He replied, ‘It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’ When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up towards heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, ‘Men of Galilee, ...

What can we learn from tying a rope around the world?

26 May 2019 at 15:27
Dunes at Wells-next-the-Sea, Norfolk READINGS: What you have here in the readings is a juxtaposition of pictures concerning our idea of foundations and the foundation of our ideas. Today, for this address to have its greatest impact I'd like you to be aware, not so much of the different pictures themselves but rather upon the act of juxtaposition itself . So, on the one hand, Jesus said: Matthew 7:24-27 Jesus said: “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be li...

There is no elephant in the room and that is β€œthe elephant in the room”—offering people a β€œsundae service” they can genuinely swallow

19 May 2019 at 14:37
READING: The Blind Men & the Elephant—A Hindoo Fable by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) IT was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: “God bless me!—but the Elephant Is very like a wall!” The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried: “Ho!—what have we here So very round and smooth and sharp? To me ‘t is mighty clear This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!” The Third approached the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: “I see,” quoth...

Emanuele Coccia on BBC Radio 3's "Free Thinking" programme

13 May 2019 at 08:27
Over the last two weeks I've given two addresses at the #Cambridge #Unitarian #Church @CamUnitarian (HERE https://bit.ly/2LDBGoP and HERE https://bit.ly/2LFH8aF) drawing on wonderful insights found in Emanuele Coccia's "The Life of Plants: A Metaphysics of Mixture." If you're interested in hearing from the man himself you can listen to him speak about the book on BBC Radio 3's "Free Thinking" programme. His piece starts at 14'30". Enjoy!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001nj1

Before we make new policies, we need new metaphorsβ€”What would it be to live a life that is more like the life of plants?

12 May 2019 at 14:50
Reading Coccia's book at the Green Man, Grantchester READINGS: From “Thus Spake Zarathustra” by Friedrich Nietzsche (Prologue, section 3) translated by Robert J. Hollingdale: Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy, but God died, and thereupon these blasphemers died too. To blaspheme the Earth now is the most dreadful offence, and to esteem the bowels of the inscrutable more highly than the meaning of the Earth.   From “The Life of Plants: A Metaphysics of Mixture” by Emanuele Coccia (Polity Press, 2019, pp. 91-92) We continue to conceive of ourselves through the prism of a falsely radical model, we continue to think the living being and its culture from a false image of roots (because they are isolated from the re...

The origin of our world is in leavesβ€”A spring meditation on a painting by Claude Monet, a poem by Boris A. Novak, and a book by Emanuele Coccia

5 May 2019 at 14:03
READINGS: Eyesight by A. R. Ammons It was May before my attention came to spring and my word I said to the southern slopes I've missed it, it came and went before I got right to see: don't worry, said the mountain, try the later northern slopes or if you can climb, climb into spring: but said the mountain it's not that way with all things, some that go are gone   Springtime by Boris A. Novak  In the Art Institute of Chicago  a Claude Monet hangs,  Torrent, Creuse,  a winter landscape with an oak tree.  To capture the frozen trembling  of the oaken forms  the painter hung so long on the canvas  that the oak tree began to turn green,  for spring had come in the land.  Desperate at the thought of losing the image  of an oak tree...

"The Lord's Prayer as a suitable location for a 'static paddle'"β€” A response to Andrew Brown's Address on 28th April 2019, by Talitha Annan, the Allmazed.

3 May 2019 at 11:59
Whitewater kayaking on the Upper Tryweryn (picture credit at this link) I have the pleasure of publishing here a piece written by a member of the Cambridge Unitarian Church, Talitha Annan, in response to two newish addresses and a story contained an old one that I have offered up in the church on a Sunday morning: When is a table not a table? When, perhaps, it's an altar?—Some Christian a/theist thoughts inspired by Heidegger and Bonhoeffer (February 2019) In the name of Annah the Allmaziful— Some irregular reflections on the Lord’s Prayer (April 2019) A lesson from Wall Street - or Liberal Religion and the Static Paddle (September 2008) It is one of the privileges of being the minister here that I'm able to play a modest part in s...

In the name of Annah the Allmazifulβ€” Some irregular reflections on the Lord’s Prayer

28 April 2019 at 16:00
Illustration by Stephen Crowe  
READINGS: Matthew 6:7-15

Thy Kingdom Come by Jacob Trapp (lightly adapted)

O Thou, whose kingdom is within,
may all thy names be hallowed.
May no one of them be turned against the others
to divide those who address thee.

May thy presence be made known to us
in mercy, beauty, love and justice.
May thy kingdom come to be
in the life of all humankind.
May it come with peace, with sharing,
and in a near time.

Give us this day our daily bread,
free from all envy and alienation,
broken and blessed in the sharing.

Keep us from trespass against others,
and from the feeling that others
are trespassing against us.
Forgive us more than we have forgiven.
Deliver us from being tempted by lesser things
to be heedless of the one great thing:
the gift of thyself in us.

Amen.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
In the name of Annah the Allmaziful— Some irregular reflections on  the Lord’s Prayer

As happens now and then (generally every couple of years) over the past few months I've had at least half-a-dozen short, but significant, conversations with some of you about the Lord's Prayer and whether we should continue to use it unchanged, to use a — or a variety of — different versions of it or, of course, whether we should simply and quietly let it go in favour of another prayer to be said corporately.

However, because of all the hidden factors involved in the context of this particular local church the question is, perhaps, way more difficult and less straightforward to address than you might at first think. But, since it's being talked about by a fair few of you quite regularly now it seems appropriate to bring a personal story as well as a couple of other thoughts about the prayer to the table to add to the conversation.

Some ten years ago in connection with my work as a Police Chaplain I had cause to visit a Romanian woman in hospital who, whilst visiting a relative here in the UK was rushed into hospital with what turned out to be a terminal cancer. It had become clear that she was too ill to travel back to Romania and that she only had a few weeks further to live. There was, at the time, no Romanian Orthodox presence in the city and so the woman's daughter had asked me whether, as a chaplain, I would visit her mother to pray with her whilst she briefly returned to Romania for a few days to sort out some important legal and family business. The woman didn't speak any English or French (the only other language I can vaguely manage) and I don’t speak Romanian so, naturally, I could do little more than simply be there, smile and hold her hand. However, there was one prayer we could meaningfully say together, the Lord's Prayer, because its cadences in both languages were sufficiently similar for us to be aware we were, indeed, speaking the same words. This fact I know brought her a great deal of comfort and security and, I have to say, it brought me some real measure of comfort and security too.

I've often had cause to think about this incident over the years and have slowly realised that whilst we were, indeed, saying the same prayer together it cannot be said in any easy or straightforward way that we were really praying the same prayer together. I know this because, from her daughter, I had gathered that the mother held a pretty conventional Romanian Orthodox Christian faith rooted firmly in a literal belief in the contents of the Nicene Creed. I, on the other hand, whilst remaining loyal to the human Jesus and his insistence that, henceforth and forever, whatever one meant by the word God, God was present only in and as one’s neighbour, no longer held — and indeed still no longer hold — any formal Christian metaphysical beliefs at all. When I say the Lord's Prayer I know I don’t really mean what it says on the surface and I'm always-already engaging in instantaneous and fundamental re-interpretation of pretty much every word it contains. I can still say it, I do happily still say it, but I know I don't mean by it what most people might think I mean by it, and I certainly didn't mean what the Romanian woman meant by it. But it has to be admitted that this is an activity which — whilst important and even necessary — can sound in the telling somewhat cold and abstract. Here’s the contemporary Unitarian theologian Jerome A. Stone speaking about the matter:

“I have developed what I call a minimal definition of God for purposes of conversation and common worship, a translation device for communication between various religious voices. “God is the sum total of the ecosystem, community and person empowering and demanding interactions in the  universe.” Another way I have of speaking of God, when I have to, is to say, that God is the world perceived in its value-enhancing and value-attracting aspects” (“Is God Emeritus? The Idea of God Among Religious Naturalists”).

As I’ve just said this (for me, necessary activity) activity can sound a bit cold and abstract (can you imagine me saying any of the above in the actual pastoral situation!). However, it is what I, and perhaps some of you, always have to do when I say the Lord’s Prayer but since this is the truth it's something I think should be acknowledged.

However, it’s not the whole truth because the experience with the dying Romanian woman helped me see (or rather feel) something much warmer, more personal and wholistic, namely, that the primary comfort both the mother and I assuredly gained from, and felt by, saying the prayer together was in its unifying sound. By making the same — or at least similar enough — sound together we were able to connect with each other across cultures, beliefs, generations and geographies in a way that said to us that we were not alone. The sound alone said to each of us that somehow “we are of one body” and we were able to recognise each other as members of that one body. It’s a powerful thing to experience I can assure you. However, recognising this helped me to experience something else that was quite startling, at least to someone like me who has always been concerned with what seem to be the substantive theological meanings of the words I utter.

When I was a teenager I became very enamoured with James Joyce’s astonishing and puzzling book “Finnigans Wake” (as well as John Cage's imaginative use of it in his piece Roaratorio)— a book that I and most other people find impenetrable until they begin to say it out loud, something I took to doing every afternoon after school in the summer term of 1983.

Anyway, some years after my pastoral encounter with that dying Romanian woman I idly pulled “Finnigan’s Wake” off the shelf to read again a few pages. I randomly turned to page 104 and the chapter which begins thus (and beautifully):

“In the name of Annah the Allmaziful, the Everliving, the Bringer of Plurabilities, haloed be her eve, her singtime sung, her rill be run, unhemmed as it is uneven!”

[The lovely lettering of the opening lines of these words found at the head of this blog is one of Stephen Crowe's illustrations for Finnegans Wake which can be found at his website HERE]

I suddenly realised that I could have said Joyce’s words with the Romanian woman and, she at least (having no English), would have felt the same connection she had felt when I said with her the actual words of the Lord’s Prayer. I should add that I think I, too, would still have been able to feel the same kind of connection because I love the allusive, poetic theological religious-naturalist meaning that seems to me to be present in Joyce’s words. As you now know following my hero, the Roman poet Lucretius, I have a fondness for personifying the divine as mothering Venus and she, to me anyway, is “Allmaziful, the Everliving, the Bringer of Plurabilities” and her eves (and mornings for that matter) are to me haloed, her singtimes are sing, her rills are run, unhemmed as they are uneven!

But, since we all here speak English, the words we actually choose to use are always more than just their comforting rhythms. Given this, let’s now say, for argument's sake, that the actual theological content of Joyce’s words are what I really mean when I am saying the Lord’s Prayer.

It is easy to imagine that, although you might agree with me that the rhythm is nice but, for you, God is not best represented by the name “Annah” but “Alba” and that for you “Alba” is not everliving, nor a bringer of plurabilites but, instead, is best thought of as mortal and a bringing of singularity. And anyway, you think, only someone in a wholly deluded state could possibly believe that one could say her eves are haloed, her singtimes are sing, her rills are run, unhemmed as they are uneven! No, no, no! say you.

Here we are getting into what one might call the substantive theological content or meaning of the words in the prayer. Despite this you might still be tempted to think that what we need is a very clear exposition of this theological content or meaning of the prayer that we in a church like this can all agree on. But, twenty years of full-time ministry in the Unitarian & Free Christian context has shown me how deluded that hope is. However, I once vaguely held such a hope and at one time, when I was a convinced Spinozist, I thought that the following version might do the trick. It was written Timothy Sprigge who was a member of the Edinburgh Unitarian congregation, Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at the university in the same fine city and, I’m pleased to say, someone who, for a brief period before he died, became a friend and taught me philosophy:

O mysterious but glorious universe of matter and of spirit, of which each of us is but a tiny fragment
May the goodness, which we trust is somehow at the heart of things, increasingly prevail over evil on our little earth.
May we learn to organize our life on earth so that the necessities and worth-while pleasures of human existence are more equally shared, and be ready to make what sacrifices this requires from us.
And may we be tolerant of others and love them, when we can, as we hope to be tolerated and sometimes loved ourselves.
So let us seek our own happiness in ways which help rather than hinder others in seeking theirs, and be the happier ourselves for this,
but let us not repine too much at our own inadequacies but make the best of ourselves as we are, neither envying nor despising others.
And let the human species flourish without excessive exploitation of other species, and in a world in which we can still be refreshed by communion with the non-human.
And let us not fret too much about time realising that everything is eternally there in its own particular place in the eternal consciousness of the universe.

Now here, unlike with Joyce’s poetically allusive “version”, we have here some pretty clear theological meaning (much of which still resonates with me) but it hardly trips of the tongue in a warm and poetically simple and attractive fashion and, because its substantive theological content is so explicit, it doesn’t give a person much wiggle-room for poetic reinterpretation. Unless you are yourself a Spinozist you’re unlikely to be happy saying the prayer week after week!

My basic points can now be summed up.

The Lord’s Prayer is, in terms of its sound a great and genuine connector across, as I said earlier, cultures, beliefs, generations and geographies. It helps us know we belong to a very long-standing religious tradition and belong to it together. Once it's gone a link is broken that cannot be remade. Another important but subtle point is that, as regular attenders of this church know, here in this church I always give people explicit permission not to say the Lord’s Prayer and experience has taught me that this freedom not to say this familiar prayer is another way of connecting people. This is because we can easily forget that the permission not to say it, and to be comfortable about being seen as not saying it can be as important to some people as the permission to say it is important to others.

But, on the other hand, in terms of the apparent substantive theological content of the words of the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer is, as we know, something that doesn’t always or easily sit quite right with many of us today. Its content is often felt to be too unbelievable in a too explicit way. This has to be honestly admitted as well.

So what to do? Introduce a prayer with a similar sound but with only vague, and allusive (if beautiful sounding) meanings — such as Joyce's "prayer" — or introduce a prayer that’s clear but with no (or little) theological wiggle-room in it at all — such as Sprigge's prayer? Neither option seems to me to be quite right or subtle enough for us here.

One option would be to leave the prayer be but to explicitly and openly surround it with regular, ongoing conversation about why we love it, dislike it, say it, don’t say it and to let these all things jumble in together. For example each week we could let someone read a recasting of it and then give people the opportunity to say the Lord’s Prayer as we inherit it, just as we did today using one of my own favourite retakes on the prayer by Jacob Trapp.

But, above all else, the thing I think we need to be acutely aware of as we continue to muse upon the prayer's use and meaning among us is that just as humankind cannot live by bread alone neither can it live by familiar connecting poetic sounds or explicit theological content alone. We need both if we are to have a truly meaningful sense of how and where we belong in the unfolding of human history and to help us determine the current direction and meaning of our ongoing liberal religious journey.

It's a very sophisticated and subtle religious project to be undertaking I know, but it think it's worth the effort of keeping the beneficial and provocative tension alive in our midst. At the very least it will stop us from ever thinking that we've finally got the right form of words to say for all time!

Our true β€œNotre Dame”. Some cathedral-thinking for Easter Sundayβ€”Christ as the gardener

21 April 2019 at 13:38
Christ Appears to Mary Magdalene as a Gardener (unknown artist c. 1500)
READING: John 20:1-18

I think it is quite well-known by now that the English word “Easter” seems likely to have been derived from the Old English “Easterdæg”, from “Eastre” (Northumbrian “Eostre”) and from the Proto-Germanic “austron-, meaning “dawn” which was also the name of a goddess of fertility and spring, perhaps originally of sunrise, whose feast was celebrated at the spring equinox, from “aust-” meaning “east, toward the sunrise” from the Proto-Indo-European root “aus-” meaning “to shine”, especially of the dawn.

    In other words, the genealogy of the name Easter can stand as a reminder that the prototype of our Christian, Easter celebrations is to be found in the renewal and restoration of life each day at dawn and each year at the spring equinox. It helps us see that it is natura naturans, nature doing what nature does, which underpins ALL human religious traditions and not the other way round. Natura naturans is fundamental, primordial, whilst Christianity is not; everything in Christianity — and indeed everything in all religions — depends upon natura naturans. If you hold on to this thought you will, I hope, see why I have chosen to write this Easter Sunday address in the way I have and why I have chosen to read the particular resurrection story I have today.

—o0o— 

ADDRESS
Our true “Notre Dame”. Some cathedral-thinking for Easter Sunday—Christ as the gardener

The Sylvan Nave at Wandlebury taken in December 2018
For me, one of the great pleasures of life is to cycle up the Gog Magog Hills to Wandlebury Country Park, then to walk along the Roman Road to Meg’s Mount and, on the way back, to visit the Iron Age Hill Fort (c. 400 BC) by going via the magnificent sylvan nave made up of some four-hundred beech trees. Whenever I walk down it, it seems almost certain that some ancient, magnificent avenue of trees like this must have been the original inspiration for the naves of our churches, especially the naves of our great cathedrals.

    However, given my own highly conflicted relationship with organised Christianity, Wandlebury’s sylvan nave is a place in which some words once uttered by the architect Frank Lloyd Wright in an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957 often come back into mind. Wallace began by asking Wright what was his attitude to organised Christianity? Wright replied:

Why organize it? Christianity doesn’t need organizing according to the Master of it, the great master poet of all times didn’t want it organized, did he? Didn’t Jesus say . . . that wherever a few are gathered in my name, there is my Church?

    Wallace then asked Wright whether he went “to any specific church?” — and bear in mind Wright designed some of the most famous modern American places of worship including a couple of Unitarian ones — Wright replied:

Yes, I go occasionally to this one, and then sometimes to that one, but my church I put a capital N on Nature and go there.

Venus in the Manse Garden bathed in spring sunshine
    I’m with Wright all the way on both these matters and this is why I sometimes try to encourage us to think of this community as a garden community and to come along on a Sunday with the same attitude and feelings we have when we are visiting a garden or park or, indeed, a wood. It’s also why, as you heard a few weeks ago, if and when I feel the need to personify God I now only do so as Mother Nature and, following the example of the Roman poet Lucretius, by naming her as Venus. For both Lucretius and for me, religious naturalists, materialists and atheists alike, our lady, Notre Dame Venus, is a suitable poetic supreme fiction because under that form she can help us better picture the somewhat abstract idea of natura naturans as the mother [māter] of all creation who is herself made of the same matter [māteriēs] that she creates. As the contemporary philosopher Thomas Nail puts it, “The mother of matter is the matter of the mother” and so her creation, this glorious natural world, is, therefore, “the process of matter’s own process of materialization. Maternalization is materialization” (Lucretius 1: An ontology of motion, Edinburgh University Press, 2018, p 24).

    The use of images drawn from the natural world is, of course, not wholly alien to Christianity and one might point to the kinds of things gathered together under the modern title of “Celtic Christianity”. But, today, I want to point to some lesser known words uttered by Uchimura Kanzō who founded a non-conformist Christian movement in Japan during the first years of the twentieth century known as mu-kyōkai or “No-Church” which “sought directly to respond to the call in the Gospel without the mediation, or the intervention, of the institutional church.” Although there is much about Uchimura’s form of evangelical Christianity I do not personally find amenable there is one aspect of it that I continue both to like and admire and which does chime with something key within religious naturalist thinking. Uchimura felt that while some churches are made of stone, others of brick and yet others of wood for the believers in the “No Church” the church is “the universe created by God; it is of nature” and he goes on to add that:

Its ceiling is the azure blue sky, adorned [at night] with bright stars. Its floor is the green pasture, dotted with flowers of infinite colours. Its musical instrument is the boughs of pine trees and its musicians are the birds in the forest. Its altar is the mountain peaks and its preacher is God Himself. Such is the church for all of us who believe in the “No Church” (cited in Uchimura Kanzō and His “No Church Christianity”: Its Origin and Significance in Early Modern Japan, Religious Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, Sep., 1987, pp. 377-390).

    Now all these thoughts came flooding back into mind last week as I, like millions of others, watched with a heavy and sorrowful heart the great medieval cathedral of Notre Dame in the heart of Paris go up in flames. Over the years I’ve spent many months living and working in Paris and so I was viscerally and personally effected by what I saw — some buildings are more than just buidings. But, but, but . . . as I hope my opening paragraphs have made clear, Notre Dame Cathedral is utterly dependent upon Mother Nature for her existence because, not only is she made of the same matter as our material mother in the form of stone, wood, precious metals, stones and glass and everything else in her physical structure (including her nature-inspired designs and forms such as the rose-windows), the minds that conceived of, and the hands that made her — which, if you like mothered her form into being — are also made of the same material as our Mother Nature, our “alma mater” — quite literally, our “nourishing mother”. Given this I could not then but ask why were countless millions of tears being shed all over the world over her burning and yet so few tears are being shed by those same millions for the burning up of Notre Dame’s own Notre Dame, Mother Nature? How is it we humans can declare an emergency in connection with Notre Dame cathedral and raise nearly a billion Euros in a few days but we cannot bring ourselves to declare an emergency in connection with the threat to our real Notre Dame, Mother Nature and make funding available to help us change our destructive, consumerist lifestyles? How can we not see that a project to resurrect Notre Dame cathedral which doesn’t simultaneously commit itself to the project to ensure the ongoing health and well-being of our true Notre Dame, Mother Nature herself, is to write large the suicidal hypocrisy of our own age?

    So, thank heavens for the wisdom, insight and bravery of the wonderful sixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg who said in her speech to MEPs and EU officials in Strasbourg the day after the fire:

It is still not too late to act. It will take a far-reaching vision, it will take courage, it will take fierce, fierce determination to act now, to lay the foundations where we may not know all the details about how to shape the ceiling. . . . In other words it will take cathedral thinking. I ask you to please wake up and make changes required possible.

Thank heavens, too, that David Attenborough in his BBC1 film broadcast on Thursday called “Climate Change: the Facts” now says clearly that:

It may sound frightening but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies. . . . We’re running out of time but there’s still hope [and] I believe that if we better understand the threat we face, the more likely it is that we can avoid such a catastrophic future.

Thank heavens, too, that even people like Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England and his French counterpart François Villeroy de Galhau, are finally waking up to the fact that the global financial system (which is so much part of the problem) also faces an existential threat from climate change and that if it fails to adjust it, too, will “fail to exist.”

Thank heavens, too, for the hundreds of thousands of climate change activists around the world, adults and children alike, who are currently peacefully out on our streets drawing everybody’s attention — but especially our politicians, industrialists and financiers’ attention — to the need immediately and fundamentally to change our destructive, consumerist ways of living.

    For it is now clear that we simply cannot afford to continue without the kind of “cathedral thinking” spoken of by Thunberg which commits us to the task of keeping the cathedral of nature in the best possible shape we can because, if we don’t, then the important myths and stories of spring resurrection which lie at the heart of the Christian festival of Easter, and which are celebrated year after year around the world in cathedrals like Notre Dame, will ultimately prove merely to be self-destructive delusions.

    With all these thoughts in mind, to conclude today, let me return briefly to the resurrection story we heard earlier from that most mytho-poetical of the gospels, John.

    Does not our current dangerous situation encourage us on this Easter Sunday of all Easter Sundays to reinterpret Mary’s first thought as being not a mistake at all but, instead, a profound insight about who and/or what the supreme fiction that is the risen Christ needs to be for us today? When he was alive in the flesh, not only did Jesus constantly use images from the natural world such as seeds, grain, trees, vines, birds, lilies and so on; not only did Jesus experience one of his greatest moments of doubt as well as his arrest in a garden, the Garden of Gethsemane; and not only was he believed to be buried and then resurrected in a Garden Tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, but Jesus was also always acting as a gardener of the spirit, deliberately sowing seeds of love, compassion and justice into the this-worldly soil of his hearers’ hearts and so it makes perfect sense to think about interpreting the risen Christ not as some transcendent, other-worldy, God-man but as a this-worldy, human gardener.

    This, by the way, is not some wholly eccentric modern thought of my own but, instead, one with ancient Christian roots. Here is Saint Augustine (354-430) writing in the mid-fourth century:

There are points in these words which we must examine with brevity indeed, but with somewhat more than ordinary attention. For Jesus was giving a lesson in faith to the woman, who had recognized Him as her Master, and called Him so in her reply; and this gardener (hortulanus) was sowing in her heart, as in His own garden, the grain of mustard seed. (Tractate CXXI a homily on John 20:10-19 trans. John Gibb in Philip Schaff (ed.), St Augustine: Homilies on the Gospel of John (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888, Vol. 7, 437.)

Here is St. Jerome (c. 347–420) in Homily 87 writing in the late fourth/early fifth century:

When Mary Magdalene had seen the Lord . . . she thought that He was the gardener; she was mistaken, indeed, in her vision, but the very error had its prototype. Truly, indeed, was Jesus the gardener of His Paradise, of His trees of Paradise.

And here is Gregory the Great (c. 540–604) writing in the mid-sixth century:

Perhaps this woman erred by not erring, who thought Jesus was the gardener. For was he not to her a spiritual gardener [hortulanus], who in her breast used to plant sprouting seeds of virtues through his love? (Homiliarum in Evangelia LXXVI, Migne Patrologiae Cursus Completus, 1191, trans Rev'd Dr. Hugh Houghton).

    Given these ancient precedents and our very pressing present needs, surely it is not too outrageous to suggest that our own age will only ever be able truly to embrace the impossible, necessary supreme fiction of the resurrected Christ in so far as we can see him as a human gardener at work tending, with loving hands, the beautiful Garden of Eden that is our planet Earth?

    But merely abstractly contemplating this supreme fiction from afar is not enough and, once again an ancient Christian practice may be of help here, namely the Imitation of Christ, the “Imitatio Christi”. Might not this best be practiced today by becoming ourselves gardeners, not only gardeners of an inner spirit but in the outward sense of becoming people passionate about, and fully committed to, the tending and protecting of the very matter of our true māter, our true Notre Dame, Mother Earth herself, dear life-giving Venus?

    Amen.

Good Friday 2019 Communion Service at the Cambridge Unitarian Church on Emmanuel Road at 6.30pm

19 April 2019 at 12:51
The church this morning ready for the evening service Good Friday 2019 Communion Service  at the Cambridge Unitarian Church on Emmanuel Road at 6.30pm Click here for directions  All people of good-will welcome to attend, whether they belong to this church or to none, or whether they formally understand themselves as being Christian or not. If you would like to read through the service before deciding whether to attend or not you can read the complete service at the following link: https://www.cambridgeunitarian.org/docs/Good-Friday-Communion.pdf

Christ or Barabbas? A Palm Sunday lesson for our own day and age

14 April 2019 at 16:14
Annie Valloton's drawing for the Good News Bible
READINGS: Mark 15:1-15 (GNT)

From “The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus” by Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar (Poleridge Press, San Francisco, 1998, p. 153)  

The Barabbas segment is wholly fictional, in spite of the fact that the name Barabbas is actually attested on ossuaries (small stone coffins) from the period. Barabbas means “son of the father,” the son (bar in Aramaic) of Abba, the Aramaic address Jesus uses for God in the Lord’s Prayer. That “son” is substituted for Jesus, who in Christian minds is the “son of the Father.” When Pilate asks the crowd what he is to do with “the king of the Judeans,” they call out to have him crucified (vv. 12-14). There is considerable irony in that scene: the Judeans are now to assume responsibility for the death of someone called their king (v. 12). Pilate gives way to the will of the crowd, has Jesus flogged in accordance with Roman practice, and turns Jesus over to his enemies to be crucified. That scene, although the product of Mark's vivid imagination, has wrought untold and untellable tragedy in the history of the relation of Christians to Jews. There is no black deep enough to symbolize adequately the black mark this fiction has etched in Christian history.

ADDRESS
Christ or Barabbas? A Palm Sunday lesson for our own day and age

As a child, my world was powerfully shaped — as are those of still too many children today — with the dangerous and simplistic, binary idea that the world can be divided into “goodies” and “baddies”: Indians in the westerns and Germans, Italians or Japanese in the war films I watched on Saturday morning TV who were the baddies whilst cowboys, the British, Americans and the French were the goodies. Simple.

In my Sunday School Bible classes, the situation wasn’t any better, a fact that can be illustrated via the story we heard in our readings. The Bible translation of choice in the late 1960s and early 1970s was the Good News Bible with it’s memorable and evocative line-drawings by Annie Valloton and I remember being very disturbed by both the story about, and Valloton’s drawing of, the crowd’s response to Pilate’s question about whether Jesus or Barabbas should be released. I mean it was obvious — at least to my eight, nine and ten-year-old self — that Jesus was the goodie and Barabbas was the baddie and yet, despite this so-called “obvious” truth, there was the crowd howling for Jesus’ crucifixion. How could that have happened? Given the poor, naive and utterly un-nuanced way the gospel stories were taught in my Sunday School I could not but help come to the conclusion that, therefore, the Jews were the baddies and so how could I not be angry with their culpable blindness? In our readings we heard the least offensive version of the story from Mark’s gospel but, in Matthew’s telling of the story, we are led to believe that the Jews displayed their full guilt in the matter by shouting out, “Let the responsibility for his death fall on us and on our children!” (Matthew 27:25). This verse is a key element in the creation of the most virulent forms of both Christian and secular antisemitism imaginable that, across the next two millennia, led to deaths of millions upon millions of Jews. It’s an evil that remains with us to this day and, as Robert Funk noted in our readings, “There is no black deep enough to symbolize adequately the black mark this fiction has etched in Christian history.”

Apollo 17
Looking back forty years I can see how easy it might have been for me to have accepted Matthew’s evil verse as a true representation of Christians as the “goodies” and Jews as the “baddies” but I was graced beyond measure by the fact that my paternal grandparents had a long and close friendship with the Jewish family who lived next door in north London. When my dad and their son were both courting, they sometimes went out together to the pictures and, following their respective marriages and we children came along, that is to say, me and my sister and their two children, they kept up their friendship and, once a year around Christmas/Hanukkah time, we’d all meet up either at our house in Ware and then Kirby-le-Soken or at their house in north London and a great time was had by all. It was always good fun but I particularly remember the visit to their house on December 11, 1972. I remember the exact date because we children were allowed to stay up late to watch the landing of Apollo 17. Thrilling, world and culture uniting stuff.

I can see that this friendship with a Jewish family was, in retrospect, one of the most influential experiences of my early life because it taught me to be acutely suspicious of all stories that attempted to split — or at least had the effect of causing a split between — people into binary us/them categories where ne’er the twain shall meet. The fact was that our friends were clearly not the culpable villains of the gospels, committers of deicide — of killing God — but were, instead, ordinary, good, kind people. And so I found myself choosing the truth of that real friendship over the lie of the gospel stories just as in later years, after careful reading about the subject, I chose a proper, rounded understanding about Native American Indian, German, Japanese and Italian cultures over the racist and xenophobic pictures often presented to me in too many films, newspapers and conversations down the pub or at certain family gatherings containing a racist relative.  

Anyway, the massive disjunction between my poor religious education and the reality of a family friendship with a Jewish family set-up in me a strong desire better to understand how this anti-semitic state of affairs could have come to be. This eventually blossomed into my later post-graduate study in the field of Jewish-Christian relations and the discovery that the story which so disturbed me was, in truth, an utterly fictional one. Here I don’t have time to lay out before you the historical and textual evidence for this but later on, if you want to know what that evidence is, please talk to me.

However, despite the story’s utter fiction, I want to conclude with a few words about another serious lesson that the false binary question of “Christ or Barabbas?” might teach us today.

It’s been many years now since I was able to read the four gospel stories which include Pilate’s question without simultaneously thinking of something the conservative German jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) wrote in his “Political Theology” of 1922. His thinking in that book and others about questions concerning sovereignty and the effective wielding of political power has been, and remains, highly influential. But it’s also a deeply problematic way of thinking about the world, not least of all because it’s bound up with his close association and juridical-political allegiance with Nazism. Indeed, he has by some been called the “crown jurist of the Third Reich”. Schmitt thought that when faced with the question of Christ or Barabbas? “Liberalism, with its contradictions and compromises” could only proceed by accepting to “a proposal to adjourn or appoint a commission of investigation.” Schmitt then noted sneeringly that:

The essence of liberalism is negotiation, a cautious half measure, in the hope that the definitive dispute, the decisive bloody battle, can be transformed into a parliamentary debate and permit the decision to be suspended forever in an everlasting discussion.

As you can see Schmitt did not like liberalism's commitment to the value of ongoing dialogue at all and he sought to counter it by promoting what we might call a philosophy of “decisionism” which had some very nasty authoritarian overtones.

[In passing, it’s important to add that whilst I agree with Schmitt that liberalism (then and now) has some extremely serious problems that need urgently to be tackled I do not agree with Schmitt’s authoritarian solution to them. For an alternative solution that I personally find amenable see this article]

In a 1960 paper about Schmitt’s concept of the political Charles E. Frye said of Schmitt’s philosophy that “perhaps its most characteristic aspect is the pervasive sense of the loss of orientation”. For Schmitt this all meant that when a culture began to lose its sense of orientation one way of getting it back was to explore the possibilities that might emerge for that same culture by forcing its people to consider either/or questions such as “Christ or Barabbas?” It’s important to be aware that the underlying binary question for Schmitt was always “friend or enemy?”, terms which Schmitt believed were to be taken:

not as metaphors or symbols, not mixed and watered down by economic, moral, and other ideas; nor are they to be taken psychologically as the expression of private feelings and tendencies. . . . Here we are not concerned with fictions and normatives, but with reality as it is and the actual possibility of this distinction.

Frye then points out that for Schmitt “the enemy”

is not just any competitor or adversary in general. “Enemy is ... in the last analysis a fighting, human totality; but it is at least this. Whether it is fighting or not depends upon the actual circumstances.” And then he indicated the source of his choice of these particular terms as the specifically political concepts: “The concepts friend, enemy, and battle have a real meaning; they obtain and retain this meaning especially through their reference to the real possibility of physical killing.” Schmitt’s concept of the political ultimately derived from the specific and actual possibility of death in battle, from the most limiting of all human situations — death.

Now, here’s my chief point today. In our own age in which our, what was once called British culture, has clearly lost it’s orientation (although some may say, with some justification, that it is in fact English culture which has lost its orientation), what deeply worries me is that a similar philosophy of decisionism is threatening to become popular once again in certain people’s and groups’ religious and political attempts to solve the problem. It’s a philosophy which deliberately seeks to present people with a series of ongoing, false binary questions the answers to which divide the world up into friend/enemy, indigenous/alien, Christian/Jew, Christian/Muslim, left/right, black/white, in/out, leave/remain, and many more besides, all in the hope that this method will revive in “the people” (whatever that slippery phrase means) a powerful sense that by answering these kinds of binary questions they are, in some meaningful and exciting way, going to be heading purposefully towards a restored national political, religious and personal sense of identity and confidence.

But this is a dangerous fantasy. To see this we need only recall that ancient, fateful question “Christ or Barabbas?” and note well that it was utterly unable to deliver the Last Word on anything we might then, or now, have considered to be good and decent and of lasting worth and that, in fact, it was ultimately only able to deliver up to us all kinds of unfulfilled (and unfulfillable) expectations that led inexorably to mistrust, hatred and, at its worst, to an almost unimaginable level of cruelty, repression, violence and, ultimately, genocide.

Given this, it seems to me that today, perhaps the chief lesson we might learn from the “Christ or Barabbas?” story is not simply that it is a dangerous and pernicious fiction but also that it contains a false and extremely dangerous and deluded binary question that could only ever to serve to create a false and exceptionally dangerous us/them situation. With this in mind, I hope the story might stand for us as a salutary, Holy Week warning not to make the same kind of fateful mistake in our own time and context.

Let’s continue to think, instead, about how best we may heed Jesus’ proclamation to love our neighbour as ourselves — a proclamation which, remember, includes even those we perceive (or are being encouraged to perceive) as enemies. Nothing less than this will ever do and the cry from the crowd, from “we the people”, needs to change from Christ OR Barabbas to Christ AND Barabbas.

Amen.

Mothering Sundayβ€”The maternalizing of matter and the materializing of the mother”—A poetic, supreme fiction for our age

31 March 2019 at 14:48
Venus in the Manse back-yard
READINGS:

From Lucretius 1: An ontology of motion by Thomas Nail (Edinburgh University Press, 2018, p 23)

The genetrix of Aeneas is the mother [māter] of Aeneas, from which the latin words māteriēs [material] and māteria [matter] also come. Māter is also the tree or matrix, the source of the tree’s growth, whose Indo-European root is described by the Greek word hūlē, meaning tree and matter. First philosophy, for Lucretius, begins with the mother, with matter itself, with the creative power of matter itself to produce all things, the aeneadum.

On the Nature of Things by Lucretius, 1.1-60Translated by Walter Englert (Focus Publishing, 2003)

Mother of the descendants of Aeneas, desire of humans and gods,
life-giving Venus, it is you who beneath the gliding signs
of heaven makes the ship-bearing sea and the fruitful earth
teem with life, since through you the whole race of living creatures
is conceived, born, and gazes on the light of the sun.
You, goddess, you the winds flee, you the clouds
of the sky flee at your coming, for you earth the artificer
sends up her sweet flowers, for you the expanse of the sea smile,
and the heavens, now peaceful, shine with diffused light.
For as soon as the sight of a spring day is revealed,
and the life-bringing breeze of the west wind is released and blows,
the birds of the air are the first to announce you and your arrival,
o goddess, overpowered in their hearts by your force.
Next wild beasts and flocks prance about their glad pastures
and swim across rushing streams. So taken by delight
each follows you eagerly wherever you proceed to lead them.
Then through the seas and mountains and fast-clutching rivers,
through the leaf-thronged home of birds and the verdant plains,
you strike, injecting sweet love into the hearts of all,
and make them eagerly create their offspring, each according to
    kind.
Since you alone guide the nature of things
and without you nothing emerges into the sunlit shores
of light, nothing glad or lovely comes into being,
I am eagerly striving for you to be my ally in writing these verses
that I am trying to set out about the nature of things
for our illustrious son of the Memmii, whom you, goddess, on every
occasion have wished to be preeminent, adorned with every
blessing. All the more endow these words with everlasting charm,
goddess. Meanwhile, make it so that the savage claims of war
are put to sleep and lie quiet throughout every sea and land.
For you alone have the power to bring aid to mortals
with tranquil peace, since Mars, strong in arms, rules
the savage claims of war, and he often lets himself sink
into your lap, completely overcome by the unceasing wound of love.
And so gazing upwards, bending back his smooth neck,
he gapes at you, goddess, and feeds his hungry eyes with love.
And as he lies there, his breath hangs on your lips.
Goddess, with your blessed body flow down around him
as he reclines, and pour forth sweet words from your mouth,
o glorious one, seeking gentle peace for the Romans.
For neither can I perform my task with a tranquil mind
when our country is in trouble, nor can the shining offspring of the
    Memmii
fail to attend to the safety of the state at such times.
For it must be that the entire nature of the gods
spends everlasting time enjoying perfect peace,
far removed and long separated from our our concerns.
For free from all anxiety, free from dangers,
powerful in its own resources, having no need of us,
it is not won over by the good things we do nor touched by anger.
For the rest, turn open ears and a sharp mind
set free from cares to the true system of philosophy,
so that you do not despise and abandon my gifts to you,
set out with constant eagerness, before they are understood.
For I am beginning to set out for you the deepest workings
of the heavens and the gods, and to reveal the first beginnings of
    things
out of which nature creates all things, and increases and maintains
    them
and into which nature dissolves them again once they have
    perished.
These we are accustomed, in setting forth our account, to call
“matter” and “the generating bodies of things” and to name them
“the seeds of things,” and to use the term “first bodies” for them,
because all things exist from these beginnings.

—o0o—

ADDRESS 
Mothering Sunday—The maternalizing of matter and the materializing of the mother”—A poetic, supreme fiction for our age
 
The personification of the godhead, god, the divine, the sacred, and so on is an ancient and venerable, if always somewhat risky, poetic practice. It is risky basically because we human beings seem to find it all too easy to move from poetic personification to thinking (and then acting “as if”) the same personification were, somehow, an accurate description of some immutable and eternal reality. Poetry becomes dogma, dogma becomes religion and, before you know it, there has grown up around us a thorny thicket of religious institutions with their rigid and immovable orthodoxies, leaders and apparatchiks and desire to censure and even destroy on their altars other understandings of the godhead, god, the divine, the sacred and so on.

On the other hand, even though I know all this well, I remain convinced that we cannot live fully without having something that the poet Wallace Stevens called a “supreme fiction”, namely “the creation of an idea that would serve as a fictive replacement for the idea of God, known to be fictive but willfully believed” (Brazeal, Gregory. “The Supreme Fiction: Fiction or Fact?” Journal of Modern Literature 31, no. 1 (2007): 80-100). Stevens’ hope was that such an idea might be able to help us correct and improve our old and no longer persuasive religious ideas about God and which, in their modified form, could then serve once again as a kind of narrative centre around which we may usefully be centripetally gathered and ordered, not eternally of course, but always in a way that was appropriate and stable enough for our own time, place and culture before it unfolds of necessity — as do all things — back into the fluxes and flows of nature to be folded into something new.

Stevens never seems to have found a “supreme fiction” that worked for him but I remain convinced that such a fiction can be found/created and, over the years, I have often offered you some of my own notes towards potential candidates. But today, Mothering Sunday, gives me a perfect opportunity to place before you a few new notes about my own preferred supreme fiction. Since early 2008, whenever I experience the desire/need to meditate before, and give thanks to, a god in a poetic personified form, it has always been to the goddess Venus as I have received her through the poetry of the first-century Roman Epicurean, Lucretius and, in the last year, through the lens of a radical and inspiring re-reading of his poem by the philosopher Thomas Nail.

This re-reading is vitally necessary beause since Lucretius’ poem was rediscovered in January 1417 by Poggio Bracciolini, it has been continually misread as promoting a version of atomism — the view that all reality is made up of indivisible atoms moving about and interacting together in a void. Indeed, the Greek adjective “atomos” means, quite literally, “indivisible”.

Lucretius contemplating nature
Not surprisingly this (mis)reading was further embedded in our culture as our own natural scientists began to formulate what became modern atomic theory in the early nineteenth-century. As Thomas Nail points out,

although the Latin word “atomus” (smallest particle) was available to Lucretius to use in his poem, he intentionally did not use it, nor did he use the Latin word “particula” or particle to describe matter. The English translations of “atom”, “particle”, and others have all been added to the text in translation based on a certain historical interpretation of it.  

Nail continues by noting that

Lucretius rejected entirely the notion that things emerged from discrete particles. To believe otherwise is to distort the original meanings of the Latin text as well as the absolutely enormous poetic apparatus he summoned to describe the flowing, swirling, folding, and weaving of the flux of matter. Although Lucretius rejected the term atomus, he remained absolutely true to one aspect of the original Greek meaning of the word atomos, (“indivisible”), from “a-” (“not”) and temnō (“I cut”). Being is not cut up into discrete particles, but is composed of continuous flows, folds, and weaves. Discrete “things” (rerum) are composed of corporeal flows (corpora) that move together (conflux) and fold over themselves (nexus) in a woven knot work (contextum). For Lucretius, things only emerge and have their being within and immanent to the flow and flux of matter in motion. Discreteness is an apparent product of continuous folded matter, uncut, undivided, and in motion and not the other way around.

This is, as I hope you can see, a very different way of looking at the world than that which was employed by both ancient and more early-modern atomists and is one which resonates strongly with what contemporary physics seems to be revealing to us about how our world is structured. This does not make Lucretius some kind of proto quantum field theorist, of course, that would be ridiculous. But, as Nail observes, it’s not that Lucretius’ description in his poem of nature’s way of working matches that of contemporary science, “but simply that it is not inconsistent with it” (Nail, Lucretius 1, p. 273) and that they are “nutually illuminating” and “appreciable in their own terms” (ibid, p. 14)

Anyway, the thing is, once you begin to see clearly that Lucretius is concerned, not with indivisible atoms and void but with the ceaseless flowing, swirling, folding, and weaving of the flux of matter, his evocation of the life-giving goddess Venus as both the mother [māter] of all things and also the very matter [māteria] of all things (including herself as mother), begins to make a rich poetic sense that is not inconsistent with our current scientific knowledge and starts to emerge — for me if not yet, perhaps, for you — as a worthy supreme fiction.

As an initial attempt to tempt you into considering the goddess in this fashion, what follows in this Mothering Sunday address is a re-presentation of some of the ways Nail talks about how Lucretius interprets Venus as the Mother of Matter.
Botticelli's Birth of Venus

It is, perhaps, helpful to start with the ancient myth of Venus’ birth and to have before you as an aide-memoire Botticelli’s glorious painting “The Birth of Venus”. According to Hesiod, while Ouranos (Sky) was having sexual intercourse with his mate Gaia (Earth), he was ambushed and castrated by his son Kronos, who cast his father’s genitals into the sea. Foam issued from them and, within the foam, a maiden grew. The genitals came eventually to land at Cypress, where Aphrodite (i.e. Venus) stepped ashore (William Hansen, Classical Mythology, OUP 2004, p. 105). In Botticelli’s painting (click on the picture here to enlarge it), Venus comes ashore, much less gruesomely, from a giant scallop shell. All the images contained in the painting (and Lucretius’ poem) are evocations of the flowing, swirling, folding, and weaving of the flux of matter. An obvious example in the painting is the depiction of Zephyr, the wind god, blowing Venus ashore. But, perhaps less obviously we see this in the fact that Venus is made of the foam of the ocean:

Bubbles and froth are produced when the continuous flows of the ocean fold back over themselves, trapping air within their pleat. The fold gives the flows of air and water depth, extension and spatiality. The fold produces the appearance of unity, extension and stability, grounded in the continuity of a heterogeneous flux — the ‘Iridescent-throned Aphrodite’ as Sappho writes (Nail, Lucretius 1, p. 27).

Secondly, there is the shell:

the most vulva-like of all seashells . . . the scallop shell is an organism, like other seashells, that gathers in the liquid flows of calcium carbonate from the periphery towards a place of central condensation. The seashell is formed by gathering these pedantic mineral flows and folding them together and over one another again and again. The shell, therefore, introduces a “klin”, a curvature, inclination, or desire, into the chaotic flows of the ocean (ibid, pp. 27-28).

Thirdly there is the idea of “space”:

It is the “klin” or curve of desire in Venus’ shell that introduces space into the chaos of flux (ibid, p. 28).

Space is vital here because if there were only ever the chaos of flux nothing could come to be in the way things clearly do. But, wonder of wonders, the curve of Venus’ shell reminds us that the chaos of flux is also always-already producing local and regional stabilities that gift us with the universe of things in which we live and move and have our being.

But, importantly, in holding Venus up as a goddess in this fashion she is not being seen by Lucretius as some kind of supernatural being standing outside nature making the world but, instead, as a way by/through which one can more easily meditate upon the way the world continually makes and remakes itself. His depiction of Venus in his poem is a poetic supreme fiction which aims both to help us understand and be passionate about the way nature natures and how her mothering hand, which is always-already making and touching us and all things is, simultaneously, also always-already being touched back by what it touches (cf. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Nail: Lucretius 1. p 88).

As you heard in our readings, Nail reminds us that Venus is

the mother [māter] of Aeneas, from which the Latin words māteriēs [material] and māteria [matter] also come. Māter is also the tree or matrix, the source of the tree’s growth, whose Indo-European root is described by the Greek word hūlē, meaning tree and matter. First philosophy, for Lucretius, begins with the mother, with matter itself, with the creative power of matter itself to produce all things, the aeneadum (ibid, p. 23).

Nail points out Venus becomes the material mother-goddess and so the concept of māteriēs “both maternalizes matter and materializes the mother at the same time.”

In other words, the mother of all creation is herself made of the same matter that she creates. Her materiality is the same materiality of the world. The mother of matter is the matter of the mother. Her creation is, therefore, the process of matter’s own process of materialization. Maternalization is materialization (ibid, p. 24).

Venus on my desk in Cambridge alongside a small portrait of Epicurus
Of course, in one important sense, neither for Lucretius nor for me could the goddess Venus be said to exist as an actually existent material god, one whom I could actually meet in the temple, town or countryside and with whom I could pray and to whom I could make offerings. But, because everything about her as a poetic supreme fiction speaks so well, both to and of the way we are coming to think our world works, she can for me usefully and beautifully be set up as a personification of god before which, as a contemporary materialist, religious naturalist and atheist, my philosophical meditations about the world, my devotion to her, and my expression of gratitude for her bounty can flow, fold, and weave. As Diogenes Laërtius says in his chapter about Lucretius’ greatest philosophical influence, Epicurus, “The wise man will set up votive images” and in my study and in the Manse next door I have taken his advice to heart and you will find multiple depictions of Venus set up there (Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, Book X, §131). [The picture at the very beginning of this post is of the statue of Venus which is found in the Manse back-yard, and the picture above is of the statuette of Venus that sits on my desk, next to which is a small portrait of Epicurus, Lucretius’ original philosophical inspiration.]

Now, you may think that there really is no need to personify the way nature natures, let alone actually set up a votive image of the goddess Venus. Well, you are probably right, you don’t NEED to. But I, along with countless other human beings through the hundreds of thousands of years of human existence, do feel such a need and I continue to think that an appropriate poetic supreme fiction, when knowingly understood as fictive but nevertheless willfully believed in, can usefully help us both better understand the world and draw forth out of it great meaning and beauty.

In this age when we are appreciating more and more that we are ourselves fully part of the ceaselessly moving fluxes and flows of matter, is not a Lucretius’ poetic supreme fiction of “god” as a ceaselessly moving Mother Nature more appropriate and needed than our patriarchal supreme fictions of a static and immovable Father god? I cannot but think so.

Anyway this morning of all mornings, I have no hesitations in publicly raising a glass of aqua vitae to toast and give thanks to the Mother of Matter, creatrix, bountiful Venus.

Amen.

—o0o—

Our opening Reading/Prayer this morning was taken from from ‘Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times’ by Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) (ed. Lawrence Klein, Cambridge University Press, 1999 p. 298-99)

The speaker is standing on a hilltop at sunrise:

O glorious nature! Supremely fair and sovereignly good! All-loving and all-lovely, all-divine! Whose looks are so becoming and of such infinite grace, whose study brings such wisdom and whose contemplation such delight, whose every single work affords an ampler scene and is a nobler spectacle than all which every art presented! — O mighty nature! Wise substitute of Providence! Empowered creatress! Or thou empowering deity, supreme creator! Thee I invoke and thee alone adore. To thee this solitude, this place, these rural meditations are sacred while thus inspired with harmony of thought, though unconfined by words and in loose numbers, I sing of nature’s order in created beings and celebrate the beauties which resolve in thee, the source and principle of all beauty and perfection.



Thy being is boundless, unsearchable, impenetrable. In thy immensity all thought is lost, fancy gives over its flight and wearied imagination spends itself in vain, finding no coast nor limit of this ocean, nor, in the widest tract through which it soars, one point yet nearer the circumference than the first centre whence it parted. — Thus having oft essayed, thus sallied forth into the wide expanse, when I return again within myself, struck with the sense of this so narrow being and of the fullness of that immense one, I dare no more behold the amazing depths nor sound the abyss of deity.—

Yet since by thee, O sovereign mind, I have been formed such as I am, intelligent and rational, since the peculiar dignity of my nature is to know and contemplate thee, permit that with due freedom I exert those faculties with which thou has adorned me. Bear with my venturous and bold approach. And since nor vain curiosity, nor fond conceit, nor love of aught save thee alone inspires me with such thoughts as these, be thou my assistant and guide me in this pursuit, while I venture thus to tread the labyrinth of wide nature and endeavour to trace thee in thy works.

Immediate tactile, visceral answers in the breezeβ€”the mysticism of wide open eyes

24 March 2019 at 15:35
READINGS:

What I Have Learned So Far by Mary Oliver

Meditation is old and honorable, so why should I 
not sit, every morning of my life, on the hillside, 
looking into the shining world? Because, properly 
attended to, delight, as well as havoc, is suggestion. 
Can one be passionate about the just, the 
ideal, the sublime, and the holy, and yet commit 
to no labor in its cause? I don’t think so.

All summations have a beginning, all effect has a 
story, all kindness begins with the sown seed. 
Thought buds toward radiance. The gospel of 
light is the crossroads of — indolence, or action.

Be ignited, or be gone.

Matthew 7:16-20

[Jesus said] You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Immediate tactile, visceral answers in the breeze—the mysticism of wide open eyes

Last week, the central theme of my Lent-related address was about how we might learn, consciously and joyously, to celebrate the fact that when nature does what nature does (natura naturans), one of the things that continues to emerge — at least in our neck of the universe — is something we call life. Miracle of miracles it is that, out of the endless fluxes and flows of non-sentient matter, sentient life emerges and returns in continual cycles. I suggested that this way of looking at things offers us one, naturalistic, way we can (perhaps) continue to use the ancient Easter language of “the resurrection of the dead”.

A passerby caught by the wonder of spring blossom
Those of you who were here last week will remember that in the conversation following the address John Toye also reminded us all of another, important, resurrection theme amenable to us, namely the resurrection of the living, where the resurrection is perceived to be a moral or spiritual one. Thanks to John, the general theme of the resurrection of the living has very much occupied my own thoughts this week especially as, once again, I have watched spring begin to unfold, particularly in the form of the cherry, apple, plum and blackthorn trees blossoming across the city.


[In the photo here — click on it to enarge , which I took in Mill Road Cemetery on Friday afternoon, the young mum, as she walked by, was fully concentrating on her chattering children. But then, having passed the tree, it's beauty seems to have got fully through to her such that she suddenly turned around properly to look and wonder at the blossom. I was lucky to have pressed the shutter at that precise, splendid, moment.]

However, perhaps as a simple consequence of now being in my mid-fifties, what has particularly struck me this year is that, although the image I most readily associate with the season of spring is new life as new life, when it comes to a moral or spiritual spring the images that most readily spring to mind are of certain kinds of new life appearing in mature and old lives.

But I am getting ahead of myself because the genesis of this spring-time address really began back in the middle of February when I watched a newly released short film made about the American philosopher Herbert Fingarette (1921-2018) in which he reflected upon his life at the age of 97. He taught a friend of mine through whom I first discovered Fingarette's interesting body of work, particularly that on Confucius and his book called The Self in Transformation (Basic Books, New York 1963) some words from which have for a long time now appeared in the header of my blog because they seem to me to be a perfect expression of what I try my best to do with you week by week in my Sunday address:

These studies are outcomes rather than realized objectives. In making the journey, I have no aims. These studies are intellectual footprints, not blueprints.

The film, called Being 97: An ageing philosopher returns to the essential question: ‘What is the point of it all?’, is a poignant and, at times, apparently sad one. A perfect example of this surface mood is found in the following words which Fingarette speaks whilst sitting out on the deck of his house:

I look at the trees blowing a little in the breeze — and I've seen them innumerable times but somehow seeing the trees this time is a transcendent experience. I see how marvellous it is and I think to myself  I’ve had these here all along but have I really appreciated them? And, the fact is, I have not . . . until now. And, in a way, it makes the fact of death even more difficult to accept. It just brings tears to my eyes (at 14’51”).

Now, on a first viewing, I have to confess that it was almost overwhelmingly tempting to remain (and even wallow) in what appeared to be Fingarette’s sadness but, as my friend, Ed Mooney (himself a philosopher in his 80th year), pointed out to me on that same day:

For a viewer, there’s the simple kindness of [Fingarette’s] responses to his aide, and the evident power of his responses to music — his arms and head sway to the beauty quite beyond any question of whether there’s a point to things.  And he notices the leaves dancing in the breeze.  And he draws or paints. For me, quite beyond his irony in suggesting the big questions may not have answers, there are immediate tactile, visceral answers in the breeze, in the Schubert, in the presence-absence of his wife, in the “thank you” he addresses to his aide. I think the simple things speak.

I think my friend is absolutely spot-on here; yes there’s a sadness, but in the film we are also seeing in an occluded fashion an expression of a truth powerfully expressed by Kahlil Gibran who wrote (in The Prophet): “When you are sorrowful look again in / Your heart, and you shall see that in truth / You are weeping for that which has been your delight”. Gibran goes on to observe that, because joy and sorrow are inseparable, “Together they come, and when one sits alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed.” As Blake also saw, “joy and woe are woven fine” and, about this, we can do nothing because it’s part of the structure of human life.

Anyway, Fingarette’s words about the trees came powerfully back into my head and heart when, during a conversation a couple of weeks ago with Don Cupitt — another philosopher consciously coming to terms with the approaching end of his life at the age of 84 — we talked about some of the playwright Dennis Potter’s words spoken in a memorable interview with Melvyn Bragg in March 1994 just three months before he died. At one point he speaks of the plum-tree blossom outside his study window:

Looking at it, instead of saying ‘Oh that's nice blossom’ . . . it is the whitest, frothiest, blossomest blossom that there ever could be, and I can see it. Things are both more trivial than they ever were, and more important than they ever were, and the difference between the trivial and the important doesn’t seem to matter. But the nowness of everything is absolutely wondrous, and if people could see that, you know, there’s no way of telling you, you have to experience it. But the glory of it, if you like, the comfort of it, the reassurance — not that I’m interested in reassuring people, you know, bugger that — the fact is, if you see the present tense, boy do you see it! And boy can you celebrate it! (at 6’40”).

To my mind, in both Fingarette and Potter’s utterances, we are seeing examples of the resurrection of the living in a late-life blossoming. True enough, Fingarette’s blossoming is expressed in what we may call a generally minor key whilst Potter’s is expressed in a more major key, but this is, surely, only to say something like that the blossom of a cherry-tree is different from the blossom of a plum-tree. Fingarette is not Potter nor vice versa and so, inevitably, each of their late-life blossoms are different in colour. But make no mistake flowerings they are.

But I realize that to some people in certain moods (including Fingarette), such late-life blossomings can be seen as, and felt to be, merely examples of ultimately pointless, sentimental and empty acts of self-reassurance with no practical, meaningful content that can genuinely provide a certain kind of answer to the question “What is the point of it all?”

But it strikes me at this point in proceedings that one can usefully extend the metaphor of the blossoming tree a little further to show that this need not be the case and that there can be real, practical and meaningful consequences of such, mystical late-life blossoms.

One of Jesus' most memorable sayings is his proclamation that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit and that, therefore, we best know trees — and by extension, people — by their fruits (Matthew 7:16-20).

So the question I want to ask, as I begin to draw to a close, is what real summer fruit might follow on from Fingarette and Potter’s spring blossoms?

Well, in the first instance, one meaningful fruit is, surely, the personal life-enhancing transcendental wonder they, themselves feel in the presence of the simple things of life experienced by them — sometimes truly for the first time — fully in the present tense. It’s a feeling that is often best expressed in the feeling of having been set on fire. I’m minded here of the atheist, writer and activist Barbara Ehrenreich’s description of a walk in Lone Pine, California that she made when she was aged seventeen:

At some point in my predawn walk — not at the top of a hill or the exact moment of sunrise, but in its own good time — the world flamed into life. How else to describe it? There were no visions, no prophetic voices or visits by totemic animals, just this blazing everywhere. Something poured into me and I poured out into it. This was not the passive beatific merger with ‘the All,’ as promised by the Eastern mystics. It was a furious encounter with a living substance that was coming at me through all things at once, and one reason for the terrible wordlessness of the experience is that you cannot observe fire really closely without becoming part of it. Whether you start as a twig or a gorgeous tapestry, you will be recruited into the flame and made indistinguishable from the rest of the blaze (Living with a Wild God: A Nonbeliever's Search for the Truth about Everything, Granta Books, 2014)

But notice here how the deeply personal experience of being set on fire like this simultaneously recruits a person “into the flame” in which they are “made indistinguishable from the rest of the blaze.” The personal is suddenly revealed to be, at one and the same time, corporate. It is here, I think, that we begin to understand the experience that the German feminist theologian Dorothee Soelle (1929-2003) memorably referred to as “the mysticism of wide open eyes.” It is where and whenever we begin to intuit the ethical and political consequences of personal, transcendental (even mystical) experiences such as those pointed to by Fingarette and Potter as they both meditated upon, amongst other things, their trees. To my mind, no one has put this better than Mary Oliver (1935-2019) in her poem, What I Have Learned So Far, which you heard in our readings.

I would argue that when seen and received from certain perspectives (or, as Oliver put it, when “properly attended to”) Fingarette, Potter, Ehrenreich and Oliver’s meditative thinking always buds toward radiance and, via the seeds found in their words, their thinking can serve to open our eyes and ignite in us — not merely an  inward, personal fire — but also an incendiary, ethical and political fire which illuminates the truth that one can never simply be internally aflame about the just, the ideal, the sublime, and the holy then without going on to commit to labour in its cause.

There are times of life — especially when one is very old and knowingly close to death — when to labour in the cause of the just, the ideal, the sublime, and the holy is simply to let the simple things speak, whether through the enjoyment of leaves dancing in the breeze, in drawing and painting, in the enjoyment of Schubert, in the presence-absence of those whom we loved in the flesh and still love in our memories, in the thank-yous we address to the helpmeets we find everywhere around us (human and non-human). But there are other times of life — especially when one is young or in middle-age — when the labour for the just, the ideal, the sublime, and the holy is to engage in an obviously harder and, superficially anyway, less immediately enjoyable kinds of religious, political, social, economic, cultural and environmental activisms. But, of course, both responses cand, and often do, overlap in important, mutually informing ways.

But, in the end, whether young, middle-aged or old, is not this ignition and recruitment into the flame where we are made indistinguishable from the rest of the blaze the point of it all?

The “mysticism of the wide open eyes” is to be ignited, or be gone, and trees covered with spring blossom seen in the present tense can often be — for young and old alike — the very spark we require to be resurrected into new lives full of mystical religious and political meaning and purpose.

Be ignited, or be gone.

Sheβ€”the moonβ€”listens to my complaints like the good companion she is & comforts me surely with her light.

20 March 2019 at 22:51
What else is there to do on a night like this, with news such as there is, except to look up at the moon on the spring equinox and, with Mary Oliver, recognize that "She listens to my complaints like the good companion she is & comforts me surely with her light." Photo taken with a Fuji X100F Click on the photo to enlarge Moon and Water —Mary Oliver I wake and spend the last hours of darkness with no one but the moon. She listens to my complaints like the good companion she is and comforts me surely with her light. But she, like everyone, has her own life. So finally I understand that she has turned away, is no longer listening. She wants me to refold myself into my own life. And, bending close, as we all dream of doing, she rows with ...

A few photos of, and some idle thoughts in and on, Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits, Arthur Machen and Pink Floyd . . .

19 March 2019 at 16:35
This morning I thought I'd take a spin over on my bicycle to take a walk around Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits and Lime Kiln Close, neither of which I have visited since last summer. 

On my way around the perimeter, on the grass alongside one of the paths, I came across what seemed to me to be a deliberate arrangement of small chalk fragments. It's meaning (if any there were) was beyond me but, since I'm re-reading Arthur Machen's stories at the moment, I couldn't but be put in mind of the mysterious arrangements of flints that appears in his story of 1895, The Shining Pyramid. That story, for those of you who know it, ends in a visit to another pit (a "Devil's Punchbowl") where the two chief protagonists of the story experience a fantastical and frightening vision of a "Pyramid of Fire" which illuminates for them strange and disturbing, otherworldly creatures, the "Little People".

Well, I'm pleased to say that no such thing happened to me whilst I was there. However, Machen's proto-psychedelic tale did serve to put me in mind of early Pink Floyd, especially since Syd Barrett and Roger Waters sometimes played in these very pits when they were children. Indeed, some of the scenes in the short film "Syd Barrett's First Trip" (1966) were clearly filmed here. Anyway, this accidental confluence of place, events and thoughts meant that when I stopped to have a flask of tea in the sun I decided to put on some headphones and listen to Pink Floyd's very first recordings (then known as the "Tea Set") as well as their first couple of official singles.  I have to confess that all these things taken together (plus the horror of the ongoing catastrophe of Brexit) evoked in me a less than cheery mood. As Ian MacDonald puts it in his review of Pink Floyd's anthology of 2002, Echoes, "their [mature] work, in all its disconsolate cheerlessness, is one of the most remarkable cultural facts of late twentieth-century British life. More than any other music, this is the soundtrack of an epoch. [. . .] Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way" (in The People's Music, Pimlico, 2003, p. 191). I cannot but agree . . .

As always, I took a few photos on the walk and include them in this post.

All photos were taken with a Fuji X100F
Just click on a photo to enlarge it







Faithfully doing my duty as an inspector of rain-storms on an early spring walk through Grantchester Meadows and along the River Cam

18 March 2019 at 17:45
“For many years I was self-appointed inspector of snow-storms and rain-storms, 
and did my duty faithfully”
Henry David Thoreau (Walden, chapter one)

All photos taken with a Fuji X100F
Just click on a photo to enlarge 

—o0o—














Forget sacrifice - for Lent and forever more - the question is how to remain faithful to all the impossible, necessary resurrections

17 March 2019 at 16:24
Annie Vallotton’s illustration of the (near) sacrifice of Isaac
READINGS:

From The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought ed. by Adrian Hastings (OUP, 2000, p. 637)

Sacrifice is one of the most inescapable, impenetrable, and off-putting themes in Christian thought. While the concept is prominent both in Jesus’ own teaching and in the way that his life and death have traditionally been understood and given meaning by theologians, it has provoked serious divisions between churches and proved repellent to many sensitive Christians.
     [. . .]
     Efforts to explain the meaning of [the] complex and sometimes conflicting biblical images [found in both the Old and New Testaments] have led to bitter argument and division. The fundamental split between liberals and conservatives within the church arises to a large extent from different understandings of the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice. While evangelicals have stressed its substitutionary character and once-for-all efficacy, those of a more liberal persuasion prefer to see it primarily as exemplary or revelatory and stress its ongoing nature. The major division in western Christendom inaugurated by the Reformation has long centered on disagreement about the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, with Roman Catholics tending to stress the objective representation of Christ's sacrifice in the mass and Protestants preferring the focus to be on remembering his all-sufficient work on the cross. In view of all this dissension and dispute, it is not surprising that several modern Christian theologians have suggested that the whole notion of sacrifice should be abandoned.
     [. . .]
     One of the most fruitful and exciting developments arising from this renewed interest in sacrificial theology [in the 20th century] may well prove to be the construction of a new natural theology based on the power of sacrifice as the engine that drives all life in the universe as well as the principle eternally at work at the heart of the Godhead. Scientists, particularly biochemists and biologists, are increasingly finding and demonstrating the extent to which life at all levels is dependent on death. An important dimension of this discovery is the phenomenon known as programmed cell death through which the healthy growth and development of all living creatures depends on cells constantly dying and being reborn. This motif of life proceeding out of and through death in the natural world seems to parallel the liberating power of the blood poured out in the sacrificial rituals of primitive religions and the mysterious continuum of crucifixion and resurrection which is at the heart of the Christian faith.

(Entry written by Ian Bradley, University of St Andrews)

Micah 6:6-8 (NRSV)

6 ‘With what shall I come before the Lord,
   and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings,
   with calves a year old?
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
   with tens of thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
   the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?’
8 He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
   and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
   and to walk humbly with your God?

From Book One of the De Rerum Natura by Lucretius translated by David R. Slavitt

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for Superstition produces
wicked even unholy, behaviour. Think of that host
at Aulis where Diana’s altar was fouled with blood
of Iphigenia: they decked the maiden’s hair with the filets
of sacrifice and she knew, when she saw her sorrowing father
surrounded by his attendants hiding the terrible knife
and the people assembled weeping silent, bitter tears,
what was about to happen. Think of that poor girl
who looked in vain to the king whom she had first called father
and trembled as men laid hands upon her and bore her not
to a flower-decked marriage altar with songs of loud rejoicing
but a sorrowing victim, immaculate virgin, to be defiled
by her father’s hand in order that fair winds favour the fleet.
By Superstition we are driven to deeds of such great evil.

(1:70-83 in Slavitt’s translation, 1:80-101 in the original latin)

Lent by Lynn Ungar

What will you give up for this season,
to help life along
in its curious reversals?
As if we had a choice.
As if the world were not
constantly shedding us
like feathers off a duck’s back—
the ground is always
littered with our longings.

You can’t help but wonder
about all the heroes,
the lives and limbs sacrificed
in their compulsion toward the good.
All those who dropped themselves
upon the earth’s hard surface–
weren’t they caught in pure astonishment
in the breath before they shattered?

Forget sacrifice. Nothing
is tied so firmly that the wind
won’t tear it from us at last.
The question is how to remain faithful
to all the impossible,
necessary resurrections.

Pierre Bezukhov speaking in Chapter 15 of War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

“Life is everything. Life is God. Everything shifts and moves, and this movement is God. And while there is life, there is delight in the self-awareness of the divinity. To love life is to love God. The hardest and most blissful thing is to love this life in one’s suffering, in the guiltlessness of suffering.”

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Forget sacrifice — for Lent and forever more — the question is how to remain faithful to all the impossible, necessary resurrections

Sacrifice of Iphegenia at Aulis on a Roman fresco
Last week, on the first Sunday of Lent, at the very beginning of the service, I read Lynn Ungar’s prayer/poem you heard again today in our readings. Her prayer/poem struck me as having a surprising power coming, as it does, to the theme of Lent “slant” and, since Lent is a season and not a day, I decided during the week to take a longer look at the text with you this morning.

Clearly, a key word to get some kind of grip upon in the text is “sacrifice”. Etymologically the word is derived from a combination of the Latin words “sacer” (meaning “sacred” or “holy”) and “facere” (meaning “to make” or “to do”). The sacred or holy thing one does in any sacrifice is to offer something to a deity as an act of propitiation or homage. In early times this offering was, for the most part, the life of a bird, sheep, goat, cow or bull but, as the near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham and the ancient story of Iphegenia reminds us, it also on occasions the offering was a human being.

But, as over the centuries we moved into our own (more secular) age, the colloquial meaning of the word “sacrifice” has softened for the most part simply to mean giving up certain important things that were less ultimate than one’s actual life. So, for example, we’ll say things like: “in order to become the world’s number one tennis player she’s had to sacrifice everything else in her life to achieve it”.

Given my knowledge of Ungar’s own work as a committed Unitarian Universalist minister which assuredly requires the making of many small, everyday sacrifices, I’m fairly certain that she’s not using the word “sacrifice” in it’s softened, secular sense but only in its original, harder and violent sense of giving up one’s own life (or the lives of others) to a putative deity. But, and it’s a vital “but”, because her prayer/poem is called “Lent” the deity in question is clearly not any old god but the capital “G” Christian God, the God who, whichever way a traditional believer cuts it, is believed to have sacrificed his own son in order to save humanity from what were claimed to be its otherwise unforgivable sins so that a reconciliation could be brought about between them. This process of reconciliation is known in theological circles as “the Atonement”, a word derived from the Middle English word “attone” or “atoon” ( meaning “agreed” or, quite literally, “at one”). So, in this context, sacrifice is all about how to become “at one” with God of monotheism and the (to me, offensive and immoral) claim is that this could only be achieved by God through the actual sacrifice of his own son, Jesus Christ. By extension, for many Christians, this has come to mean that properly to follow Christ, and to be seen *properly* to be following Christ, individual persons had themselves to continue to imitate the same kind of sacrifice in their own lives.

It is to this kind of practice that I think Ungar is referring when she writes about “all the heroes” who have sacrificed their own (and sometimes other) “lives and limbs . . . in their compulsion toward the good” — in other words, toward God. These are the people whom she imagines were “caught in pure astonishment in the breath before they shattered” themselves “upon the earth’s hard surface.” The surprise, we may imagine, is that in their moment of sacrifice there is no moment of becoming one with a supernatural God (at-one-ment) but only a breaking into disparate parts; into, at best, fractured and damaged lives or, at worst, into hacked off body-parts or into the ash left over from a martyrs pyre.

This conception of sacrifice to a supernatural God who was willing, quite deliberately to make a world in which things could only be made “right” by willingly sacrificing unto death his own son is, I think, what Ungar is asking us to give up for Lent when she writes “forget sacrifice”. I’m with her all the way as have been, as our reading from Ian Bradley’s article reveals, many other modern theologians.

Ungar wants us to forget sacrifice — or so it seems to me — because human life is always (at least potentially) filled with “curious reversals” even though the natural world is “constantly shedding us like feathers off a duck’s back” and where “the ground is always littered with our longings.”

In other words, when nature is doing what nature does (natura naturans or naturing-naturing) — and nature can never do anything else, of course! — our life is always-already full of things we colloquially call “loss”. But these losses (if losses they really are) are not sacrifices offered up to a vengeful judgemental God to bring about “at-one-ment” with that same God, but simply the natural precondition for, and consequence of, life (at least as we know it). As Ungar tacitly admits, about all this we simply don’t have a choice and so she has no alternative but to remind us that “nothing is tied so firmly that the wind won’t tear it from us at last.”

Her prayer/poem ends, not by providing any definitive answers to what forgetting sacrifice is exactly to look like but by posing another question, namely, “how to remain faithful to all the impossible, necessary resurrections.”

But before we can be faithful to them we need to have a sense of what on earth “impossible, necessary resurrections” might look like? Clearly, in order to salvage this sentence from being complete nonsense, we cannot take Ungar to be using the words “impossible” or “necessary” in their strict dictionary senses. If something is truly impossible it is impossible and cannot happen and, if it cannot happen, it cannot also be necessary except as something which cannot happen.

So, what’s going on here? Well, Ungar must have in mind, I think, the Christian resurrection itself which, certainly if you find yourself a member of a modern Unitarian, Universalist or Free Christian community such as this, is impossible from the point of view of our generally, strongly held naturalistic world-view (after all, dead people do not rise from the dead). However, if as a member of our communities you wish to maintain a meaningful, living connection with the Christian tradition then the resurrection is, in some fashion, necessary. To quote St Paul on the matter, as the translation of the Jesus Seminar puts it: “if the Anointed has not been raised, then our message has lost its credibility and so has your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14, The Authentic Letters of Paul, Polbridge Press, 2010, p. 103).

The Christian tradition — even in it’s most liberal and radical form found in this church tradition — only continues to exist because members of the community continue to have a sense that although Jesus was assuredly killed and died (and for us remains dead and buried in some unknown grave in Palestine) something (even if only figuratively or symbolically or poetically) survived his death and the grave which allowed those who followed Jesus — both then and now — to be able to say meaningfully “He is Risen!” Understood in this fashion the resurrection of Jesus is for members of this community, therefore, both impossible and necessary. It is, to use Ungar’s own phrase, an example of a “curious reversal”.

But, remember, Ungar uses the word “resurrection” in the plural and so she is clearly not only talking about the paradigmatic resurrection found in the example of Jesus and so the question is also what other kinds of impossible, necessary resurrections or curious reversals are there that might be analogous to that which some of us  still see and experience (figuratively or symbolically or poetically) in connection with the person of Jesus?

Well, I would say we see such a thing when- and wherever we continue to live and act in hope even though so much of our experience of humanity (historical evidence if you like) seems to be running wholly against the apparent, immediate reasonableness and realizability of our hope. A powerful present example might be the hope many of us continue to have that, somehow, though only God knows how, we can persuade humanity as a whole to take effective steps to halt catastrophic climate change. Our hope for this, from many perspectives, looks utterly dead and buried. I mean who at the moment — apart from, perhaps our glorious, rebellious children — can with any confidence continue to believe that, together, capitalist Europe, the USA, South America, India, Russia etc. is going to be able to make the massive, collective changes that are clearly needed to turn our parlous and frightening situation around? And yet, and yet, many of us do so continue to believe. We find our hope arises daily from the dead, our hope is daily resurrected because it is for us something both impossible and necessary and, despite the ground around us being “littered with our longings”, we find (miracle of miracles) that we are still compelled to believe in the possibility of curious reversals.

To bring about such curious reversals will, of course, always require from all of us  many everyday kinds of “sacrifices” but, as I have often intimated in other addresses, whenever we can begin to see God as Nature, Nature as God — Spinoza’s sublime conception of  deus sive natura —  these losses cease to be sacrifices offered up to a vengeful judgemental God to bring about “at-one-ment” with that same God and become, instead simply examples of nature naturing. I find it telling that our minister emeritus’, Frank Walker, single change to Percy Dearmer’s lovely lenten lyric of “Now quit your care” (which we’ll sing in a moment) is found in verse three where Frank would lead us, not to “where God’s glory flashes, His beauty to come nigh”  but to ““where Life’s glory flashes, Life’s beauty to come nigh.” (Click on the picture to the right in order to enlarge the lyric.)

As Tolstoy has Pierre Bezukhov say Chapter 15 of War and Peace:

“Life is everything. Life is God. Everything shifts and moves, and this movement is God. And while there is life, there is delight in the self-awareness of the divinity. To love life is to love God. The hardest and most blissful thing is to love this life in one’s suffering, in the guiltlessness of suffering.”

So, yes, let’s forget sacrifice — for Lent and forever more — and, instead, begin daily to give ourselves up only to Life’s glory. Self-consciously to do this is, in the old sense of the word, surely no sacrifice at all but, instead simply a joyous and celebratory way of reconnecting again and again and again with the very source of Life itself, nature herself constantly naturing. If we can do this I feel as sure as I can be that we will begin to open ourselves to many other impossible, necessary resurrections and curious reversals and, when we come to sing our final hymn, be able to sing and mean  “Arise, Arise, Arise! and make life a paradise!”

Amen.

A few photos taken on an early spring stroll over to Grantchester across the meadows

11 March 2019 at 16:28
A few photos taken on an early spring stroll over to Grantchester across the meadows
All photos taken with a Fuji X100F, all jpegs straight out of the camera
Just click on a photo to enlarge it













"You have a donkey, so have I"-the only real possible path to peace-communication

10 March 2019 at 15:17
READINGS: Mark 4:21-22

[Jesus] said to them, ‘Is a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel basket, or under the bed, and not on the lampstand? For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.’

A footnote in “A Plea for Excuses” by J. L. Austin (Philosophical Papers [3rd Edition], OUP, 1979, p. 185)

You have a donkey, so have I, and they graze in the same field. The day comes when I conceive a dislike for mine. I go to shoot it, draw a bead on it [i.e. aimed], fire: the brute falls in its tracks. I inspect the victim, and find to my horror that it is your donkey. I appear on your doorstep with the remains and say - what? “I say, old sport, I’m awfully sorry, &c., I’ve shot your donkey by accident“? Or “by mistake“? Then again, I go to shoot my donkey as before, draw a bead on it, fire – but as I do so, the beasts move, and to my horror yours falls. Again the scene on the doorstep – what do I say? “By mistake”? Or “by accident”?

Three sections quoted in the address from Antony Lyon’s helpful and perspicacious 2015 blog post also entitled “You have a donkey, so have I”

—o0o—

ADDRESS
“You have a donkey, so have I”—the only real possible path to peace—communication

When Jesus said “there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light” it’s important to try and be clear about what it is we think  he thought was to be disclosed or come to light.

In belief obsessed religion - and Christianity is all too often dangerously obsessed with belief - more often than not it is unchanging eternal “truths” that are believed will be disclosed or come to light; for example certain unchanging moral and/or metaphysical truths (what we may, perhaps, call “Last Words”).

But what if Jesus (who for us in this community is most assuredly fully a human being and not a deliverer of “Last Words”) is referring, not to the disclosure of putative unchanging moral and/or metaphysical truths but, instead, was concerned to suggest that it is always possible to shine some light on our actions so we can better see how and why our responsibilities have fallen to us in this or that way at this or that moment in time; and also whether, in situations where we or someone else is accused of having done something “bad, wrong, inept, unwelcome, or in some other of the numerous possible ways untoward”, any attempted defence of, or excuse for, this action is justified or not (Austin, p. 176).

Austin’s splendid, humorously macabre tale helps us see what this kind of disclosure might look like.

Let’s start with mistakes. To make a mistake is to make some kind of error. If I genuinely made an error in mistaking your donkey for mine then this means everything which followed on from my shooting of your donkey should not put down to my malice but, instead, to my making of a (genuine) error. True, I remain in some real way responsible for the death of your donkey but I shouldn’t be morally blamed for this because I truly had no intention of shooting your donkey, only my own.

But, if this were an accident, then the underlying situation would be very different even though the immediate, surface results turned out to be the same. We need to recall here that accidents are bound up with what we colloquially call “fortune”, i.e. situations in which certain things have come into play that were beyond our direct control. I may have carefully ascertained the initial situation accurately and identified beyond all reasonable doubt that I was aiming at your donkey and not mine, but then something unexpected and unpredictable occurred which produced a different and (to me) unforeseen consequence. I take aim but, just as I pull the trigger, your donkey in a fit of spring-time joy suddenly breaks into a gallop, runs in front of my donkey and so takes the bullet instead. I hope you can see that in this case I made no mistakes but, because I live in a world where a certain amount of uncertainty is always in play, an unexpected effect was able to play its part in the death of your donkey and not mine.

Your donkey is dead, in both cases killed by me, but in the moral or ethical sphere my intentionality matters a great deal; it must surely matter whether I meant to kill your donkey or not? It also surely matters whether the unintentional consequences of my actions happened by mistake or by accident. In all cases I hope it is obvious that the lessons I (we) can learn from these mistakes and accidents should be different.

Here’s are some of the different lessons the philosopher Antony Lyon thinks we can learn:

When I’ve made a mistake, then I know I saw things incorrectly. Assuming responsibility for a mistake requires me to understand not only what I missed, but also why I did. Two considerations should be part of your judgment of me. First, do I take responsibility for the consequences of my mistake? That matters because no matter my intentions, my actions have loosed suffering in this world. Anyone who hopes that confessing to a mistake absolves them of responsibility thinks like a child. The second consideration in judging me is to look at what steps I take to avoid the same type of mistake in the future. This is critical to relationships, as every action is based on how we interpret the situation; it’s only right that we work at interpreting them better.

 To judge me in the case of an accident is a little different. Again, I should take responsibility for the consequences of the accident. But when an accident has befallen me, I should be able to acknowledge the risk in my behaviour. I must own the consequences because of my carelessness. Indeed, I might have taken many precautions before acting, but now that things are done, I must acknowledge that I acted without altogether eliminating risk - because you can’t if you’re ever to act at all! It was unfortunate that the risk, however miniscule, turned out to determine this situation. I should be judged by whether I own the risk I’d found to be acceptable and whether I adopt practices that are more sensitive to risk and more conscientious about the harm it might bring. 

All very interesting you may say, but why do I bring Austin’s little tale and some of Lyon’s perspicacious thoughts on it before you this week?

Well, it is because next week we are all about to enter into a period of time in our national life when all sorts of people on all sides are going to be accused of having done something “bad, wrong, inept, unwelcome, or in some other of the numerous possible ways untoward” and, in consequence, we are going to hear a great many defences of, or excuses or justifications for, this or that action or lack of action.

The already opaque and confusing situation we are stumbling blindly through at the moment is highly likely going to become even more opaque and confusing in the next few weeks. However, as Jesus and Austin suggest in their own very different fashions, there remains available to us ways by which we can shine a little light on things, not least of all, by calmly trying to tease out what have truly been mistakes and what have truly been accidents and then genuinely going on to try to learn appropriate lessons from them.

The reason why we need to do this at all times - but especially at the moment - is because we all need to remember that it’s impossible to live in this world without making some errors and mistakes. This is a given. But what is not a given is whether or not we then choose to go on to try to draw useful lessons from our errors and mistakes or whether we simply start engaging in attempts to justify ourselves in order to avoid our genuine responsibilities for the current situation. Lyon offers us a further important reason for doing this kind of thing:

All too often, we’re careless in our speech. It’s easy to conflate mistakes and accidents especially in those anxious and fearful moments when responsibility is falling upon you, and you need to say something to avoid the responsibility or at the very least to mitigate the blame associated with that responsibility. When our emotional walls rise in a panic, we tend to opt for the kitchen sink approach. Our torrent of words subordinate meaning to immediate psychic relief, and we lose control of language and surrender the only real possible path to peace—communication.

Lyon is surely right and When- and where-ever real communication with ourselves and with others about our errors and mistakes ceases, there can be no peace. As I have just said, we all make errors and mistakes and (figuratively speaking) we are all at one time or another going to shoot the wrong donkey - this is a given - but this does not mean that following our errors and mistakes we should then be careless in our speech about them either to ourselves or to others. Neither does it mean we should attempt to avoid the responsibility that belongs to us, nor falsely to mitigate the blame associated with that responsibility. Some light can always be shone on the matter in hand.

In the strange, febrile populist mood of our times in which emotional walls are without doubt rising in a panic we must surely be trying our level best to ensure that the torrent of words (our own and others) about our situation is not allowed to subordinate meaning to immediate psychic relief.

Today I have left aside the rather more intractable and important psychological questions we may ask about failures which come under such headings as thoughtlessness, inconsiderateness and lack of imagination etc. and which are “more matters of failure to appreciate the situation” (Austin, p. 194) than anything else (including questions like whether we should be shooting donkeys in the first place!). However, it still seems wise for me to encourage us to take every opportunity available to remind ourselves and others that careful and reflective use of language is a powerful and useful light that should be kept high-up on our public lampstands and not hidden away under a proliferating number of private bushel baskets or beds.

To repeat Lyon’s words, at this moment in our nation’s history we surely need to stem the current torrent of panicky words lest we lose control of language and surrender the only real possible path to peace we have - genuine communication.

"Raphèl maí amèche zabí almi" - Babel, not a punishment for a sin, but God-or-Nature's (deus sive natura's) gift of diversity

3 March 2019 at 15:17
Nimrod in the ninth level of hell
READINGS 

Genesis 10:6–12

The descendants of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. The descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The descendants of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.’ The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

Genesis 11:1–9 The Tower of Babel

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.’ And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’ The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. And the Lord said, ‘Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.’ So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

From Canto 31 of Dante’s “Inferno” (trans. Mandelbaum)

“Raphel mai amecche zabi almi,”
began to bellow that brute mouth, for which
no sweeter psalms would be appropriate.

And my guide turned to him: “O stupid soul,
keep to your horn and use that as an outlet
when rage or other passion touches you!

Look at your neck, and you will find the strap
that holds it fast; and see, bewildered spirit,
how it lies straight across your massive chest.”

And then to me: “He is his own accuser;
for this is Nimrod, through whose wicked thought
one single language cannot serve the world.

Leave him alone—let’s not waste time in talk;
for every language is to him the same
as his to others—no one knows his tongue.”

—o0o—

ADDRESS
“Raphèl maí amèche zabí almi” — Babel, not a punishment for a sin, but God-or-Nature’s (deus sive natura’s) gift of diversity

As you heard in our first reading from Genesis Nimrod was a “a mighty one on the earth” and “a mighty hunter before God.” Although the Bible never explicitly states this, later tradition believed that Nimrod was the leader of those who built the tower in Babel. The punishment — and in Christian influenced cultures it is perceived as a punishment (I’ll return to this point in a while) — the punishment God metered out to Nimrod and his people for this act was twofold, the confusion of multiple languages so that they would no longer be able to understand each other’s speech, and their scattering across the world. It’s helpful to know that the city’s name, “Babel”, is derived from the Hebrew “balal” which means to jumble up and “lebalbel” means “to confuse.”

One famous and influential Christian poem that makes use of of this confusion of languages and the scattering as a punishment was made by the late medieval/early renaissance poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) who, in his poem “The Inferno”, places Nimrod in the ninth and final level of hell for the sin of attempting to build the tower in Babel. As Dante passes through this most dreadful of places finally to meet Satan himself, Nimrod’s only words to him are “Raphèl maí amèche zabí almi”. Dante’s guide through Hell, the ancient Roman poet Virgil, explains that “every language is to [Nimrod] the same / as his to others — no one knows his tongue” (60: 80-81).

Since the poem’s composition seven hundred years ago, countless gallons of ink have been used up in the attempt to understand what exactly Nimrod (i.e. Dante) meant by these words. However, to this day, Nimrod’s words remain – as Dante intended – unintelligible.

But to get to an understanding of what one intelligible modern use of these unintelligible words might be, firstly we need to be clearer about in what might have consisted in Nimrod’s sin that resulted in his terrible punishment.

For the moment I’m going to work backwards assuming that, were it possible for the God imagined by Christianity to exist, then that same God would surely be concerned to do nothing less than that desired by the Mikado in Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic opera of the same name:

My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime.

Let us then, for argument’s sake, take it that the punishment — if punishment it was, remember — did indeed fit the crime.

We might choose to begin our inquiry by recalling that Nimrod is traditionally better known to us as a hunter and not as a builder, so what if we were to take his building of the tower of Babel as related to his hunting? The question that then comes to mind is, for what was he hunting when he set to his building?

Well, Genesis 11 tells us that he and his people were seeking to “make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the earth” and to achieve this they decide to build a tower that will take them right up into what is perceived to be God’s domain. In other words we may take them to have been hunting for fame and status as a people able to reach — and perhaps even conquer — God’s realm and, in so doing, also to achieve an undivided unity as a nation destined to rule over the world in the place of God.

Since then this act has generally been interpreted by the Christian tradition as a wilful contradiction of God’s post-flood commandment found in Genesis 9, namely, to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (v. 1). In this context we may understand God’s commandment to mean something like “spread out, not vertically, but horizontally across the earth and, in so doing, become as a people, not an undivided unity speaking one language, but a dispersed plurality speaking many languages.”

It was Nimrod and his builders sin to attempt precisely the opposite and to this act God responds by saying, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” It was for this sin that Dante imagines Nimrod was sent to the deepest and darkest level of Hell (the circle reserved for the treacherous and treasonous) at the centre of which Satan himself is found bound in chains and frozen solid in a lake of ice.

But one deeply problematic side-effect of making something formally a sin by making a commandment or law against it is that it can simultaneously make that same sin so damnably attractive and even more desirable than it might otherwise have been. This realization drove St Paul almost to distraction and you may recall that in Romans 7:7-8 he wrote:

“[I]f it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead.”

Here, he is beginning to think through the (to him) disturbing thought — which I now want to think through a bit with you — that were one to be able to get rid of at least certain kinds of laws and commandments then, perhaps, the associated sins will significantly diminish if not disappear as well.
 
In making the Babel story a story about a sin that needed to be punished, Christianity, fatefully, managed to make the idea of speaking one language and being one unified people something sexy and very desirable.

On this reading, the truly terrible idea most famously expressed in our own recent European history in the chilling slogan “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer” — one people, one realm, one leader — was, paradoxically, given something of it’s lasting power and allure by interpreting God's words in the Babel story as a moral commandment.

Once we took the Babel story to be about a sin that broke God’s commandment/law and which resulted in God’s punishment we were unknowingly ensuring that we would go round and round this terrible, crazy carousel, generation after generation.   

But what if the story of Babel could be read by us, not as a story about a sin, a commandment/law and a punishment from God to fit the crime, but simply as a story which provides us with an etiology of cultural differences? An etiological myth or, as we can also call it, an origin myth, is a myth which is primarily concerned to explain the origins of certain religious practices, natural phenomena, proper names etc..

A good example of this is can be seen in connection with the place name “Delphi” and the name of the god associated with it, “Apollon Delphinios.” Homer gives us an origin myth in which Apollo, in the shape of a dolphin (delphis) helps the Cretans come across the sea in order to make them his priests. However, later research has shown that it is more likely the name “Delphi” is related to the word delphus meaning womb. Anyway, these folk etymologies abound everywhere and it seems more likely — and, I would argue, more morally healthy — that this is what the Babel story is. It is not moral tale about a sin which requires from God the giving out of a commandment or law and a punishment to fit the crime but, instead, simply a very early attempt to explain what is, in fact, an entirely natural phenomenon, namely, that the human species (at least once it began to become self-reflexive) has always-already been living in different places, with different languages, stories, traditions and so on.

This thought allows me, finally to come back to Nimrod’s strange, unintelligible words: “Raphèl maí amèche zabí almi”. The theologian Colby Dickinson feels that perhaps

“ . . . the figure of Nemrod [sic] fascinated Dante because his sin is that of which Dante himself appears to be guilty. Nemrod had sought, and perhaps got too close, to the limits of language, a task that every serious author must confront sooner or later” (Agamben and Theology, p. 7).

If there is still a useful (natural and non-Christian) sin floating about in today’s babel of an address that mixes an ancient biblical text with late medieval/early Renaissance poetry, maybe it is the one Dickenson sees, namely, the sin which occurs whenever any one of us fails to see the limits of human language and we are tempted to try to say more than we can.

In this light Nimrod’s unintelligible words can usefully stand as an intelligible reminder that to be a human being is always-already to be shaped by our linguistic limitations and, therefore of our need always to be bringing to every encounter with another person, religion, nation or culture, not a belief that we can and should be able to understand and unify everything that is going on around us but, instead to bring into play an always humble but radically open, inquiring and interpretive attitude — one that that constantly calls upon us carefully to look at and listen to the many diverse things going on around us rather than imposing on this diversity a predetermined and (what I'm sure is an) always false picture of simple unity.

If we can do this then perhaps our scattered, highly diverse human condition will no longer be seen by our wider, Christian, influenced culture as a punishment for a sin and therefore something dreadful — akin to incarceration in the ninth level of hell — but, instead, as God-or-Nature’s (deus sive natura’s) glorious, freeing gift which serves to keep we limited creatures always open-hearted, open-minded, open-eared and open-handed towards our always highly diverse and plural human species and highly diverse and plural world.

God-or-Nature’s (deus sive natura’s) words in the the story of the Tower of Babel suddenly becomes for us, not a punishment, but the gift of a different kind of human unity, a unity in diversity, the only kind of unity that can be ours for the living.

When is a table not a table? When, perhaps, it's an altar?-Some Christian a/theist thoughts inspired by Heidegger and Bonhoeffer

24 February 2019 at 15:22
The altar/communion table in the Cambridge Unitarian Church
READINGS:

Psalm 43:4

Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy; and I will praise you with the harp, O God, my God.

From Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison (SCM, London 1971, p. 360)

God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, or science, has been surmounted and abolished, and the same thing has happened in philosophy and religion (Feuerbach!). For the sake of intellectual honesty, that working hypothesis should be dropped, or as far as possible eliminated. . . . Honesty demands that we recognise that we must live in the world as if there were no God. And this is just what we do recognise — before God! God himself drives us to this realisation. — God makes us know that we must live as men who can get along without Him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34)! We stand continually in the presence of God who makes us live in the world without the God-hypothesis.

From the Der Spiegel Interview with Martin Heidegger (1966)

SPIEGEL: Can the individual still influence this network of inevitabilities at all, or can philosophy influence it, or can they both influence it together in that philosophy leads one individual or several individuals to a certain action?

HEIDEGGER: Those questions bring us back to the beginning of our conversation. If I may answer quickly and perhaps somewhat vehemently, but from long reflection: Philosophy will not be able to bring about a direct change of the present state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all merely human meditations and endeavours. Only a god can still save us. I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline; so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god.

SPIEGEL: Is there a connection between your thinking and the emergence of this god? Is there, as you see it, a causal connection? Do you think we can get this god to come by thinking?

HEIDEGGER: We cannot get him to come by thinking. At best we can prepare the readiness of expectation.

SPIEGEL: But can we help?

HEIDEGGER: The preparation of readiness could be the first step. The world cannot be what and how it is through human beings, but neither can it be so without human beings.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
When is a table not a table? When, perhaps, it's an altar?—Some Christian a/theist thoughts inspired by Heidegger and Bonhoeffer

John's picture of the church with me standing outside
John Dillistone’s presentation to Susanna and me this week of his picture with it’s interesting perspectival and symbolic take on our church building set me thinking again about my own perspectives on this edifice, especially some of the theological symbols and meanings that have been, are, and might yet be found within it.

I could take almost any aspect of the building and draw out of it something of theological interest but, today, I’d like to concentrate on just one aspect that has long puzzled me, namely the table behind me.

When I became minister here in 2000 I continued to use the table in almost exactly the same way it was used before my coming. It is, as you can see, at the east end of the church — the traditional “holy end” of a church — and it had then, and has now, flowers and lit candles upon it and, following the offering the little collection bag is put there too as a symbolic sacrifice and offering. The only change to things has been that I now light the candles myself at the very start of the service when, in earlier years, they were lit before the service began. It seems that upon it there has never been placed a cross.

Now, for my entire life I’ve been involved with churches in one way or another so, when I saw first this table, it’s placement and how it was being used, I took it to be, despite the absence of a cross, quite unproblematically an altar. Indeed even the light switches in the vestibule for turning on the lights above it bore, and still bear, a little label upon which you will find, misspelled, the word “alter” (sic).

But one Sunday, only a week or so into my ministry, in the presence of a very elderly and senior member of the congregation, I had occasion to refer to this table by that name — an altar. He fairly bit my head off and, in no uncertain terms, informed me that it “was not an altar but the table for the flowers”.

His vehement response led me to wonder whether something had occurred in the church’s early history which had never had the opportunity to be properly or fully to be worked through? At the time, however, what that might have been was not at all clear to me. Anyway, it certainly made me ask why a liberal protestant church such as this, founded in only 1904 and with bespoke buildings dating from only 1923 (the hall) and 1927 (the church), had decided to place an altar in a very conventional, even Catholic pre-Vatican II position, and then never used it as an actual communion table?

It was a puzzle but, to be frank about it, at that point in my ministry I had more pressing issues to deal with than ferreting around in the archives and so I simply put the question to one side.

The new communion table in use in a meeting of MPs and a local LGBT group
A few years later, when interest was beginning to be expressed by members of the congregation about having an occasional communion service it was obvious that we couldn’t (and wouldn’t) use the official “communion” table — in passing, I had in the meantime accidentally discovered from the report prepared for the sixteenth AGM of this church held on March 11th 1923 that the table was gifted explicitly as a “communion table” — and that it would be more appropriate to hold our communion service around a small table placed in the centre of the church. Before a donor kindly gifted us this fine bespoke communion table we took to using the little folding table now found in the vestibule.

Now, around this same time (perhaps 2003/4) we were visited by an architectural historian — alas, I forget his name — who was researching the work of the architect of this building, R. P. Jones. Given my earlier experience I asked the historian why he thought this relatively modern Unitarian congregation had decided to commission and build a church with a high altar?

His answer was as follows. Following the end of the First World War many liberal churches were literally reeling with shock and disappointment for, not only had they lost many members in the war (as had, of course, all churches) but their liberal, optimistic theology which expressed a belief in the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the leadership of Jesus, salvation by character, and the continuity of human development in all worlds (or the progress of mankind onward and upward forever), had begun to appear to them and others as perhaps no more than a mere whistling in the wind. By 1919 Matthew Arnold’s “sea of faith” had withdrawn even further than its lows of the 1860s, and the death of God, first proclaimed in 1882 by Nietzsche, became ever more plausible to more and more people.

This led, the historian suggested, to a number of congregations deciding to build churches which deliberately harked back to safer, more secure times in Christian history. At their most ineffective, these buildings enabled a congregation merely to pretend their theology wasn’t in real trouble and their that God was not dead and still dwelt on the altars in their holy places but, at best, it gave a congregation some time and real breathing space more slowly to work through and come to terms with both the withdrawal of their liberal “sea of faith” and the shocking death of their liberal God.

Having heard what he said — and found it generally plausible — it seemed to me that, perhaps, the meaning of the table here had been from the very start pulling in two different directions simultaneously. On the one hand, for some members of the church, it was the site of some sill hoped for divine presence (and so was an altar) and, for others, it was the site where the absence of God was viscerally felt and seen (and so was “just a table for flowers”).  

Now last week, with the arrival of John’s painting and the enquiring and reflective mood it put me into, I decided that it was finally time to look properly through the earliest minute books of the congregation which start from 1908 (four years after the congregation informally founded) on to 1928, the date of when church was officially opened. NB. the hall, by the way, was opened in 1923 and — liturgically speaking anyway — it was laid out and used in exactly the same way as the church).

Well, it turns out that the general trajectory outlined by the architectural historian can, indeed, be found playing out in this congregation and the minute books tell us just enough to fill out this trajectory with a little more detail which goes a long way in explain why, perhaps, the tension about the altar table I have just noted was felt even more greatly here than was perhaps usual in other churches and which spilled out so vehemently through that very elderly member of the congregation with whom I began.

It turns out that between between 1907 and 1919, the influential founding figures of this congregation who drove the project to build this hall and church in the 1920s were very taken by two ministers whom they wanted to preach and minister to the congregation which was then still meeting in the old Assembly Rooms in Downing Street. The first of these was the Revd J. M. Lloyd Thomas who was a hugely controversial figure within Unitarian circles at the time because he was supportive of the Revd R. J. Campell’s “New Theology” movement and who had published, in 1907, a book supportive of this project called “A Free Catholic Church”. In such a church, he believed, would “ultimately be found an Ideal which, if courageously worked out, will transcend or reconcile the oppositions not merely of Anglicanism and Dissent, but of Romanism and Protestantism” (p. 3). In short, Thomas, like Campbell, desired the development of a church which could combine in some fashion Catholic liturgy and practice with the kind of liberal non-doctrinal approach to belief and theology favoured by liberal Protestants, including the Unitarians. However, they couldn’t get Thomas to take their services but he did attend a congregational meeting on March 7th 1909 to express his regret at this situation, saying that, alas, his Nottingham congregation “could not spare him.” The minute book also tells us that “He went on to speak of Mr Campbell’s Religious Movement and urged that it should be supported by Unitarians.”

Having failed to persuade Thomas to come they then succeeded in securing the services of a certain Revd Edward William Lummis from Leicester, Great Meeting, to preach for them for two terms in 1909/1910 and he’s on the scene, off-and-on, until May 1914 after which he resigns and shortly afterwards returns to the Church of England.

What is important to see here is that the theology of Thomas and Lummis strongly indicates that the founders of this congregation were very predisposed to building a church with a high altar dedicated in some fashion to a liberal God who would “transcend or reconcile the oppositions not merely of Anglicanism and Dissent, but of Romanism and Protestantism.”

But then, in 1914, the First World War comes and the minute books clearly reveal that the congregation struggles greatly during this time. Indeed, it took away the congregation’s leading figure and inspiration, a certain Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick John Marrian Stratton DSO OBE TD DL FRS PRAS (1881–1960), Professor of Astrophysics (1909) here at the University of Cambridge from 1928 to 1947. It is his portrait which hangs centrally over our fireplace in the common room.

But, by July 1919 he’s back from the war and it is at this point that we first read of their plans to build a hall.

So, we now know about Stratton’s pre-war theological inclinations but to this knowledge we should add something about his war service. Commissioned as a major, he became Officer Commanding (Signals) of the 20th Divisional Signal Company, Royal Engineers, and took his company to France in the summer of 1915 to join the BEF. He was awarded a DSO in 1917 and promoted to acting lieutenant-colonel on 22 July, becoming Assistant Director Signals (later chief signals officer) of the 19th Corps BEF under Lt-Gen. Watts. He was mentioned in dispatches five times and was praised by his fellow officers for his efficiency and perpetual cheerfulness, managing to remain alert even after days without sleep. In other words he was one of the many who saw, first hand, something of the horrors of this war and in him — our congregation’s founder — I would suggest, we have the paradox of our altar table present to us in human form.

I don’t think it is too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that our altar table has continued to encode for us the trauma and paradox of twentieth-century liberal religion experienced by someone like Stratton that played out in, on the one hand, a strong desire to continue to believe in the possibility of a good and just God and to raise up for him an altar where one could go, like the Psalmist, with exceeding joy to give praise with the harp and, on the other, the need to raise up an empty, memorial table upon which to place flowers of remembrance to acknowledge the possibility of the death and absence of the very same God.

I have been fortunate to discover that my own species of Christian a/theism, drawing strongly as it does upon the insights of people like Bonhoeffer and Heidegger, some of whose relevant words you heard in our readings, allows me to approach this highly unusual altar without feeling the need collapsing it’s foundational paradox because here I personally come each day to “prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god”. Here I stand each day “in the presence of God who makes us live in the world without the God-hypothesis.”

In doing this I hope I am able to honour well and honestly our congregation’s traumatic beginnings and also, in so doing, leaving open a clearing in which an, as yet unimagined, god may yet still presence.

So that’s what I’m doing when I stand before this altar but it seems important to ask you now, what is it that you think you are doing when you sit or stand before it?

As a congregation it seems that, as a whole, we’ve never agreed on what it is we are doing — and I suspect we never will — but that, perhaps (and for good or ill), is one of our unique religious characteristics . . .

Some photos of a late winter walk across Magog Down to Stapleford and back via Wandlebury

22 February 2019 at 19:33
Some photos of a late winter walk across Magog Down, to Stapleford and back via Wandlebury
All photos taken with a Fuji X100F
Just click on a photo to enlarge

—o0o—

We cannot get [god] to come by thinking. At best we can prepare the readiness of expectation.
Martin Heidegger (Der Spiegel interview)

—o0o—





























Herbert Fingarette (1921-2018)-"Being 97": An ageing philosopher returns to the essential question: 'What is the point of it all?'

18 February 2019 at 13:21
Just today I learn that the American philosopher Herbert Fingarette died last November. Fingarette taught a friend of mine and it was through him that I discovered something of Fingarette's work, particularly that on Confucius. But I was also very taken with many of the insights found in his  “The Self in Transformation” (Basic Books, New York 1963), especially the words which for a long while now have appeared in the header of this blog: "These studies are outcomes rather than realised objectives. In making the journey, I have no aims. These studies are intellectual footprints, not blueprints." The Aeon webpage has just posted a very poignant and moving short film of Fingarette musing on the meaning of life and death just before hi...

Our house is on fire. I am here to say, our house is on fire-a somewhat Spinozean address in support of the #schoolstrike4climate

17 February 2019 at 15:26
Greta Thunberg
READINGS: Jesus Blesses Little Children (Mark 10:13-16)

People were bringing little children to [Jesus] in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.’ And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.

An edited version of a speech given by Greta Thunberg at Davos in January 2019 (text also printed at the end of this address. Do please take the time to read it as her words are very important to hear, more important, indeed, than this address. . .)

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Our house is on fire. I am here to say, our house is on fire.

To begin this address, which is essentially an expression of support for, and celebration of, the inspiring examples of environmental civil disobedience carried out this week by our schoolchildren, I think it is important for us here to locate the matter of environmental activism in the sphere of religion because, first and foremost, we are a religious community, albeit a rather unusual one.

Spinoza in the Exeter Meeting House
A key religious and philosophical figure within the Radical Enlightenment tradition to which this Unitarian Church belongs is the seventeenth century Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677). Indeed, in our beautiful eighteenth-century meeting house in Exeter — alas now a Wetherspoons — you will find a stained-glass window dedicated to this gentle and thoughtful thinker who lies at the heart of not only liberal religion in general but also at the heart of the Deep Ecology movement. As the historian Frederick C. Beiser says:

Spinoza’s famous phrase “deus sive natura” made it possible to both divinize nature and naturalize the divine. Following that dictum, a scientist, who professed the most radical naturalism, could still be religious; and a pastor, who confessed the deepest personal faith in God, could still be a naturalist (Frederick C. Beiser, “After Hegel: German Philosophy, 1840-1900", Princeton University Press, pp. 4-7).

In one way or another this project is still underway in this community and, as most of you will know, the English of the phrase “deus sive nature” — “God or Nature” — has been used at the beginning of our Sunday morning service since 2008:

Let us begin by resting together quietly for a few moments in the presence of God or Nature.

However, the phrase “God or Nature” can, for a casual visitor, make it sound like we can’t quite make up our mind whether it’s God or Nature we are coming consciously into the presence of; it could be one but, perhaps, it’s the other: “Who knows — so let’s equivocate!” But those of you with a little Latin will be aware that “sive” is the “or” of equivalence and Spinoza was most certainly not being equivocal; he is saying that “God” is “Nature”, “Nature” is “God” and, because for him everything is a mode of God or Nature and interconnected, human beings should, therefore, treat all other modes of creation with an attitude of reverence.     

This means that the proclamation of Jesus’ — whom Spinoza admired above all other human teachers — that there is no greater commandment than that we should “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” and “our neighbour as yourself” (Mark 12:30-31) is also a proclamation to hear the command as we must love Nature with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength and your neighbout as yourself.

The love of God-or-Nature (in which we, ourselves and our neigbour are comingled) and of the need to protect “her” against the continuous, violent assault being made upon her is (or should be for us), quite simply, a religious matter from top to bottom.

But, as we are now coming to know ever more clearly, we have not succeeded in halting this assault. True, many individuals and groups have tried and are still are trying with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength to stop this violence but as a class of people called “adults” our results have been often been pitiable.

We seem to be mired in an abstract and detached world of endless, mere hope-mongering talk about the value of tweeking this or that bit legislation in order to do a little bit of tinkering here and there while outside our very doors the machinery of capitalism goes on relentlessly devouring the planet. This simply cannot go on that as the remarkable sixteen year old Swedish school strike and climate change activist Greta Thunberg said at Davos in January this year:

Adults keep saying: “We owe it to the young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.

Her words are, as Jonathan Freedland noted in the Guardian yesterday, “a terrible indictment of the rest of us. They are a mark of our failure” and this should remind us that our children’s action on Friday both here and around the world “is only necessary because we have failed to act. As one placard at the Belgian protests told politicians: ‘I’ll do my homework when you do yours.’”

We adults have clearly not been doing our homework about in what consists a true and meaningful hope for thefuture of our planet and this failure has revealed another painful truth, again expressed by Thunberg but this time at the UN climate change conference in Poland in December 2018 when she said to we adults: “You are not mature enough to tell it like it is – even that burden you leave to us children.”

Mindful of this failure and trying better to heed Jesus’ call to love God-or-Nature with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and my neighbour as myself, on Friday morning I felt religiously compelled to get up earlier than normal so as to be able at least to display some kind of visible solidarity with the striking children who were to begin their march into town at the Shire Hall. When I arrived at about nine-twenty there were, perhaps, only about twenty children there with a few of their parents. And then, slowly but surely, up Castle Hill came more and more children until by nine forty there were at least a couple of hundred children present ranging from primary school age to sixth-formers. Gathered around the entrance to the Shire Hall they began chanting “Hey ho, fossil fuels have got to go” and all around they were waving home-made banners reading “Rebel for Life”, “Take back control of our future”, “We have no planet B”, “Bankers bailed by govt, where’s the action for our climate crisis?”, “Change the leaders, not the climate”, “Change the politics not the climate”, “Trash the world, lose the world”, “Save our home”, “What future are we learning for?”, “What I stand by is what I stand on”. “The future is inside us it’s not somewhere else”, “Theresa, if you really don’t think you can afford it, perhaps get your mates to pay their taxes and use your husband’s arms money to help”, “So severe the kids are here”, “I want you to panic” and many, many more besides.

Never before have I so forcibly felt the truth of Jesus’ words that unless we adults change and become like children, we will never enter the kingdom of heaven. I had to ask why is it, at least on this matter urgent beyond all imagining, we adults find it so difficult to be as clear-eyed and passionate as Greta Thunberg and our own striking, marching and chanting children who have been inspired by her? As George Monbiot writes:

Every day at home, we [adults] tell you that if you [our children] make a mess you should clear it up. We tell you that you should take responsibility for your own lives. But we have failed to apply these principles to ourselves. We walk away from the mess we have made, in the hope that you might clear it up.

Given that it is adults, through our various governments, who have contributed so much to, and continued to walk away from, this mess, how dare a No.10 Downing Street spokesperson patronisingly say to the children “It is important to emphasise that disruption increases teachers’ workloads and wastes lesson time that teachers have carefully prepared for” and that this lesson time “is crucial for young people, precisely so that they can develop into the top scientists, engineers and advocates we need to help tackle this problem” when government has consistently failed to apply these principles itself. I was delighted when Greta Thunberg replied to this churlish and “childish” statement with some rather more adult, mature, balanced and wise words:

British PM says that the children on school strike are “wasting lesson time”. That may well be the case. But then again, political leaders have wasted 30 yrs of inaction. And that is slightly worse.

Anyway, I find myself compelled to agree wholeheartedly with the two hundred academics who signed a letter of support published last Wednesday saying that

. . . we offer our full support to the students – some of whom may well aspire to be the academics of the future – who bravely plan to strike on 15 February to demand that the UK government takes climate action. They have every right to be angry about the future that we shall bequeath to them, if proportionate and urgent action is not taken. We are inspired that our children, spurred on by the noble actions of Greta Thunberg and many other striking students all around the world, are making their voices heard.

I, too, support our children in their actions but not simply for reasons that may be called purely pragmatic and scientific but also for profound religious reasons because, to return to where I began this address, when viewed through the intuitive insights of someone like Spinoza we discover we can see our children as responding powerfully to the timeless call of Jesus of Nazareth, to love God-or-Nature with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” and “our neighbour as yourself.”

In so far as we want to have a chance to enter the kingdom of heaven that is a healthy and sustainable world for all we really do need to change and become like children because it is they who are showing us the way to go, namely, that we must act as we would in a crisis. We mst act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.

Wonderful and inspiring to see so many young students here in #Cambridge outside the Shire Hall turn out for the #schoolstrike4climate-Bravo!

15 February 2019 at 13:23
Wonderful and inspiring to see so many young students here in # Cambridge outside the Shire Hall turn out for the # schoolstrike4climate Bravo! # ClimateChange # ClimateStrike # climatemarch # FridaysForFuture # YouthForClimate Click on a photo to enlarge

A walk in the winter sun across the meadows to Grantchester

11 February 2019 at 17:46
A walk in the winter sun across the meadows to Grantchester
All taken with a Fuji X100F
Just click on a photo to enlarge













What to do when morality strikes like lightning?-Some Løgstrupian inspired thoughts on how we might deal with the moralizing that has followed the Brexit referendum and the election of Trump

10 February 2019 at 16:01
READINGS: Luke 10:25-37 (trans. by David Bentley Hart)

And look: A certain lawyer stood up to test [Jesus], saying, “Teacher, by what deeds may I inherit life in the Age?” And he said to him, “What has been written in the Law? How do you read it?” And in reply he said, “You shall love the Lord your God out of the whole of your heart and in the whole of your soul and in the whole of your strength and in the whole of your mind, and your neighbour as yourself.” And [Jesus] said to him, “You answer correctly; do this and you shall live.” But he, wishing to vindicate himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbour? Taking this up, Jesus said, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem, and he fell among bandits, who stripped him and rained blows upon him and went away leaving him half dead. And by a coincidence a certain priest was going down by that road and, seeing him, passed by on the opposite side. And a Levite also, coming upon the place and seeing him, passed by on the opposite side. But a certain Samaritan on a journey came upon him and was inwardly moved with compassion, and approaching bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine, and setting him upon his own mount he brought him to a lodge and cared for him. And taking out two denarii on the following day he gave them to the keeper of the lodge and said, ‘Take care of him, and whatever you spend beyond this I shall repay you on my return.’ Who of these three does it seem to you became a neighbour to the man falling among bandits?” And he said, “The one treating him with mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

—o0o—

From “The Ethical Demand” by Knud Eljer Løgstrup (University of Notre Dame Press, 1997, pp. 11-12)

In E. M. Forster’s novel Howards End we have the account of a rift between Leonard Bast and the Schlegel sisters. Their respective milieus were as different from one another as they could possibly be. Leonard was a penniless office clerk whose married life was very drab and whose entire existence would be bleak indeed were it not for his consuming interest in culture. However, he was not equal to this interest; his hunger for books and music was and remained artificial. The Schlegel sisters, on the other hand, had never known anything but economic security. They were fairly wealthy. Since they had grown up in an atmosphere of cultural appreciation and had become the centre of a large social group where these things were discussed, their life was rich in terms of experience and delightful variety.
    On an altogether casual occasion Leonard Bast came into contact with the Schlegel sisters. He received an invitation to an afternoon tea with them. It turned out to be a fiasco. Leonard was disappointed in his expectations for the afternoon. He had hoped to discuss books and to keep his visit with them in a romantic vein and at all costs to keep it from getting mixed up with his routine, uninteresting life at the office.
    The Schlegel sisters had an entirely different purpose in inviting him, however, a very practical purpose, namely, to get him out of the firm in which he was employed inasmuch as they had secret information that the firm was about to go bankrupt. And they had another, an indirect, purpose too: to help him in his interest in culture, because though his love of books was artificial they detected that underneath there lay a desire for authenticity.
    The ensuing conflict was inevitable. It could not be warded off. For the Schlegel sisters’ idea in issuing the invitation was entirely different from Leonard’s idea in accepting it. The two parties were blind to one another’s world. Leonard’s anticipation of an afternoon devoted to the cultural aspect of his life blinded him to the Schlegel sisters’ desire to help him. Disappointed and embittered, he was carried away with outrageous and stupid accusations that they had low motives in inviting him, namely, that they wanted to use him for spying upon his firm. As for the Schlegel sisters themselves, not until afterwards did they have any inkling of the two worlds in Leonard’s life and of how important it was for him to keep them isolated from each other.
    Leonard Bast and the Schlegel sisters disagreed about many things, but it was not an objective disagreement which caused the collision between them. Nor was the collision caused by one of them committing wrong and the other being wronged. Rather it was because Leonard was disappointed in his expectation that the Schlegel sisters would satisfy his cultural craving by engaging him in conversation about books. This they did not do. And morality struck like lightning.

—o0o—

For later reading/listening if you are interested in knowing a little bit more about Løgstrup:



—o0o—

ADDRESS
What to do when morality strikes like lightning?—Some Løgstrupian inspired thoughts on how we might deal with the moralizing that has followed the Brexit referendum and the election of Trump

Following a couple of points made during the conversation at the end of last week’s address I introduced to you to something explored by the Danish philosopher and theologian Knud Eljer Løgstrup relevant to our British and American cultures’ current highly fractious and polarised situation in which people have started condemning each other in truly unhelpful, judgmental moral terms. One common way this is revealed is when someone says, “Well, you voted for X, therefore you’re a morally bad and stupid person.”

The important point raised in our conversation last week was that right at this moment what we desperately need to see — and our wider cultures desperately need to see — is that just because a person voted in a different way to ourselves this simply does not make them a morally bad and stupid person.

Løgstrup begins his important and most influential book, “The Ethical Demand” by speaking directly to this point:

“We need to explain why conflicts which in themselves have nothing to do with morality or immorality, with right or wrong, but which are entirely due to a difference between our respective spirits and worlds — why these conflicts nevertheless turn into questions of sheer morality and self-righteousness and cause reproaches and accusations which are plainly unreasonable” (p. 9). 

Løgstrup feels that the answer is to be found in an understanding of trust which he thinks is “is a characteristic of human life” and “that we normally encounter one another with natural trust” (p.8). He goes on to note that:

“Human life could hardly exist if it were otherwise. We would simply not be able to live; our life would be impaired and wither away if we were in advance to distrust one another, if we were to suspect the other of thievery and falsehood from the very outset” (pp. 8-9). 

But what trust always does is lay us open, it makes us vulnerable and it is for this reason that Løgstrup feels we “react vehemently when our trust is ‘abused,’ as we say, even though it may have been in some inconsequential matter” (p.9).

Whenever we trust someone there is an expectation that something will be fulfilled. In manifesting that expectation Løgstrup realised we have already “surrendered oneself to the other person — even before it is certain that there will be any fulfilment” (p. 10). Of course, we all know that there are times when our expectations of another are not fulfilled and that this is disappointing to us. But Løgstrup points to a deeper disappointment. He writes:

“[W]hat is worse is the fact that in the manifestation one has laid oneself open. One’s expectation, exposed through its manifestation, has not been covered by the other person’s fulfillment of it. And it is this exposure which causes the encounter to erupt in moral reproaches and accusations” (p. 10).

This is a vital point to grasp so I’ll repeat it in a slightly different way: the difficulty is found not so much in the other person’s apparent failure to fulfil our expectation but in our discomfiture concerning our exposure, in our having laid ourselves open and it is this which causes the encounter to erupt in moral reproaches and accusations.

Here’s Løgstrup again:

“When one has dared to come forward in the hope of being accepted, and then is not accepted, this gives the conflict such an emotional character that even though no one has done anything wrong, one must turn it into the kind of conflict that results from the other person’s having committed a wrong. One finds it necessary to invent a suffered wrong by which to motivate his strong and deep emotional reaction” (p. 10). 

Now the failure of expectation — either ours of the other person, or the other person’s of ours — the failure of expectation is often nothing to do with “morality or immorality, with right or wrong” but rather to do with “a difference between our respective spirits and worlds.”

Løgstrup chooses the incident from Forster’s “Howards End” we heard in our readings because it illustrates this perfectly. There were no major questions of morality or immorality, right or wrong in the encounter between Leonard Bast and the Schlegel sisters but there was, however, a major difference between their respective spirits and worlds and so a major difference between their respective expectations once they had chosen to trust each other in their different ways. Those respective expectations were not, as we know, fulfilled and so the emotional shock of having laid themselves open was felt and, even though no one had done anything morally wrong, the situation became one where it was necessary to invent a suffered moral wrong by which to motivate their strong and deep emotional reactions.

Now, in our current polarised situations do we not see something very similar going on? Aren’t we all at times behaving somewhat like Leonard Bast and the Schlegel sisters? We each have our different respective spirits and worlds and so a difference naturally also exists between our respective expectations when we all laid ourselves open in trust in various recent political processes. Our respective expectations were not, as we know, fulfilled and so the emotional shock of having laid ourselves open has been deeply felt and, even though most voters had done anything morally wrong, it became necessary for us to invent suffered moral wrongs by which to motivate our strong and deep emotional reactions. And now, as we all know, it’s all got very nasty indeed.

Now Løgstrup sees the answer to this kind of dynamic in a recovery of trust based on Jesus’ proclamation to love one another. Jesus encourages us never to love an inherited, second-hand picture of another person, but always to love (and therefore trust in some way) the actual person as they are before you in actual situations. Jesus’ example of this dynamic at work is, as you know, the Good Samaritan. It’s important to be fully aware that the first hearers of Jesus’ parable were NOT Samaritans so Jesus is putting his hearers in the ditch as the injured person who, to their surpise, were going to be helped and tended to by a person whom they tended to picture as being morally, religiously and morally wrong-headed (and perhaps also stupid in some fashion). But, face to face, person to person, they find something very different — the true neighbour.

A more modern version of this dynamic is found in Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables” in the example of Charles Myriel, the Bishop of Digne. (I here quote at length and gratefully from Robert Stern’s paper ‘Trust is Basic’: Løgstrup on the Priority of Trust pp. 25-26). You will recall that the Bishop shows not only compassion and pity towards the ex-convict Jean Valjean . . .

. . . but also trust in allowing him into his home at all, and particularly letting him sleep with access to the silverware owned by the household. It is clear that while the Bishop’s sister Mademoiselle Baptistine is prepared to go along with him out of respect for his judgement and goodness, the Bishop’s housekeeper Madame Magloire thinks that he has gone too far this time, and is profoundly shocked by his actions in trusting Valjean. What seems to be emphasized by Hugo’s narrative, at least from a Løgstrupian perspective, is that while everyone else sees Valjean as what he has done and thus become — a criminal, a vagrant, an outcast — the Bishop (and thus to a lesser extent his sister) see him as an individual human being standing before the Bishop as such. Even Valjean seems shocked by the openness the Bishop shows to him, and seeks to remind him of how he should be categorized:

‘Mme Magloire,’ said the bishop, ‘will you please lay another place?’

The man [Valjean] moved nearer to the light of the table-lamp, seeming not to understand.

‘It’s not like that,’ he said. ‘Weren’t you listening? I’m a convict, a felon, I’ve served in the galleys.’ He pulled a sheet of yellow paper out of his pocket and unfolded it. ‘This is my ticket-of-leave – yellow, as you see. This is why everybody turns me away. Do you want to read it? I can read. There were classes in prison for anyone who wanted to learn. You can see what it says – “Jean Valjean, released convict, born in –” not that that matters “– served nineteen years, five years for robbery with violence, fourteen years for four attempts to escape – a very dangerous man.” So there you are. (Hugo 1983, 85)

The Bishop, however, ignores all this and insists he is not interested, where in a letter from his sister that is then quoted in the text, she ponders on his behaviour, emphasizing in particular that ‘my brother did not so much as ask the man where he was born. He did not ask his story. For the story would have included some account of his crimes and my brother clearly wished to avoid all reference to these’. She gives the following explanation of why the Bishop behaved in this manner: ‘He must have reflected that the man, this Jean Valjean, was sufficiently oppressed already with the burden of his wretchedness, and that it was better to distract his thoughts and make him feel, if only for a little while, that he was a man like any other’ (Hugo 1983, 90). Again, from Løgstrup’s perspective, we might understand Hugo’s point to be that to trust Valjean just is to see him as no longer defined by his past, whereas conversely to see Valjean through the eye’s of the Bishop’s distrustful housekeeper is not really to see the person as such, but all the things he stands for – a convict, a felon, a criminal with a yellow ticket-of-leave. Like Løgstrup’s child, we might also think this gives the Bishop a ‘joy in living, a courage to be’ which the housekeeper, for all that we understand her sensible caution and reasonable doubts, can never possess, partly because she cannot see life as capable of the kind of renewal and reform in the same way as the Bishop can, while also being deprived of the kind of direct interaction with others that his attitude of trust also makes possible.

Løgstrup is of course not claiming that such distrust is never warranted, or denying that it could in some sense become ingrained in a person for good reason; but nonetheless trust is prior to distrust as this could not but cut us off from a better way of relating to others and to life itself.

It seems to me that only way we are going to get out of our current impasse in a decent fashion is for all of us to see that despite all that has happened we can still trust each other to be for each other Good Samaritans, Bishops Myriels or, indeed as Jesus of Nazareth even though what that good is is still perhaps unclear to us.  

True, we have all trusted in various recent political processes, we all opened ourselves up in trust, we all had our expectations, we have all in our very different ways been sorely unfulfilled and disappointed by what has happened and so we have all experienced morality striking like lightning.

But we have to let that painful electrical strike discharge by seeing — with utter clarity and despite our respective hurts and unfulfilled expectations — that none of what has transpired over the past nearly three years means we should believe the heinous lie that because “You voted for X, therefore you’re a morally bad and stupid person.”

We simply must learn again the necessity of meeting and intuitively trusting the other person as Jesus encouraged us to in the story of the Good Samaritan meeting the Jew, as Victor Hugo encouraged us to in the story of Bishop Myriel meeting Jean Valjean and as Løgstrup encourages us to do in his ethics.

Nothing less will do.

Portraits of winter trees-a walk through Grantchester Meadows along the River Cam

5 February 2019 at 20:26
Portraits of winter trees—a walk through Grantchester Meadows along the River Cam
All taken with a Fuji X100F
Just click on a photo to enlarge

 Winter Trees

All the complicated details
of the attiring and
the disattiring are completed!
A liquid moon
moves gently among
the long branches.
Thus having prepared their buds
against a sure winter
the wise trees
stand sleeping in the cold.






















"Voices From Things Growing in a Churchyard" by Thomas Hardy

4 February 2019 at 17:22
Graves & trees in Mill Road Cemetery (click on photo to enlarge)
One of my favourite poems is called “Voices From Things Growing in a Churchyard” by Thomas Hardy. It speaks powerfully and fairly straighforwardly to my strong religious naturalist inclinations. But, because Hardy wrote it at a time when he had let go Christianity as a formal religion to be followed but yet remained committed to a kind of practical, Christian ethics, it is a poem which also speaks to my own rejection of Christian metaphysics whilst still finding myself compelled to commit to trying to follow the ethical example of Jesus as a human being rather than as divine being, even very God of very God. 

I first came across the poem many years ago thanks to my love of the music of Gerald Finzi who set the poem, to my mind, quite beautifully. You can hear a version of that at this link.

Anyway, Susanna and I had to run a few errands down Mill Road this afternoon and we walked back home via the wonderful Mill Road Cemetery. This is a place which, perhaps not surprisingly, always brings back to my mind Hardy’s poem. I didn’t take many photos today for the the light was far from great but the photo at the head of this post did present itself to me and triggered the writing of this post. I hope you enjoy the photo but, far more than that, I hope you enjoy Hardy’s poem and Finzi’s setting of it.

Voices From Things Growing in a Churchyard
by Thomas Hardy

These flowers are I, poor Fanny Hurd,
Sir or Madam,
A little girl here sepultured.
Once I flit-fluttered like a bird
Above the grass, as now I wave
In daisy shapes above my grave,
All day cheerily,
All night eerily!

I am one Bachelor Bowring, “Gent,”
Sir or Madam;
In shingled oak my bones were pent;
Hence more than a hundred years I spent
In my feat of change from a coffin-thrall
To a dancer in green as leaves on a wall.
All day cheerily,
All night eerily!

I, these berries of juice and gloss,
Sir or Madam,
Am clean forgotten as Thomas Voss;
Thin-urned, I have burrowed away from the moss
That covers my sod, and have entered this yew,
And turned to clusters ruddy of view,
All day cheerily,
All night eerily!

The Lady Gertrude, proud, high-bred,
Sir or Madam,
Am I — this laurel that shades your head;
Into its veins I have stilly sped,
And made them of me; and my leaves now shine,
As did my satins superfine,
All day cheerily,
All night eerily!

I, who as innocent withwind climb,
Sir or Madam.
Am one Eve Greensleeves, in olden time
Kissed by men from many a clime,
Beneath sun, stars, in blaze, in breeze,
As now by glowworms and by bees,
All day cheerily,
All night eerily!

I’m old Squire Audeley Grey, who grew,
Sir or Madam,
Aweary of life, and in scorn withdrew;
Till anon I clambered up anew
As ivy-green, when my ache was stayed,
And in that attire I have longtime gayed
All day cheerily,
All night eerily!

And so they breathe, these masks, to each
Sir or Madam
Who lingers there, and their lively speech
Affords an interpreter much to teach,
As their murmurous accents seem to come
Thence hitheraround in a radiant hum,
All day cheerily,
All night eerily!

Learning to live confidently, creatively & hopefully at the dialectic's point of change

3 February 2019 at 14:51
READINGS:

Some sayings of Heraklietos of Ephesos

Whosoever wishes to know about the world must learn about it in its particular details. Knowledge is not intelligence. In searching for the truth be ready for the unexpected, change alone is unchanging. The same road goes both up and down. The beginning of a circle is also its end. Not I, but the world says it: all is one. And yet everything comes in season.


[Jesus said] A new commandment I give you: that you love one another. By this everyone will know that you are disciples of me, if you have love for one another.

From “Full moon at Tierz: before the storming of Huesca” (1936) 
by John Cornford (1915-1936)

                                 I
The past, a glacier, gripped the mountain wall,
And time was inches, dark was all.
But here it scales the end of the range,
The dialectic's point of change,
Crashes in light and minutes to its fall.

Time present is a cataract whose force
Breaks down the banks even at its source
And history forming in our hands
Not plasticine but roaring sands,
Yet we must swing it to its final course.

The intersecting lines that cross both ways,
Time future, has no image in space,
Crooked as the road that we must tread,
Straight as our bullets fly ahead.
We are the future. The last fight let us face.

by Robert Walsh (1937-2016)

Did you ever think there might be a fault line
passing underneath your living room:
A place in which your life is lived in meeting
and in separating, wondering
and telling, unaware that just beneath
you is the unseen seam of great plates
that strain through time? And that your life,
already spilling over the brim, could be invaded,
sent off in a new direction, turned
aside by forces you were warned about
but not prepared for? Shelves could be spilled out,
the level floor set at an angle in
some seconds’ shaking. You would have to take
your losses, do whatever must be done next.

When the great plates slip
and the earth shivers and the flaw is seen
to lie in what you trusted most, look not
to more solidity, to weighty slabs
of concrete poured or strength of cantilevered
beam to save the fractured order. Trust
more the tensile strands of love that bend
and stretch to hold you in the web of life
that’s often torn but always healing. There’s
your strength. The shifting plates, the restive earth,
your room, your precious life, they all proceed
from love, the ground on which we walk together.

“Dunes” (1961-1965) 
by A. R. Ammons (1926-2001)

Taking root in windy sand
    is not an easy
way
to go about
    finding a place to stay.

A ditchbank or wood’s-edge
    has firmer ground.

In a loose world though
    something can be started—
a root touch water,
    a tip break sand—

Mounds from that can rise
    on held mounds,
a gesture of building, keeping,
    a trapping
into shape.

Firm ground is not available ground.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Learning to live confidently, creatively & hopefully at the dialectic’s point of change

A couple of weeks ago I was listening to a BBC radio programme called “America’s Friends” introduced by Jim Naughtie on the subject of how, in the age of Trump, the USA now views its old European allies. Almost none of the people we heard interviewed expected the transatlantic relationship to go back to where it was before Trump and the overwhelming feeling was that we’re in a new and highly discombobulating place. Here’s how the American diplomat and businessmen John Christian Kornblum (b. 1943), who served as the US Ambassador to Germany from 1997 to 2001 and who now lives in Berlin and works for the German government, summed up the situation as he sees it:

“We’re at the beginning of a new chapter which is going to be dominated by two things. First, the growing of consciousness of peoples about who they are; and by the passing of generations — new people coming in. And so this going to mean that for people like me who have been through, and felt very proud of the last forty years or so, it’s going to be very confusing because it looks like it’s coming apart. But the fact is that’s what happens and so the question is not so much to fight against it coming apart but to see if you can structure it in the best way possible. And I would say that we’re totally unprepared for this era and everyone from our leaders to our twelve year olds are not clear what’s going to happen. [. . .] What’s at stake here now is something bordering on panic. We’re presented with a bunch of challenges, one of them being just the fact that we’re so much richer than everyone else that [other people] want to come to our countries. That’s a very simple thing. Secondly, that the structures of government and what we consider to be the reasonable and positive ways that people govern and live with each other are starting to come apart, being replaced by emotional, sometimes irrational, and at a minimum very subjective points of view. That’s really what’s happening right now I think” (found at 6mins 18 secs - to 8 minutes 11 secs).

The feeling that Kornblum identifies is, of course, one that is being increasingly felt by many of us here today, not only in connection with our transatlantic relationship but with regard to the UK’s own relationship with Europe as well as our own internal relationships. It really does feel like it’s all coming apart and that this is being driven not by reason but by “emotional, sometimes irrational, and at a minimum very subjective points of view.”

But before we despair or panic let’s remember Kornblum’s point that “the fact is that this what happens” and that, in consequence, perhaps we should not so much be fighting against it as seeing if we can structure the falling apart in the best way possible?

Kornblum’s words came back into my mind this week following a chance re-reading of the first part of the Cambridge poet, John Cornford’s famous Spanish Civil War poem, “Full moon at Tierz: before the storming of Huesca”, written in 1936 just before his death in that same conflict.

One might say many things about this poem but, in the context of  the current times, what particularly struck me was his description of the existential experience of waiting for a coming moment of conflict and recognising that it would not move like plasticine, something slowly and gently shaped this way and that, morphing from one shape into another but, instead, the moment would move like the sudden, catastrophic crashing in light of ice at the end of a great glacier.

I don’t know about you but this mirrors my own feelings in this current period of hiatus as I pensively wait for a number of possible coming moments of sudden, perhaps, catastrophic change.

But, as Cornford makes clear, the past which led to what he felt would be a catastrophic moment — “the dialectic’s point of change” — was, in truth, itself the product of a slow, slow plasticine-like process measured in centuries and inches and which had moved in a kind of darkness where so much passes unobserved (and perhaps unobservable). 

The point to grasp here is that the endless fluxes and flows of the natural world — which include, of course, the fluxes and flows of our human world’s of art, religion, politics and so on — the endless fluxes and flows of the natural world have and will never stop moving; they remain at work as much in the slow shaping of plasticine as they do in the sudden crashing in light of the glacier; as much in our moments of apparent stillness and hiatus as in moments that feel like an uncontrollable “cataract” and as “roaring sands”. Yet, for all this ceaseless movement, Cornford in his moment of waiting before the coming action, felt that we can always play a small, modest part in swinging things to their final course because we are ourselves always-already part of the dialectical fluxes and flows of the natural world that underpin both plasticine- and glacier-like moments.

Now these thoughts were running around in my head when, again by chance, I came across a poem I did not previously know written by Robert Walsh (1937-2016) who was the minister emeritus of the First Parish (Unitarian) Church in Duxbury, MA called “Fault Line”.

His words seemed to be speaking to all those people — and, of course, to some extent and at times this has included me — who have forgotten that, although we in Europe and the US have been fortunate to have lived through an almost plasticine-like seventy-year period of history — a social-democratic one slowly morphing this way, now that — the ceaseless fluxes and flows of nature will always be bringing everything at some point to “the dialectic’s point of change”. Walsh’s poetic image for this moment is not the sudden crashing of ice at the end of a glacier seen by Cornford but the sudden movement of tectonic plates. Massive, slow moving geological plates that have been silently, imperceptibly, inching along against each other for centuries before suddenly giving way in an earthquake that can shake our once stable and familiar world down to its very foundations.

Walsh is surely right to ask how many of us have ever stopped to think that there might be a fault-line like this passing underneath our living rooms and, by extension, through every other apparently stable structure of our lives? How many of us have ever been properly cognizant that our once ordered lives “could be invaded, sent off in a new direction, turned aside by forces you were warned about but not prepared for?” That “shelves could be spilled out, the level floor set at an angle in some seconds’ shaking”? For the most part we never think thus. But then why would we, we who have been living in an age and culture singularly marked for over seventy-years of plasticine-like, incremental social-democratic movements?

But a careful study of nature’s endless fluxes and flows, of how they underpin equally both the slow movements of things and the sudden, catastrophic movements of things, should serve to remind us, to return to Kornblum’s basic point and question, that the fact is that the arrival of dialectic’s point of change always comes and so the question should never be how we are to fight against things suddenly coming apart when they do but to see if we can structure it in the best way possible and, like Cornford, play a small, modest part in swinging things to their final course.

Walsh agrees with this thought and his answer concerning this is rooted in another nested set of fluxes and flows operating in our natural world. 

He realised that our singular flaw has been in too easily trusting that which we have been seduced into trusting the most, namely “solidity”, which he poetically describes as “weighty slabs of concrete poured or strength of cantilevered beam.” This image must not be taken simply to refer to physical structures like buildings but also to our all too often rigid structures of religious, political, economic, financial and cultural thought. These rigid things can never save us, can never restore “the fractured order.” 

Walsh encourages us, instead to learn to trust in the endless fluxes and flows of love. For him these fluxes and flows are “tensile strands” that “bend and stretch to hold you in the web of life that’s often torn but always healing.” In the fluxes and flows of love — which are, of course, themselves also always-already products of, and nested in, the fluxes and flows of matter — there lies our strength. As Walsh says, everything for us as existential and material beings proceeds in some way from the fluxes and flows of love and matter.

Walsh sees that endlessly moving fluxes and flows of matter and love — that is to say of material and love, of mater and love, of mother and love — form the groundless ground on which we are always-already able to walk together in our attempts to build and shape new worlds following any catastrophic movement of either history or tectonic plates.

And here I find myself back at the poet A. R. Ammons’ poem “Dunes” which I have brought before you a number of times over the last couple of years:

Taking root in windy sand
    is not an easy
way
to go about
    finding a place to stay.

A ditchbank or wood's-edge
    has firmer ground.

In a loose world though
    something can be started—
a root touch water,
    a tip break sand—

Mounds from that can rise
    on held mounds,
a gesture of building, keeping,
    a trapping
into shape.

Firm ground is not available ground.

This thought may disturb some of us but, to repeat Kornblum’s words once again, “the fact is that this what happens” and there is no point in fighting against it but, instead, seeing if we can structure our inevitable moments of falling apart in the best way possible.

I think we can only succeed in this task and become able to live confidently, creatively & hopefully before, in, and after the dialectic’s point of change when we have fully understood and internalised at least three things: 

1) that firm ground is not, never has been, nor ever will be available ground; 

2) that in this loose world we are always-already wholly dependent upon the ceaseless fluxes and flows of nature that underlie both the crashing of glaciers, the quaking of the earth and our times of slow, incremental, plasticine-like change; and 

3) that our true strength as human beings will always lie in the tensile strands of love that are able to bend and stretch to hold us in the web of life that’s often torn but always healing. 

I realise, as did Ammons, that this not an easy way to go about finding a place to stay, but I genuinely think it’s the only way available to us in the loose world of nature’s endless fluxes and flows. 

So, in the coming months and years I’d encourage us not to forget to hold on to the genuinely hopeful thought that after every sudden, even catastrophic moment or point of the dialectic’s change a root will always touch water, a tip of grass will always break sand, mounds from this will rise on held mounds and we will, once again, be able to make a loving gesture of building, keeping, and a trapping into shape that makes, for a while at least, new worlds of beauty, joy, meaning and purpose, a world in which our true strength remains in the ancient “new commandment” given to us by Jesus some two millennia ago, that we should love one another (John 13:34). 

Awaiting the string quartet . . . and the night walk home through Cambridge

31 January 2019 at 12:25
Awaiting the quartet . . . Yesterday evening Susanna and I had the pleasure of going to West Road Concerting Hall hear the Endellion Quartet play a concert during their 40th Anniversary celebrations. On this occasion they played Haydn’s String Quartet in F minor Op.20 No.5 (‘Sun’) , Tchaikovsky’s String Quartet No.1 Op.11 , and Beethoven’s String Quartet Op.59 No.3 (‘Razumovsky’). Sublime, especially for me, the Beethoven. I thoroughly recommend their complete cycle of Beethoven quartets. It was a very chilly night as we walked home but, along the way, I was tempted enough to stop and take a few photos of some of Cambridge’s old back streets which I post here for your pleasure. All taken with a Fuji X100F Just click on a ...

What then must we do?

27 January 2019 at 15:23
Readings:

Luke 3:7-14 (trans. David Bentley Hart)

So [John the Baptist] said to the crowds going out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers, who divulged to you that you should flee from the wrath that is coming? Bear fruits, then, worthy of a change of heart; and do not think to say among yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as father’; for I tell you that God has the power to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; and thus every tree not bearing good fruit is felled and thrown into fire.” And the crowds questioned him, saying, “What then should we do?” And in reply he said to them, “Whoever has two tunics must share with him who has none, and whoever has food must do likewise.” And tax-collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what must we do?” And he said to them, “Collect nothing more than you are required to.” And men serving in the army also questioned him, saying, “And we too, what should we do?” And he told them, “Neither extort from, nor falsely accuse, anyone; and be contented with your wages.”

—o0o—

From Aylmer Maude’s (who was on the Fabian national executive from 1907–1912) summary of Chapter 38 of Tolstoy’s “What Then Must We Do?”

What must we do? Not lie to ourselves. Repent, and change our estimate of our own position and activity. Take every opportunity to serve others. No one possesses rights or privileges, but only endless duties and obligations. Man’s first duty — to share in the struggle with nature for the support of life. My consumption of other people’s labour destroys people’s lives.

—o0o—

In his editor’s introduction to his own translation (1899) of Tolstoy’s book, Aylmer Maude quoted the influential and magnificent American author, activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jane Addams (1860–1935):

A young person reading today Tolstoy's ‘What Then Must We Do?’ might find it difficult to conceive the profound impression which it made upon sensitive people when it first appeared. In the late [eighteen] ’eighties there was a widespread moral malaise in regard to existing social conditions, ranging from a mere unformulated sense of uneasiness to an acute consciousness of unredressed wrongs. The abuses connected with the beginnings of machine production had by the end of the nineteenth century been somewhat lessened in England and the United States, but the evil slum conditions in our rapidly growing cities, with all the inevitable results on health and morals, were pressing on men's minds. Social and moral questioning, stimulated by some of the greatest leaders of English thought, had driven deep furrows in the smooth surface of nineteenth century satisfaction with the belief that progress was inevitable. 

—o0o—

ADDRESS: 
What then must we do?

As a teenager in the early 1980s I began to explore the area around my home in the small Essex coastal village of Kirby-le-Soken by bicycle. On one memorable summer’s afternoon I cycled over to see the magnificent, medieval Augustinian Priory at St Osyth. Having done that and fortified myself with tea and cake from a comfortable tea-room opposite the gatehouse I decided to spin on to take a look at Jaywick about which I knew nothing except that it was a coastal village on my map which I had not yet visited and wanted to visit. It was a village, no doubt, which also contained nice tea-rooms and, perhaps, a genteel greensward upon which I could rest quietly in the sun. Nothing had prepared me for the shock of what I found as, utterly unkowingly, I cycled into a village that then, and to this day, is considered to be the most deprived area of England. Some of you may recall that only last year a picture of one of the most run down roads running through the village was used in an attack ad by the Trump-supporting Republican US congressional candidate Nick Stella during the 2018 United States elections. The advert bore the words “Only you can stop this from becoming reality.” Strange words are they not from a politician whose political ideology has successfully made real many places in the US just like Jaywick? Alas, what is true of the USA is now true here, too, as any careful and observant traveller around the UK can testify. The Jaywick phenomenon has spread far and wide especially along our coasts.

Anyway, I date the start of my own religious, political and social activism to that visit. How come I had not been told this place existed? — my parents, teachers and school friends certainly knew nothing about it. How was it possible that this kind of extreme poverty had been allowed to develop almost on my very doorstep but, astonishingly, completely out of sight? What social and political policies had made this dreadful thing possible? I was shocked to my core and, inevitably, it made me ask for the first time “What then must we do?” or, as it is sometimes translated, “What is to be done?”

I quickly discovered from some newly made socialist friends that a famous text to read on just this question was Lenin’s 1902 pamphlet with exactly this title. I duly got myself a copy and found that in it Lenin had argued the working class would never spontaneously become political merely by fighting various economic battles with employers over wages, working hours and so on and that, consequently, what needed to be done was to form a political party, or “vanguard”, prepared to spread socialist ideas among the people. I was never entirely persuaded by Lenin’s whole argument but what I did take from the book was a recognition that, alone, I would never be able significantly to tackle the nightmare I’d seen at Jaywick and, therefore, I had to find ways to work and organise with others in voluntary charitable associations, pressure groups, political parties and, of course, religious communities. From that day to this it has been clear to me that organised solidarity with those who have found themselves through no fault of their own marginalised and kept in poverty is essential in any search for a meaningful and lasting answer to the question “What then must we do?”

But I was not only a politically engaged teenager, I was a religiously engaged one who knew their Bible and this meant I was well aware that the most famous and influential answers to the question “What then must we do?” weren’t Lenin’s but John the Baptist’s, many of whose answers propelled Jesus into his own radical ministry of which we are modern-day heirs. I also knew, thanks, in part, to reading Christopher Hill’s work, especially, his classic 1972 work of religious history, “The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution” — which, marvellous to relate, was a set text for my “O” level history course — that these answers had been filtered through the writings and actions of English religious radicals such as Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers and thence into a broad stream of English religious and political thinking that is known today as Christian Socialism.

As I began to read histories of that broad movement, again and again, I came across someone whose religious writings became ever more important to me, Leo Tolstoy. I discovered that in 1886 Tolstoy had written a book which was not unknown to Lenin and which bore the same title “What then must we do?” or “What is to be done?” Tolstoy’s book had a huge influence around the world — but particularly in England — it inspired many people to commit to various versions of Tolstoy’s own form of pacifist, Christian anarchism.

My visit to Jaywick ensured that, as a young person reading Tolstoy a century later, there was in fact very little standing in the way of the book also making a profound impression upon me. Again, to quote Jane Addams from Maude’s preface to Tolstoy’s book, I had seen in my own neck of the woods a first glimpse of the same disturbing contrast Tolstoy had seen “. . . between the overworked and the underfed poor on the one hand, and the idle and wasteful rich on the other” and that this “was felt as raising unanswerable questions . . .. We told ourselves in vain that the situation was over-simplified and that [Tolstoy] had made it more logical than life warrants.”

And now, in 2019, I find that every time I step outside the door of the Manse or the church I’m finding strong echoes of my (politically/theologically) foundational visit to Jaywick resonating on every corner of this city as I see an ever-increasing number of people on our streets sleeping rough in the doorways of an ever-increasing number of empty shops whilst a new type of idle and wasteful rich promote policies — economic and social — that are overworking nearly all of us and causing many, many more people to find themselves socially and financially marginalised, cripplingly poor, underfed and reliant on food banks and charities such as Wintercomfort. Once again I find I am forced to ask “What then must we do?”

Now, I truly and whole-heartedly applaud the generous donation to which we have all contributed — in my time here it’s the largest amount we’ve ever collected for our Christmas collection — and, naturally, as our chosen charity for the year I also applaud the work of Wintercomfort. In a time when there is less and less support from government for the most vulnerable in our society every little helps — it is something to be done. However, we all know in our heart of hearts that giving donations to aid charities in their work (no matter how large the donation, no matter how fine the charitable work) forms, at best, part of what Erik Olin Wright calls an “ameliorative struggle”. This is all well and good, but we clearly need also need to begin actively to engage in another struggle which attempts to do more than merely make things a little better “in the meantime” by affecting a deep, structural change in the way we organise ourselves, religiously, politically, financially and socially.

For me this present need has been no better nor more succinctly articulated in recent weeks than by the Green Party leader Caroline Lucas who bravely spoke truth to power by unexpectedly beginning a speech to a conference attended by those wanting a second referendum by offering “a genuine thank you to the 17.4 million people who gave the Establishment such a well-deserved kicking in [the referendum of] 2016.” She continued:

Thanks to you [ — the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit that is] the crisis at the heart of our democracy — and the intolerable levels of inequality and insecurity experienced by so many — can no longer be ignored. The place that we’ve been brought to by the outcome of the referendum is difficult, dangerous and divisive. But we mustn’t let that obscure the truth, or distort our analysis. Many people took the question they were being asked to mean “Should the country go on being run in the way that it is?’ And they voted “NO!” with a collective howl of rage. That response was justified then — and it’s justified now. For some, it might have been mixed up with fear, even bigotry, and an impossible longing for the past. But there was — and is — a core message at the heart of the Brexit vote. That the status quo in this country is intolerable for huge numbers of people. That the social contract is broken and the power game is rigged. It is right and reasonable to be furious. The questions we must ask going forward have to start with that acknowledgement. And with a powerful commitment not even to try to go back to the way things were. There has to be something better. Better than both the inequality and the powerlessness we’ve been grappling with for decades and that still haven’t been resolved — A democratic failure as well as an economic one.

I think Lucas is right, and right way beyond the concerns of any party politics or simple remainer/leaver arguments, because things have to change across the board and about this none of us can any longer have any doubt. The question “What then must we do?” is now pressing upon us from every direction of society and we know our ameliorative struggles via charitable giving and our charities do not provide the needed, long-term, structural answer we are really seeking. The status quo ante will not do.

It will come as no surprise that I still maintain many of the answers we seek are to be found in better heeding and practicing the peaceful, but still revolutionary social gospel offered by people like John the Baptist, Jesus and Tolstoy which, if we are honest, is something we have never yet properly tried. As Tolstoy put it I think this means doing a number of basic things, we must not lie to ourselves; we must repent, and change our estimate of our own position and activity; we must take every opportunity to serve others because no one possesses rights or privileges, but only endless duties and obligations; we must remember that our first duty is to share in the struggle for the support and maintenance of our own and other people’s lives; we must come to see that our endless, thoughtless consumption of other people’s labour is destroying people’s lives. I think we need to see and do these things and many more besides and as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus — albeit an highly unconventional, atheistic one — I recommend them to you all my heart, mind and strength and will continue to bring them into any public or private conversation about what we must be doing.

But whether or not you agree with me about some or all of these specific answers be assured something will be done by someone so it’s up to us together to make sure that what is done is done with the intention of building a peaceable, Republic or Commonwealth of Heaven on Earth and not the deliberate creation of more and more places like Jaywick which only serve to deepen the divide “between the overworked and the underfed poor on the one hand, and the idle and wasteful rich on the other”.

On Holocaust Memorial Day it is vitally important also to remember the way ethnic and identity divides also always threaten to develop in horrific ways during times of deep national stress such as that we are experiencing at the moment.

As John the Baptist, Jesus, Tolstoy and Lenin asked in their times and places so, in mine, I ask again: “What then must we do?”

Encounter-a religious naturalist "road to Damascus" experience

20 January 2019 at 16:15
And as for ceremony, already the leaves have swirled over
Some of you may have heard that last week the poet Mary Oliver died, aged 83. As many of you will know, over the nineteen years of my ministry with you I have brought many of her poems before you for consideration because she is a contemporary poet whose work is of the greatest help to those of us trying to articulate a meaningful religious naturalism in an age and culture where belief in the metaphysical god (and gods) of old continues to leach slowly away.

I think her poetry operates as religious naturalist poetry because in her work as a whole — and often in single poems — she found ways to give us access to two vital, sacramental energies that used to be bound up indissolubly with belief in god and/or the gods. The first energy is that which can limit us in the face of hubris; the second is that which can transform us in the face of complacency and/or despair.

I’d like to try to illustrate this using her poem “Encounter” (which you can read in a moment) and to do this I feel it might be both helpful and appropriate to begin by telling you a personal story I haven’t told before about the moment when these two sacramental energies found in her poetry were first properly and powerfully earthed in and through my own religious life.

West front of Binham Priory church (Nov. 2018)
It is generally thought, and was thought by me for many years, that the ability to do theology — that is to say, to utter words (logos) about god (theos) — and to be a minister of religion, is necessarily connected to the ability to believe in god. The corollary of this, of course, is that if you stopped believing in god you couldn’t any longer meaningfully be either a theologian or continue to be a minister of religion. In the early 2000s, at the very start of my professional ministry, I had to start admitting to myself that simply I did not — could not in fact — any longer believe in anything like the god of monotheism. It will come as no surprise to admit that this was a somewhat discombobulating time for me and, symbolically, things came to a final head for me in November 2007 whilst Susanna and I were staying in Wells-next-the-Sea on the north Norfolk coast.

The old high altar is just beyond the pier behind the tree (Nov. 2018)
Bleak and solemn it was on the day I cycled over to Binham Priory to see the church and ruins of the Norman Benedictine priory founded in 1091. Those of you who know the site will recall that the original east-end of the church where the high-altar was once situated is now wholly exposed under the rounding dome of the sky and it was there I tried, one last time, to pray to god in the forlorn hope I might be able to recapture at least something of my earlier faith. My prayers failed and, as I stood there in the open ruins in a cold, cold winter wind, I certainly felt my inward religious heart to be at least as cold as were my extremities. Poignant doesn’t begin to describe it because standing there in those freezing cold ruins I could see clearly that my days as a theist were over and I was powerfully aware that an important ending had occurred.

It’s always a wise idea to sit down as soon as possible after an existentially important event like this. So found some shelter in the lee of one of the ruined walls of the priory and attempted to warm myself up a little with the help of a flask of tea and a whisky mac poured from my little hip flask.

When I felt sufficiently restored to face the chill wind once again I got back on my bicycle and headed home westwards where, at Westgate, I took the left hand fork which leads to Wighton across open fields along a long stretch of road bounded by hedges. I wasn’t cycling fast — the wind was too strong for that — and so I was easily able to see lying on the road ahead of me a small, still dark shape. I slowed down and stopped. It turned out to be a small brown mouse, obviously dead. He didn’t seem to have been run over so perhaps he’d simply died whist crossing the road or, what was more likely, had been accidentally dropped by a buzzard, a number of which were circling overhead. I quickly cycled on but had travelled only a few yards before I stopped and turned back. It simply didn’t seem right to leave him there out alone on that barren and cold road. So I picked him up and gently launched him into the leaf litter under the hedge and, as I did this, half remembered lines of Oliver’s poem suddenly flashed back into my consciousness and I can still remember — and feel, right now — an unexpected tingle of religious warmth and hope come back into my, by now, very cold being. Warmed by the thought that I done right by the small brown mouse I cycled on back to the cottage determined to walk up to the local hostelry later that evening, log on to their wifi — then a new luxury Wells — and read again the whole poem. Here it is:

Encounter
by Mary Oliver (1935-2019)

I lift the small brown mouse
Out of the path and hold him.
He has no more to say,
No lilt of feet to run on.
He’s cold, still soft, but idle.
As though he were a stone
I launch him from my hand;
His body falls away
Into the shadowed wood
Where the crackling leaves rain down,
Where the year is mostly over.
“Poor creature,” I might say,
But what’s the use of that.
The clock in him is broken.
And as for ceremony,
Already the leaves have swirled
Over, the wind has spoken.

(New and Selected Poems Vol. 1)

Now, remember, what I think I could, and still can, feel in this poem are the two religious energies I mentioned earlier that used to be tied up with belief in the gods: the first energy is that which limits us in the face of hubris and the second energy is that which can transform us in the face of complacency and despair.

As I sat with Susanna in front of the fire in the cosy Globe Inn, it struck me that the first sacramental energy — that which limits us in the face of hubris — is accessed through the poem in a number of ways. The first was through the simple example of the poet herself in the careful and attentive way she walks through the world observing the many things that presence before her — as Oliver says elsewhere “Attention is the beginning of devotion.” She does not charge across the world thinking she has some privileged status above it, but always moves carefully and attentively through or within the world. In doing this she exemplifies a profound lack of hubris and so presents me with a model of being that is powerful enough to make someone like me — and perhaps you, too — strongly desirous of following her example; I simply felt and still feel it would be good to be like that myself. There is no extrinsic reason for this feeling (i.e. no order from the gods/God on high), rather I’m simply brought face to face with a way of being in the world that speaks for me (as a late twentieth, early twenty-first century Westerner) with real authority. I saw and still see in Oliver something like what it seems the crowds saw in Jesus two millennia ago, namely, someone who “taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:29).

I think the first energy is also revealed by the way Oliver alerted me to the transitory quality of life, not only for the small brown mouse but also, in a gently implied way, for me. In speaking of a broken clock she offers an image which reminded me that it is a condition of the gift of life that we will all break in time and can never simply be rewound or fixed - not by human craftsmanship nor, in the absence of the gods/God of old, even by divine craftsmanship. The world is the way it is and this truth must simply be acknowledged, embraced and celebrated as best one can. This recognition of human frailty and limitation clearly challenges human hubris.

Now, years of traditional religious language use tied up with the imagined perfection of the gods/God often tempt us on first seeing a dead brown mouse (or any other dead being for that matter) to utter words like “poor creature”, implying that something has gone wrong — something which can only made right in heaven or the world beyond — but today I think for many of us an utterance feels increasingly futile and/or use-less — death and dying is not something going wrong, it’s nature simply doing what nature does.

However, although the words “poor creature” and the like no longer seem to attach to anything metaphysically meaningful, the impulse to utter them reminds me of the, perhaps, always existent need to offer some appropriate, immediate, prayerful response to death and here I can begin to turn to the second energy, that which can transform us in the face of complacency and despair.

Again it seems to me that the poet reveals this herself with great natural authority. Her immediate, prayerful response (in addition to beginning to formulate the poem i her mind) is, as we see, to act positively and purposefully as part of the world and not apart from the world by picking up the brown mouse, observing its present state (and so her and our own present state) with an attentive detachment and then launching the mouse into the forest, a prayerful response born not of disgust, despair or disrespect to what she sees but as a beautiful example of her empathetic co-working and co-mingling in the “same” natural fluxes and flows that are evoked in the image of the wind swirling the leaves over the dead mouse, a process which returns (indeed, all things) to the dark, mysterious maternal material of the world which will, in some way and at some later time, be recycled again in the fungus, a tree, a worm, a bird, a deer or in another poet who will see another dead mouse and respond to it in their own way with attentive, prayerful empathy. In short I found Oliver inviting me to see how we are always able to play a positive, purposeful, meaningful and prayerful part in the fluxes and flows of nature out of which we are ourselves made and it is in being able to see this that we can be transformed in the face of complacency and/or despair.

On that cold winter’s day twelve years ago, and every day since — but especially at times like this when we in this community are reflecting on the death of two members, Luisa and Shirley — I continue to find great religious solace in Oliver’s prayerful response to the death of the brown mouse in which she gave, and endlessly gives me, access to the two powerful religious that used to require belief in god.

Twelve years ago, at the altar of Binham Priory, I finally acknowledged I had lost my old metaphysical theistic religion. Yet, astonishingly, only half an hour later and a couple of miles away on an open road, doing the right, prayerful thing by a dead small, brown mouse, aiding the fluxes and flows of nature by casting him into gently the leaves, I took my first, baby steps, as a genuine religious naturalist. It was not so much a grand road to Damascus experience but something much more modest and gentle on the road to Wighton.

Once-upon-a-time I might have said of all this that “God moves in a mysterious way / His wonders to perform” but today, I feel more minded to say instead “Nature moves in a mysterious way / Its wonders to perform.” But as Spinoza suggests in his project to divinize nature and naturalize the divine, perhaps deus sive natura, god is nature and nature is god . . . but unfolding that thought is for another occasion.

Anyway, from the bottom of my still warmed religious naturalist heart, thank you Mary Oliver for giving me access to those two, vital sacramental religious energies at a vital moment in my life when they could so easily have been lost.

Dear sister, may you rest in peace.

Just wear, tear and the drying out of wood?-On the (non)miraculous appearance of a cross in the Cambridge Unitarian Church

13 January 2019 at 15:29
READING: From An Enquiry into Human Understanding by David Hume (from Section X)

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can be possibly imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them.


[. . .]

There must . . . be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.

—o0o—

ADDRESS

Just wear, tear and the drying out of wood?—On the (non)miraculous appearance of a cross in the Cambridge Unitarian Church

Over the last few years it has been a pleasure to welcome many new people into the church — either as visitors or, of course, as new attenders and members — and, during that time, at least a dozen of them have asked me — in a rather puzzled way — about the shadow of the “cross” that you can see up here behind me in the apse. Most of them have assumed that, once-upon-a-time, there was an actual cross here which, although an attempt has been made to have it removed, has left an indelible mark on the wainscotting. “So what’s the story?” they have asked me and I have told them.

But, it’s been five years since I told it last to the congregation as a whole and, since it contains a significant number of new people people, it’s about time to retell it and put the record straight once again. But, as you will discover, putting the record straight still doesn’t easily put the matter to bed.  

Nineteen years ago this church to work through a significant disagreement over whether it should, or should not, continue explicitly to maintain its deep historical connections with the liberal Christian and Radical Enlightenment tradition or should abandon it entirely in favour of some fully secular, humanist stance. In the midst of our disagreements something utterly unexpected happened, the cross behind me began to appear. I assure you that this is absolutely true. A couple of people, standing overly-enthusiastically on the Christian side of things, and to the surprise of everyone else involved, took this to be a real miracle, an actual and clear sign that “God” wanted this church to stay Christian.

Despite being among those who wanted to maintain our connections with the liberal Christian tradition (a position I still hold to this day) my religious naturalism — which is, as you know, is actually a species of Christian a/theism — meant that such a supernaturalistic reading of this unexpected phenomenon struck me as both completely incredible and utterly unhelpful to the conversation.

Not surprisingly I began to take every opportunity to point out that the cross-bar was caused by our minister emeritus’ (Frank Walker) head where, for twenty-four years, he used to rest it during the musical offering. The vertical-bar, on the other hand, was formed by a wholly coincidental lightening of the wood grain which runs in that direction. I put this latter phenomenon down to the extra use of heating in the church due to the starting of an evening service. All in all, I said, the cross was clearly not a cross at all but just wear, tear and the drying out of wood. I stressed, again and again, the word “just” — just wear, tear and the drying out of wood.

Now those who know me well know that the word “just” is a bugbear of mine. It’s a word that can be used and misused in so many ways, not least of all because it can be used to mean so many different things. For example, it can mean very recently (I just finished reading Nietzsche); exactly (that’s just what Heidegger meant); by a narrow margin (Matthew just missed Luke with the cricket ball); only (Jesus was just a figure in the crowd until he met John the Baptist); quite or very (that statue of Venus is just beautiful); directly (Christ’s Pieces is just west of the church); and perhaps or possibly (the minister’s crazy theology just might make sense).

Now, when I said the cross was just wear, tear and drying out of the wood I was attempting to use the word “just” to mean either “exactly” or “only”. The underlying point I was trying desperately to make was that it wasn’t a cross — it was “exactly”, or “only” wear, tear and drying out of the wood.

But, despite my protestations, as you can all see, the resultant wear, tear and drying out still looks damnably like a cross and, over the years, as the vertical bar has got lighter and lighter, it’s only come to look ever more and more like one and to elicit from visitors and new members a steady stream of questions about it.

Over the years since the putative “miracle of the cross” I have become ever more alert to the fact that neither in the original highly charged context of our own community’s disagreement nor in the more generalised, background European Christian cultural context we live, work and have our being, a short vertical line intersected by a short horizontal line appearing in a church can never be seen as just wear, tear and the drying out of the wood except in the most abstract and technical sense. It will always show up at first sight as a cross. Trying to claim otherwise would be somewhat akin to trying to claim that the “Mona Lisa” is just a bit of oil paint on a poplar panel or deciding to rail at the setting or the rising of the sun.

At this point in my tale we can turn to some words of my colleague and friend, the current German Lutheran Pastor here in Cambridge, Oliver Fischer, which were given here five years ago on Good Friday during an ecumenical service for the city’s various churches. At one point in his sermon he asked the ecumenical congregation to:

“. . . step under the cross and find our own place there. We have to use our imagination to do this, especially since in this church we have no cross in front of us. Although: there is a nearly miraculous story of a cross appearing on the wall of the apse — can you spot it? What an allegory of the cross this is, that is always there. If you choose it or not, we encounter the cross on our way through life and have to bear it ourselves.”

Although there was much in his sermon involving certain Christian metaphysical beliefs that I, personally, could not — indeed still cannot — agree with, I was powerfully and positively struck by the way he used the story of the cross appearing in this church.

His words reminded me that the cross means something in our culture over and above the simply physical and, since it’s cultural, symbolic meaning — for good and ill — is not going to go away any time soon, for the foreseeable future we continue to walk beneath the cross. For some two-thousand years it has indelibly marked our culture and — again for good and ill — the world’s other, non-Christian, cultures. Whenever we see its shape resonances and echoes — both conscious and unconscious — are inevitably set-off in us. In the same fashion we cannot strike a bell without it ringing, we cannot see a cross without it setting off certain resonances in us. To pretend otherwise is delusional.

With this thought in mind I can bring this lesson into the present day context for here in the UK we have clearly entered into a complex culture war where rational thought and argumentation has begun to lose its suasion and is being challenged and, at times, its use is being even replaced by the use of highly emotive — and motivating — symbols of identity such as the Union Flag, the George Cross, the Saltire, the Red Dragon, the Circle of Twelve Golden Stars on a Blue Field etc.. The kinds of symbol that, when you see/hear them, makes you immediately think — or rather feel — X or Y; they are the kinds of symbol that, once they have triggered something in you, you prone to forget the ever-present need forensically and rationally to examine your thoughts and feelings about them. In the context of this address it is to see a cross and not to have the wherewithal to go on to see that perhaps it’s been created, not by God, but by natural causes, through wear, tear and the drying of wood.    

Now these words may initially sound to you as being only intended as a criticism of those whose are allowing themselves (consciously or unconsciously) uncritically to respond to the emotive symbols I have mentioned and many more besides. Well, it is just such a criticism, but it is much more than that too for my criticism is, today, directed at us, we who try our best — or believe we are trying our best — to employ reason and forensic examination in both religion and politics.

The truth is that we who value reason and forensic examination need to see, using these same tools, that emotive symbols — of which the cross is my primary example today — are always remain potentially extremely powerful and that they can never be reduced JUST this or that rational, reductionistic description. Not to see this fact — distasteful to reason though it often is — would be  itself unreasonable and to have failed in our reasonable and forensic work.

To conclude. With the exception of the two people I mentioned earlier, no actual member of this church who has heard the story of the appearance of the cross has ever believed that a miracle occurred, that a supernatural being called God put this cross here. No! Everyone has believed it to be the product of wholly natural causes. We remain, I’m pleased to say, very much children of David Hume.

Perhaps we should consciously allow this cross to stand for us as a salutary reminder that, though we live in a world so much of which can be best understood by the use of reason and through forensic examination, we continue to live in a human, non-rational, cultural, religious and political world where symbols such as the cross (and the flags I have previously mentioned) can be used to trigger us into acting with great kindness, love and justice or acting with great violence, hate, and injustice.

This cross behind me is most assuredly caused by wear, tear and the drying of wood and not by God but, as humans, it can never be reduced to being JUST these things. As my friend and colleague Oliver Fisher wisely put it, whether we “choose it or not, we encounter the cross on our way through life and have to bear it ourselves.”

As to what “bearing the cross” might mean for us today is another matter of course but, whether we like it or not, bear it we must.

Must the answer be kingship, priesthood and death?-Seeking a wholly naturalized celebration of Epiphany

6 January 2019 at 16:17
“The Lovers” or “The Dustman” (1934) by Stanley Spencer (1891–1959)
READING:

The Epiphany Story told in the Gospel of Matthew (2:1-12) Translation by David Bentley Hart

Now, Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days when Herod was king, look: Magians arrived in Jerusalem from Eastern parts, saying, “Where is the newborn King of the Judaeans? For we saw his star at its rising, and came to make obeisance to him.”

And, hearing this, King Herod was perturbed, and so was all of Jerusalem along with him; And, having assembled all of the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Anointed is to be born. And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judaea, for so it has been written by the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah. For from you will come forth a leader who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

Then Herod, secretly summoning the Magians, ascertained from them the exact time of the star’s appearance and, sending them to Bethlehem, said, “Go and inquire very precisely after the child; and when you find him send word to me, so that I too may come and make my obeisance to him.” And, obeying the king, they departed. And look: The star, which they saw at its rising, preceded them until it came to the place where the child was and stood still above it. And, seeing the star, they were exultantly joyful. And, entering the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary and, falling down, made obeisance to him; and, opening their treasure caskets, they proffered him gifts: gold and frankincense and myrrh. Having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, however, they departed for their own country by another path. 

Magians — men of the Zoroastrian priestly caste of the Persians and Medes, largely associated in the Hellenistic mind with oneiromancy (the interpretation of dreams) astrology and sorcery. It is a word that never merely means “wise” or “learned” men. 

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Must the answer be kingship, priesthood and death?—Seeking a wholly naturalized celebration of Epiphany

In 1934 Stanley Spencer (1891–1959) painted “The Lovers” or “The Dustman.” It was the first of what have been called his “sex paintings”, so-called, not because they portray the sexual act in any explicit way, but because in them Spencer “felt free to openly use more private sexual feelings to reach into the imaginative and the visionary”. This desire for a more imaginative and visionary approach to his painting was allied to his decision to leave London and return to live in his birth-place, the Berkshire village of Cookham as an attempt to reconnect with some of his childhood experiences — epiphanies which he called his “Cookham-feelings”.

[NB In this piece I occasionaly rely, with gratidude, upon information and quotes found in this essay by Kenneth Pople (1919-2008)]

Now, although Spencer's strange, mysterious picture is, in part, exploring the idea of the resurrection — the dustman being the resurrected person returning to the joy of his wife — the fact that his friends and colleagues have come to him and his wife to “see this thing which has come to pass” and that, in so doing, have brought with them three gifts — a teapot, an empty jam tin and an old cabbage (all apparently taken out of the collected rubbish) — the painting also clearly offers us a theme worthy of the season of Epiphany.

This English word “epiphany” derives from the Greek word (epiphainein) meaning “to manifest”, or “to display.” The mainstream Christian tradition holds that what was made manifest was Jesus’ status as the incarnation of God and this display, it is claimed, was first seen by the Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) in the form of the Astrologer priests — the Magi, the three kings or wise men — who brought with them gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. These gifts have generally been understood by the tradition to symbolise Jesus’ kingship, his priestly role, and his atoning death — a blood sacrifice — which together, Christianity claims, has saved humankind from its sins.

Now, for good scientific, literary and historical critical reasons which I do not need to rehearse today, we know that the roles of Jesus as a king and priest and the story about Jesus’ atoning death are purely mythical, literary constructs, symbolic back-projections made by certain early Christian communities some seventy to one hundred odd years after Jesus had died and been buried in some, now unknown, Palestinian tomb where, to this day, his bones remain.

Jesus never was a king, nor a priest, and his death was most certainly not a divine, atoning blood sacrifice for the sins of humankind. What has been made manifest to us today — our contemporary epiphany of Jesus if you like — is that he was, and is, for us no more nor any less than an exemplary radical, human religious and political figure who was one of the first people able to begin to leave behind the notion of a “God-in-himself” (the kind of supernaturalist God who requires kings, priests and atoning blood sacrifices) and put in its place the experience of a “God-with-humankind” — or of divinity-with-us — in which everything is dissolved into the simple call to show justice and charity to all people, neighbour and stranger and enemy alike.

Now, given that the symbols of the three traditional gifts are clearly unhistoric, mythical and literary back projections which rely on a supernaturalistic understanding of the world, it seems to me we are wholly justified today, on Epiphany Sunday, in imaginatively wondering what other three gifts might more usefully symbolise the kind of human Jesus naturalistic, historical, humanist scholarship has revealed him to be? Must the answer be kingship (gold), priesthood (frankincense) and atoning death (myrrh)? Clearly the answer is “No!” But what is far from clear is what a more positive answer might be?

Well, as you now know, in his painting, Spencer re-imagines the gifts as a teapot, an empty jam tin and an old cabbage. But what on earth could these things symbolise for us and of what strange epiphany might they be bearing witness?

To get us thinking about this it is, perhaps, helpful to have have a sense of what they meant for Spencer. Here’s what he said about the painting in later life:

The picture is to express a joy of life through intimacy. All the signs and tokens of home life, such as the cabbage leaves and teapot which I have so much loved that I have had them resurrected from the dustbin because they are reminders of home life and peace, and are worthy of being adored as the dustman is. I only like to paint what makes me feel happy. As a child I was always looking on rubbish heaps and dustbins with a feeling of wonder. I like to feel that, while in life things like pots and brushes and clothes etc may cease to be used, they will in some way be reinstated, and in this Dustman picture I try to express something of this wish and need I feel for things to be restored. That is the feeling that makes the children take out the broken teapot and empty jam tin.

Spencer also tells us something more about the dustman. On Spencer’s return to Cookham it seems that the village was still very rural but there were now rubbish collections and he tells us that he became so “enamoured of the dustman that I wanted him to be transported to heaven in the execution of his duty.” The art critic Kenneth Pople (1919-2008) suggests that Spencer seems here “to be saying that he wanted his picture-dustman to be representative of the joy he himself felt at being uplifted into his Cookham-heaven by his new experiences, and so to be emotionally part of himself.”

In the end, it seems that Spencer didn’t feel he had entirely succeeded in doing this and he explicitly said he had not got all his “beloved self into it somehow, and I am afraid everyone will wonder what it all means, just as I do myself.”

So let’s accept the challenge to wonder what on earth it all means and see if our wondering can present us with a few interesting and, perhaps, even useful Epiphanytide questions, thoughts and even some tentative (if always provisional) answers.

Let’s begin with the claim made by Kenneth Pople, that:

In composing the picture, [Spencer] cannot conceive an alternative other than to expect the viewer to be intelligent enough to appreciate that the imagery is representative of a universal hope and joy.

For me everything hinges on Pople’s claim that Spencer’s imagery is representative of a universal hope and joy. Perhaps it is but perhaps it’s not. Given this doubt, before proceeding any further, it’s important to remind ourselves of one of the oldest and most durable philosophical divides that exists in the western tradition of philosophy and religion — realism verses nominalism. Although it is much more complicated than this, the basic argument can be summed up as follows: Realism holds that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material. Nominalism holds that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.

By the way don’t get confused here because, in modern parlance, nominalists are what we would commonly call “realists” and realists are what we would commonly call “idealists”!

So, firstly, let’s look at the painting as realists (that is to say idealists). In this case the imagery in Spencer’s painting is likely to be understood as pointing to some underlying really-real universal hope and joy that exists beyond our everyday, natural hopes and joys. Also, the dustman’s this-worldly uplifting by his actual wife is only made truly meaningful because of the existence of a universal uplifting in another world by a divine universal figure such as God the Father or Christ. Given that it is a woman who uplifts the dustman it’s important to note that Spencer was quite happy to depict Christ as a woman, most famously as he does in his painting “The Resurrection, Cookham” (1924–7). Lastly, from a realist (that is to say idealist) viewpoint, the three gifts would also only be truly meaningful if they also corresponded to some really-real universals in that other world. The question is, then, what really-real universals are being symbolised by a teapot, an empty jam tin and an old cabbage?

Leaving that question deliberately unanswered let’s now look at the painting as nominalists. Firstly, in this case we may say that the joy and hope depicted are not made truly meaningful by the existence of some universal joy and hope somewhere else but by where they are actually being experienced — i.e. in the people Spencer is depicting. We are seeing in those people the only kind of joy and hope there is — and it is enough. Also, the dustman’s uplifting by his actual wife is not made truly meaningful because of the existence of a universal uplifting in another world by a divine universal figure such as God the Father or Christ but by his wife’s actual uplifting of him in this world. We are seeing here the only kind of uplifting there is — and it is enough. Lastly, from a nominalist viewpoint, the three gifts are not made truly meaningful because they correspond to some really-real universals in this other world they are meaningful precisely as an actual teapot, an actual empty jam tin and an actual old cabbage — and they, too, are enough. In short, a nominalist — and I confess to being such a creature (although, following Quine, with some caveats) — is likely to be congenially disposed to some memorable words by Friedrich Nietzsche found in his preface to “The Gay Science”. He writes: 

Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live: for that purpose it is necessary to keep bravely to the surface, the fold and the skin; to worship appearance, to believe in forms, tones, and words, in the whole Olympus of appearance! Those Greeks were superficial - from profundity! And are we not coming back precisely to this point, we dare-devils of the spirit, who have scaled the highest and most dangerous peak of contemporary thought, and have looked around us from it, have looked down from it? Are we not precisely in this respect Greeks? Worshippers of forms, of tones, and of words? And precisely on that account artists?

With Nietzsche’s words I can return directly to my own opening question about Epiphany and whether or not the answer must be kingship, priesthood and death. At the outset I simply said no more than “No!” But now I can fill out my own, positive answer but, naturally, I look forward to your own as well.  

In the context of Spencer’s painting and his three gifts of a teapot, an empty jam tin and an old cabbage and following Nietzsche’s lead I suggest that we should enjoy them, not as symbols of other universal things, but as the things themselves, as simple teapots, jam tins and cabbages, all of which have their own beauty, worth and utility. And, I would suggest, that the strange epiphany to which they are bearing witness is the realisation, again to cite Nietzsche, that we can simply enjoy the “bloom and magic of things close and closest to us” (Friedrich Nietzsche: “Human, All-Too Human” trans. R. J. Hollingdale, CUP 1996, pp. 8) without any need for another world nor for a supernatural God “out there”. This living epiphany is the one we express week by week in our opening words:

> Divinity is present everywhere. The whole world is filled with God. But, in certain places and at certain times we feel a specialty of presence. May this be such a place and such a time.

In Spencer’s painting we see depicted the epiphany of a group of ordinary people feeling just such a living presence in the bloom and magic of things close and closest to them — including a teapot, an empty jam tin and an old cabbage — and it is a joy to behold.

May I suggest then that these gifts are not about kingship, priesthood and an atoning death but speak generally of an egalitarian eating and sharing together with superadded (Epicurean and Lucretian flavoured) sense that death is always part of the endless recycling fluxes and flows of the natural world. And may I also suggest that the dustman, the figure in this painting analogous to Jesus, can stand as a representation of nature as the ultimate recycler and restorer present everywhere, all the time to “whom” we are always already bringing our own gifts.

This means our epiphany, with its three unusual gifts, is one of a communal and ecological life — surely an epiphany suitable for our own age.

Happy Epiphany!

Prophetic living without prophets or prophecies-A meditation for the coming New Year (2019)

30 December 2018 at 16:16
Trough sarcophagus in Rome showing Jesus being baptised by John
The picture at the head of this blog is of the relief found on the right front of a trough sarcophagus in the left side-aisle of Sancta Maria Antigua Church inside the Roman Forum, Rome, Italy. Dated between 250 and 275. We see, on the left, a scene depicting Jonah, then “Philosophy” with an opened scroll, “Piety” with upraised arms, and “Humanity” with a shouldered ram and, on the right, we see a bearded John the Baptist, clad in pallium without tunic (like a Cynic philosopher), with his right hand on the head of a smaller, nude Jesus to left. The dove descends almost vertically above Jesus’ head. John stands on land, and Jesus is to his ankles in water.

READINGS: Two sayings of Jesus and an accompanying commentary by John Dominic Crossan in his “The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images” (Castle Books, 1998) 

What did you go to the desert to find?
    A reed that bends with the winds that blow?
What did you go to the desert to find?
    A man who wears the clothes of kings?
What did you go to the desert to find?
    A prophet?
For sure, but also more, far more than just a prophet


Into the Desert (see, e.g., Matthew 11:7-10). John the Baptist was one of several populist and activist prophets who, in that first-century occupied Jewish homeland, attempted to reenact the Exodus as archetypal deliverance from foreign oppression. Most of them led large crowds from the desert across the Jordan hoping that God would intervene decisively against the Romans, so that they could once again possess their Promised Land as inaugurally of old under Moses and Joshua. They were normally unarmed, since they expected a cataclysmic intervention by God to effect what human weapons could not achieve. John the Baptist shared that ideology but not that strategy. Instead, he sent individuals, rather than led crowds, from the eastern desert and through the Jordan, and thereby planted ticking time bombs of apocalyptic expectation all over the Jewish homeland. Jesus began his public career as a follower of the Baptist and must have therefore expected the imminent advent of the avenging God preached by John. But instead of God came Herod Antipas, and John was executed without any divine intervention. This saying is Jesus’ defense of John and must have been uttered very close to that tragedy. Which do you want, it asks: Antipas or John? The pliant kingling dressed in royal robes or the desert prophet of the apocalyptic God?

In all the past
    no one in human history
        is greater than John the Baptist
In all the future
    any one in the Kingdom of God
        is greater than John the Baptist 


Greater than John (see, e.g., Matthew 11:11). This saying gracefully but definitely contradicts the preceding one. Sometime after John’s execution, and possibly even because of it, Jesus lost faith in God as the imminent apocalyptic One and came to believe, instead, in God as the immanent sapiential One. This God is known not through a future cosmic cataclysm but through a present lifestyle here, now, and immediately. His preferred term is the Kingdom of God, that is, the manifestation of God’s presence through both individual and social, religious and political, styles of life appropriate to a world under divine rather than human control. What was needed, Jesus now claimed, was not a revelation (in Greek: apocalypsis) about the future but a wisdom (in Latin: sapientia) about the present.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Prophetic living without prophets or prophecies
A meditation for the coming New Year

There will be few of us here today who are able to look into the coming year without feeling huge concern, even fear, in particular about climate change and Brexit. It is certainly the case with me and I confess to finding myself, on occasions, tempted to cast around the various newspapers and journals in order to find someone whom I can trust is able to tell me what is certainly going to happen in the coming year.

Hermes talks to Jason
This desire, always present but particularly so at the moment, reminds me that the desire for prophets is a very ancient human one indeed. It’s worth remembering that our religion and politics (which constantly overlap) have often thrived and painfully fallen thanks to words uttered by this or that prophet. In the days following Christmas as I was beginning to muse on this subject, Susanna’s grandson and I re-watched bits of Harry Harryhausen’s wonderful stop-motion film from 1963, “Jason and the Argonauts”. You may remember that the story unfolds in the way it does thanks to King Pelias’ (mis)interpretation of the prophecy given to him by the god Zeus via a prophet priest who, it turns out, is really Hermes, the messenger of the gods. Pelias forgets that Hermes — from whose name we get the word “hermeneutics”, i.e. the art of interpretation — always passes on his prophetic messages in ways that are never clear and straight-forward and which always require subtle, reflective, open interpretation and re-interpretation in the light of events and our encounter with others. In other words even Hermes (who the myths tell us speaks directly with the gods) is never capable of telling us what is actually going to happen and this means that his prophecies are not really prophecies at all — at least not in the common understanding of the word — instead they are goads to ongoing, creative, open reflection and interpretation. You’d have thought we would have learnt this lesson by now but no, for time and time again kings, emperors, priests, politicians, and even ordinary folk like us, continue to fall prey to the temptation to believe that there are some people who can prophesy clearly and flawlessly.  

Given that on Christmas Day I said from this lectern that when the Gospels are stripped as best they can be of their unhistorical and supernatural elements, Jesus offers us a humanistic teaching which remains utterly relevant today, it seems appropriate to seek to draw a lesson about prophets and prophecies from the earliest years of Jesus’ adult ministry. I do this because, as I also noted on Tuesday, our first minister here, J. Cyril Flower, wrote in 1920 that when we “catch a glimpse of the real man of Galilee, and give ear to [his] teaching” then “like the seed growing in secret” it remains capable of germinating in our hearts and able to “revolutionize our social life, our industrial order and our religion” (p. 9).

Taking him seriously I'd like to try to plant a revolutionary, germinating seed in your — and indeed my — heart, one that will, I hope, begin to show some green shoots during the coming year . . .

Immediately before Jesus began his own ministry he, too, as we heard in our readings, was enamoured of a prophet, the famous John the Baptist. As John Dominic Crossan observes — in an echo of so much of the prophetic, national populist rhetoric we are hearing at the moment — John the Baptist was amongst those who were prophesying to his hearers an “archetypal deliverance from foreign oppression.” John the Baptist believed he knew what was going to happen and he expressed his belief in such a confident fashion that many people who were hungry to know what was going to happen — including Jesus — were quite prepared to believe and act upon John’s prophecy that their oppressed land would, thanks to the direct, apocalyptic intervention of God, suddenly become their Promised Land. It didn’t matter how much chaos was created because it would all be a sign that their avenging God — we might say vengeful “ideal” or “fantasy” — was at work. But, as we know, what came was not the Promised Land but the rule of Herod Antipas who, in turn, executed John the Baptist and, it seems, later played a key role in the execution of Jesus.

The discovery that one has been following a prophet whose prophecies have been utterly discredited is always traumatic event but, oddly, we know it cuts in at least two very different ways.

Some people, instead of beginning critically to question the truth of basic idea about the efficacy of prophets and their prophecies, astonishingly simply go on believing in the same prophet or to go on and seek out some new (better) one.

However, other people, do begin critically to question ideas about prophets and prophecies but this latter group can then itself be subdivided. There are those who decide that everything prophetic is untrustworthy and should be avoided but this approach, alas, all too easily leads to people beginning passively to acquiesce to the current status quo, saying to themselves and others that “TINA - There Is No Alternative”. But, as I pointed out at the beginning of Advent, there are others, such as Jesus, who have been able to say, “TATIANA — That, Astonishingly, There Is AN Alternative. It is to see that there is a way of being prophetic but without any further need for either prophets or prophecies about an always unpredictable future.

As we heard in our reading, following his disappointment with John the Baptist, Jesus says:

In all the past
       no one in human history
            is greater than John the Baptist.
In all the future
       any one in the Kingdom of God
             is greater than John the Baptist.
      
It is a saying which clearly suggests that in the kingdom Jesus thought we would all be living in a prophetic fashion that dissolved the need for future-orientated prophets like John the Baptist. This occurs because God, and the Kingdom of God, is now not for Jesus some future, imminent being and state of affairs that you need a prophet to see and prophesy about but, instead, something immanent, known “through a present lifestyle, here, now, and immediately.”

As Crossan realises, Jesus comes to feel that

What was needed . . . was not a revelation (in Greek apocalypsis) about the future but a wisdom (in Greek sapientia) about the present.

To use more modern language to describe the matter Jesus seems to have seen that one could entirely dispense with prophets and prophesies and yet still be prophetic if one lived in a way that prefigured the kingdom of God in the communities in which we actually find ourselves. As Justin Meggitt notes in a chapter recently published by the University of Stockholm called “Was the historical Jesus an anarchist? Anachronism, anarchism and the historical Jesus” (pp. 124-197), Jesus seems to have realised the importance of ensuring that the means one employs in living now must be consistent with the desired ends, that is “the outcomes are prefigured by the methods”.

But to be prophetic without prophets and prophecies like this one must also take care to dispense with the temptation to fall prey to the lure of any form of utopianism, utopias being, of course, another example of the future-orientated prophecies uttered by prophets. Again, as Meggitt notes:

Although utopias can have their uses — they can inspire, encourage, provide a pleasurable escape — they can also be coercive and that is why, on the whole, they have been resisted by anarchists; utopianism enforces others to live in a certain way, and a utopia envisaged as a single, totalising endpoint will necessitate manipulation to fit a predetermined plan. As Marie Louise Berneri demonstrated in her analysis of utopian thought from Plato to Huxley, they are inherently authoritarian. For anarchists, the details of such social order need to be determined by those that that are dominated. Their ethics are:
      
          Reflexive and self-creative, as they do not assess practices against a universally prescribed end-point, as some utopian theorists have done, but through a process of immanent critique (pp. 148-149).


Lots of people will still resist the idea that this is the kind of thing being advocated by Jesus because, as Meggitt notes, “it is often assumed that the historical Jesus had a clear idea of his intentions and understanding of the implications of the kingdom of God from the outset” (p. 149). But, when one takes care to go back to the textural sources themselves and successfully avoids making the kinds of doctrinal assumptions made by later Christianity, what we discover is a strong sense that Jesus was himself “a figure open to reflection and revision in the light of events and encounter with others” (ibid.).  Think here particularly of his encounter with the Syrophonecian woman.

We sense this most powerfully in Jesus’ parables which, once again to cite Meggitt, “are figurative and affective” and are in “a form that does not compel the hearer to arrive at a narrowly predetermined understanding of what is being conveyed” (p. 150)

Again and again we find the prophetic message in a life lived in the here and now that proclaims with the human Jesus, again and again, TATIANA! — That, Astonishingly, There Is AN Alternative to the present situation.

As we prepare to enter into what seems highly likely to be an exceptionally fraught and difficult period of history, I would strongly argue that we in this community need to stay firmly focussed on the business of creating together, in the here and now, the kind of non-prophet but still prophetic community Jesus envisaged, one which open-endedly prefigures an egalitarian, non-coercive life by practising an open commensality and consciously remaining ever open to reflection and revision in the light of events and the encounter with others. (To be a place where God happens).

What we absolutely must not do is get caught up in trying to compete in any head-on way with all the wannabe future-orientated wild prophets whose conflicting voices are likely only to increase in volume and vehemence in the coming months. 

Again and again — like a still small voice (1 Kings 19:11-12) speaking in the heart of the political and religious winds, earthquakes and fires of our own age — surely in the coming year we must proclaim that what is needed is not a revelation (in Greek apocalypsis) about the future but a wisdom (in Greek sapientia) about the present.

A pilgrimage to the grave of the poet Edward Fitzgerald, the translator (or rather re-presenter) of the "Rubaiyat of Omar KhayyÑm"

28 December 2018 at 13:58
Our empty glass of wine up-turned on Edward Fitzgerald's grave
Yesterday an old college friend and I took the opportunity of heading out to Suffolk to visit the grave of the poet Edward Fitzgerald in Boulge who, most famously, translated (or rather re-presented a number of versions of) the “Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyám” written by the Astronomer-Poet of Persia, Omar Khayyám (1048–1131).

This poem was first introduced to me by my grandmother when I was a very small boy (indeed, I still have the copy from which she read to me) and it’s basic philosophy, which Fitzgerald in his introduction to his first edition of the poem) described as being a religious skepticism that owes much to Epicurus and Lucretius. As readers of this blog will know this is a philosophy which has had, and continue to have, a powerful effect upon me. 

When I was living in Suffolk nineteen years ago, once every couple of years, I would cycle over to Fitzgerald’s grave, read the poem (or at least a fair few of its verses, and generally in the first version he produced) and, after reading the final verse, drink a glass of Shiraz and turn the glass upside-down on his gravestone just as they/he requested:

And when Thyself with shining Foot shall pass
Among the Guests Star-scatter'd on The Grass,
     And in Thy joyous Errand reach the Spot
Where I made one—turn down an empty Glass!

 

TAMÁM SHUD. [that is, It is ended]

Well, it’s been, long time since I’ve been able to do this and so it was a joy and pleasure to drink Omar Khayyám and Fitzgerald once again.

My friend and I were out in those parts because later on we had to pick up my wife who had spent the day visiting her step-daughter near Hadleigh. Being fairly close to the coast we decided to go on to Felixstowe to walk along the stretch of coastline which inspired M. R. James to write his famous story O Whistle and I'll Come to You my Lad and, before leaving the town, we dropped into the wonderful Treasure Chest bookshop. Very appropriately I found nestled on the shelves a copy of the second printing of the 1955 Folio edition of the Rubaiyat for just £5. Since I did not have this edition in my modest collection I decided to succumb to temptation and get it. And, lastly, as I have been writing this post, it seemed entirely fitting to do it to the accompaniment of Bantock’s sublime work Omar Khayyám.

I took a few photos of the occasion and include them here at the beginning of this post and below for your pleasure. At the very end I also include a photo of the sublime sunset we saw as we were leaving Felixstowe. It was a perfect end to the day’s joyous pilgrimage . . .

All the photos were taken with my Fuji X100F and are straight out of the camera.
Just click on a photo to enlarge it.




The view looking north from Fitzerald's grave

Looking back at Fitzgerald's grave from the north

St Michael's, Boulge from the south-east

A lone chair outside the churchyard

Sunset over Felixstowe

To catch a glimpse of the real man of Galilee, and give ear to his teaching-Address for Christmas Day 2018

28 December 2018 at 10:10
The Christmas Tree in the Memorial (Unitarian) Church READINGS: Luke 2:1-12 Leo Tolstoy’s reinterpretation and representation of the opening of John’s Gospel found in his “The Gospel in Brief: The Life of Jesus” (composite translation by Aylmer Maude and Dustin Condren) In the beginning stood the understanding of life, as the foundation of all things. Understanding of life stood in the place of God. Understanding of life is God. According to Jesus’s proclamation, it stands as the basis and source of all things, in the place of God. All that lives was born into life through understanding. And without it, there can be nothing living. Understanding gives true life. Understanding is the light of life. It is the light that shines in...

God is nowhere, does not exist-but God may happen

23 December 2018 at 16:05
A rainbow over the Memorial (Unitarian) Church, Cambridge
READINGS:

Luke 17:20-21

Jesus said: “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.”

James Martineau cited in J. E. Carpenter’s “James Martineau”
(Philip Green, London 1905, p. 404)

The incarnation of Christ is true, not of Christ exclusively, but of Man universally and God everlastingly. He bends into the human to dwell there, and humanity is the susceptible organ of the divine.

From “A Common Faith” (1934) by John Dewey (2nd ed., Yale University Press, 2013, p. 47)

We are in the presence neither of ideals completely embodied in existence nor yet of ideals that are merely rootless ideals, fantasies or utopias. For there are forces in nature and society that generate and support the ideals. They are further unified by the action that gives them coherence and solidarity. It is this active relation between ideal and actual to which I would give the name ‘God’. I would not insist that the name must be given.

From “A Theology of the Event” by John D. Caputo in “After the Death of God” by John D. Caputo and Gianni Vattimo (Columbia University Press, 2007, pp, 47–49)

One way to put what postmodernism means is to say that it is a philosophy of the event, and one way to put what a radical or postmodem theology means is to say it is a theology of the event. Obviously, then, on such an accounting, everything depends upon what we mean by an event, which, for the sake of simplicity, I describe as follows:

    1. An event is not precisely what happens, which is what the word suggests in English, but something going on in what happens, something that is being expressed or realized or given shape in what happens; it is not something present, but something seeking to make itself felt in what is present.

    2. Accordingly, I would distinguish between a name and the event that is astir or that transpires in a name. The name is a kind of provisional formulation of an event, a relatively stable if evolving structure, while the event is ever restless, on the move, seeking new forms to assume, seeking to get expressed in still unexpressed ways. Names are historical, contingent, provisional expressions in natural languages, while events are what names are trying to form or formulate, nominate or denominate.

    3. An event is not a thing but something astir in a thing. Events get realized in things, take on actuality and presence there, but always in a way that is provisional and revisable, while the restlessness and flux of things is explained by the events they harbour.

    4. What happens, be it a thing or a word, is always deconstructible just in virtue of events which are not deconstructible. That does not mean that events are eternally true like a Platonic eidos; far from being eternally true or present, events are never present, never finished or formed, realized or constructed, whereas only what is constructed is deconstructable. Words and things are deconstructible, but events if there are any such things (s’il y en a), are not deconstructible.

    5. In terms of their temporality, events, never being present, solicit us from afar, draw us on, draw us out into the future, calling us hither. Events are provocations and promises, and they have the structure of what Derrida calls the unforeseeable “to come” (à venir). Or else they call us back, recall us to all that has flowed by into the irremissible past, which is why they form the basis of what Johann Baptist Metz calls “dangerous memories” of the injustice suffered by those long dead, or not so long, a revocation that constitutes another provocation. Events call and recall.

    Events are what Žižek calls the “fragile absolute” — when Žižek leaves off abusing postmodern theories he often serves up excellent postmodern goods — fragile because they are delicate and absolute because they are precious. 

    [. . .]

    On my accounting, things take a theological turn in postmodernism when what we mean by the event shifts to God. Or, altemately, things take a postmodem tum in theology when the meditation upon theos or theios, God or the divine, is shifted to events, when the location of God or what is divine about God is shifted from what happens, from constituted words and things, to the plane of events.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
 God is nowhere, does not exist—but God may happen

As most of you will know, one of the titles Matthew gives to Jesus in his gospel is “Emmanuel” which means “god-with-us” and so, in the religious context, there is no real way properly to honour and celebrate christmas (even the lowercase “c” christmas I’ve been advocating during this advent season) without speaking in some fashion about the “incarnation”, i.e. about the scandalous and, to many of us, the frankly implausible idea that, somehow, God became human.

This task, it has to be said, is a challenge. Still, I’ve never been one to duck a theological challenge and certainly not one which, potentially anyway, may offer at least some of you a powerful, contemporary religious way to travel lovingly and compassionately with friends and family who are seriously ill and, perhaps also dying, including for our own community two beloved members of the congregation, both of whom are in the final weeks and, perhaps, days of their lives.

The most famous and influential late-nineteenth and early twentieth century way the incarnation was talked about in unitarian circles was offered us by one of the great British liberal theologians of the time, James Martineau (1805-1900), who once wrote:

“The incarnation of Christ is true, not of Christ exclusively, but of Man universally and God everlastingly. He bends into the human to dwell there, and humanity is the susceptible organ of the divine” (cited in J. E. Carpenter, James Martineau, Philip Green, London 1905, p. 404).

But Martineau’s use of the word “God” was inevitably still powerfully influenced by traditional theism and his belief in “God” — very much a capital “G” God of course — was really the same as him saying that there existed somewhere some actual, divine being and that it was this being which became incarnate in the world. Now I’m sure I do not need to rehearse with you how and why most of us here today — and, indeed, most secular people in Europe and the USA — are perplexed by such an idea.

However, our understandable perplexity about the traditional, Christian interpretations of the incarnation, does not mean we must at the same time entirely jettison Martineau’s basic insight that “humanity is the susceptible organ of the divine” because we can choose to interpret it in a very different way to the way he understood it — as long, of course, as we consciously acknowledge Martineau almost certainly did not mean what we might mean.

We enter into one possible different way of understanding his basic insight via what is called a “theology of the event” which finds its most influential expression in the work of the contemporary American theologian John D. Caputo and which you heard enumerated in our readings. I realise that his way of putting things there may be obscure so let me try to put his five points into my own words.

Firstly, — if and when I use the word “God” — I no longer understand “God” as something present but something seeking to make itself felt in what is present. So, whilst for me it’s not right to say Jesus is “God” (after all I can only encounter him as having been a human being) what makes him special to me is that he lived in such a way that — following John Dewey’s definition — what I am still minded to call “God” still makes itself felt whenever I see, and am in the presence of, people who are living and acting in ways similar to those displayed by the human Jesus. When I see those people expressing in their lives something of that active relationship between the idea and the actual I find myself wanting to say of them, as I still say of Jesus, “Look there! That is what I mean by ‘God’!”

Secondly, it is important for me to distinguish between the name “God” and the event that is astir in this name. So when I use the word “God” here I always try to attached it to events in which we see people called, as Micah summed it up (and as we sung in our second hymn) to do true justice, to love mercy, and to walk with God (and, by implication neighbour). This is why I try to point so regularly to any act of justice, mercy, love in which people are walking in solidarity with one another against the many oppressive political, economic and religious forces that threaten us and say “Look there! That is what I mean by ‘God’!”

Thirdly, I no longer understand “God” as an ultimate thing, a super-being whose existence could be proved (or disproved) by either science, philosophy or theology because “God” is that mysterious, ineffable something which is astir in all things, which is also the very possibility of there being something not nothing. This is why I often point to the interconnectedness of the universe in which, as John Dewey realised, the forces of nature and our ability to work with them are, despite many setbacks, still capable of bringing forth new visions of better ways to be human and in the presence of this that I want to say “Look there! That is what I mean by ‘God’!” 

Fourthly, I have been persuaded that, no matter how beautiful, venerable or persuasive they seem — whether they are Trinitarian or Unitarian, whether they theist or atheist — all theories about “God” can, and must, always be deconstructed. These theories may, and often have had, some temporary ad hoc usefulness, but they must never be thought of as being themselves the event that they harbour. This is why I point with particular approval to any living, always unfinished, unfolding, devolved, horizontal, democratic, non-institutional, non-denominational and non-doctrinal forms of community and say “Look there! That is what I mean by ‘God’!”

Fifthly, I understand “God” as event as something that is always calling me from afar — from something which stands outside me (ek-stasis) — which is always calling and provoking me to live a form of life committed to seeking more justice, more love, more mercy and a continued walking with each other and “God”. Given this it is no wonder that, as far as every earthly, coercive human power that wants to control and dominate others and nature, “God” is indeed a dangerous memory and a radical call to reform. This is why I try to point to any expressions of better, fairer, more just and loving visions of human organization that I come to my notice and say “Look there! That is what I mean by ‘God’!”

I realise tear even after walking through Caputo’s five points in my own words some of you may still find what I am talking about to be too ungrounded and, to use what is at the moment a popular word, “nebulous”. So let me begin to draw to a close by grounding Caputo’s words in something currently very, very close to our hearts about which I spoke about at the beginning, namely our need to travel lovingly and compassionately with seriously ill friends and relatives.

Klaas Hendrikse (1947-2018) in NRC Weekend zaterdag 22 & zondag 23 oktober 2011
The contemporary Dutch atheist pastor who died only this year, Klaas Hendrikse (whose example had a huge influence on my ability to continue to exercise some kind of meaningful Christian ministry) was asked in a public interview a few years ago, in the light of the title of his book “Believing in a God that does not exist: the manifesto of an atheist pastor”, what does he mean by “God”? He began by saying that:
cise some meaningful form of Christian ministry),

If you are sitting down and ask yourself the question, “Where is God?”, [the answer is that] he is nowhere. But if you get up from your chair and go into the world, into life, there God may happen.

Note well that he said “God may happen” and not “God may exist” — Hendrikse, too, is talking about God as an event. Hendrikse then turns his attention to an example of where this happens in his own life.

If I as a priest have to talk to people who are close to leaving this life, close to dying, I go into a room and I don’t know what I will see there. I have nothing with me, just Klaas, that’s all. I can only do that because I trust that something will happen. There is no recipe, there is no answer to questions, there is only trust that something will happen. And it doesn’t happen always, of course. [But when it does] . . . I will never say when I am talking to somebody, “Here, here is God”. No. It is a way to give words to what happened there afterwards — there WAS God.

Like John Dewey before him Hendrikse did not, as I do not, insist that the word God must be used to describe this type of event. But, as someone like Hendrikse, an individual who is also a minister in a church rooted in the Christian tradition I do use the word God to talk about this kind of event because it is an intrinsic element in my personal, and our corporate, native language.

Anyway, in my pastoral rôle, for many years now I have done just as Hendrikse has done and, after talking with many of you, I know that you also do likewise. We don’t take in with us any prepared words of our own, or prayer books, or ready-made liturgies, instead we simply take in ourselves trusting that something will happen. It doesn’t always, of course, but over the course of the days, weeks and months each of us has found that something does, at times, happen.

In those moments we don’t feel the need to say to our dying friends and relatives “Here, here is God”, but afterwards, many many times, I have found myself saying — as perhaps you have found yourself saying — “there WAS God”.

In those precious moments (events) we have all received in one way or another fragments of holiness, glimpses of eternity and brief moments of insight. And, whenever we have been able to gather them up for the precious gifts that they are we have found ourselves renewed by their grace and able to move boldly into the unknown, ineffable mystery that in which we live, move and have our being. And in those moments (events), I would argue, we have found a contemporary way to affirm that the incarnation of Christ is always-already true, not of Christ exclusively, but of humankind universally and God everlastingly. This is because God, when understood as an event that may happen, has always-already been dwelling in the human, and humanity has always-already been the susceptible organ of the divine.


—o0o—

As I noted above Klaas Hendrikse was very important to me because he provided me with a practical, and for me compelling, model of how to be a Christian atheist pastor. The announcement of his death in June of this year was, therefore, a sad moment for me. May he rest in peace.

I first came across him in a BBC piece which can be found at the link below. It includes a short filmed interview with him and a couple of members of his congregation.

Extinction Rebellion in Cambridge

15 December 2018 at 14:58
The burial at Shire Hall
This morning and afternoon Susanna and I, along with a four other attenders of the Cambridge Unitarian Church, took part on the first day of local action in Cambridge connected with the Extinction Rebellion, part of a National Day of Action.

The event began in front of the Grafton Centre (Fitzroy St end near Coop bank), then moved to the Grand Arcade (Susanna took part in these events) and thence on to Market Square and Shire Hall County Council offices at the top of Castle Hill where we buried a symbolic coffin and planted a real tree (I took part in these events).

In the Market Square 
The procession ended with a funeral ceremony at Shire Hall, mourning all the life we've lost, are losing and will continue to lose because of climate breakdown.

In this post are a few photos I took along the way from Market Square to Shire Hall. Just click on a photo to enlarge it.

As the local Extinction Rebellion Facebook page notes:

We rebel because we love this world. It breaks our hearts to see it ravaged, to watch so many people, plants and animals all over this world already dying, to know that this will soon happen to our children if nothing changes. There is no way forward without giving voice to our grief.

Please bring a wreath, flowers, pictures of communities hit by climate breakdown already, or pictures of extinct/endangered animals to lay on the coffin.

At the Shire Hall
Children and teenagers are very welcome — we’d love to have them there and there’s nothing dangerous going to happen! However, the themes of Extinction and Death will be dealt with fairly explicitly so please consider how your particular children will react to this, and how to help them respond if bringing them.

We demand that Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council declare a Climate Emergency and take urgent action to avoid climate catastrophe.

We act in peace, with ferocious love of our world in our hearts. We act on behalf of life.


In the Market Square
➜➜➜ FAMILIES, SAFETY, POLICE AND NON-VIOLENCE

Everyone is welcome to come along to this event and exercise their human right to peaceful protest if they agree to the commitment to non-violence.

Though no one cannot fully predict what the police will do, arrest or attack on non-violent citizens is very unlikely.

If you choose to speak to the police or police liaison officers we recommend you don’t tell them your name or any details. ➜ Please do not tell them or give away the names of other people. Talk to them about the weather, pay-cuts and added job pressure due to austerity, and the need for them to break the chain of command at some point – in order to follow their own conscience and protect what they love too. However, always remember they are paid to do a role in society, and that the role they are in may ask them to turn on you very quickly.

If you are planning to attend please read the Extinction Rebellion Action Consensus: 

https://rebellion.earth/rebellion-day/action-consensus

Also please read this legal briefing:

https://rebellion.earth/legal-briefing/

In the Market Square

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

At the Shire Hall

An early winter walk around Wandlebury Hill Fort and along the Roman Road to Copley Hill bowl barrow

11 December 2018 at 19:01
Along the Roman Road
Today was a pearl of an early winter’s day so I decided to take the opportunity on one of my days off to cycle up to the Gog Magog Hills and Wandlebury Hill Fort and then to walk a little way along the Roman Road to Copley Hill (on top of which is a Bronze Age bowl barrow) to eat a sandwich, drink a flask of hot tea and take in the view.  

Why I chose that particular spot for my lunch today can be explained by the fact that this morning as I had my first cup of tea of the day I decided, for no discernible reason, to listen to William Alwyn’s Fifth Symphony. This symphony, written in 1973, has the subtitle Hydriotaphia which, some of you may know, is taken from Thomas Browne’s book Hydriotaphia, Urn Burial, or, a Discourse of the Sepulchral Urns lately found in Norfolk (1658). I dug out my copy and read a few pages of its allusive and frankly hauntological prose and, as I pondered his words, I realised that I really had to make my way to a place where just such ancient burials were actually to be found so as better to carry on my own hauntological and philosophical musings.

Naturally, along the (ancient) way, I took a few photos and include them here for your pleasure. As always they were taken with my Fuji X100F and are all straight out of the camera jpegs (with an occasional crop).

Just click on a photo to enlarge it.

A farmer and his dog on the way across to Copley Hill (on the right covered by trees) 

The site of T. C. Lethbridge's excavations at Wandlebury Country Park

In the woods at Wandlebury Country Park 

Stonework in the grounds of Wandlebury House

Doorway through into the orchard of Wandlebury House 

Doorway through into the orchard of Wandlebury House

Fence in the woods in Wandlebury Country Park

Bench in the woods in Wandlebury Country Park 

Coppicing in the woods in Wandlebury Country Park

The sylvan nave in the woods in Wandlebury Country Park  

Along the Roman Road

Along the Roman Road

Along the Roman Road

Along the Roman Road

Along the Roman Road

In the grounds of Wandlebury Country Park

Sheep grazing in Wandlebury Country Park

On top of Wormwood Hill (once thought to be a barrow) in Wandlebury Country Park

"The midmost hangs for love"-being a brief autobiographical piece about my own journey to "Christian atheism" or "ecstatic humanism"

10 December 2018 at 10:04
East window in St Michael's Kirby-le-Soken A couple of times in church in recent weeks I have been asked about my own journey to Christian atheism or, as my last address more gently put it, to the adoption of an “ ecstatic humanism" being, as I am, a skeptic with a naturally religious mind and (I hope) and open-minded ‘reverent’ humanist. Given this it struck me that I might usefully republish the following brief autobiographical piece I wrote back in 2013 for a Unitarian Christian Association publication which contained individual minister's reflections on their own faith.   —o0o—   Taking the time to look back at my own life of faith in order to write this piece I became aware just how deeply it is related to the beautiful...

The case for an Ecstatic Humanism-being "skeptics with naturally religious minds" or "open-minded 'reverent' humanists"

9 December 2018 at 16:33
The Memorial Church, Cambridge in early winter afternoon sunlight
READING

Last week some of you will recall that I introduced you to a passage by the philosopher Henry Bugbee, a key part of which used the word ‘ecstasis’. He wrote:

But patience is not postponement, not falling away from on-goingness; it is the readying to step clean forth (ecstasis), and there ever comes a time when the question sinks home: when, if not now?  

This mention of “ecstasis” strongly reminded me of an essay by another philosopher called James W. Woelfel some of whose words were a great help to me in writing the address I gave a few weeks ago called ‘Mr Chips as a vision and incarnation of a wholly immanent and natural “God”’. Woelfel, too, used the wo
rd in an essay from 1974 called “Ecstatic Humanism with Christian Hopes” which we’ll now hear: 

Found in “Borderland Christianity” by James W. Woelfel (Geoffrey Chapman, 1974, pp. 23-25)

I would describe the perspective to which I have come (and in which I hope I am always growing and remaining open) as an “ecstatic” or “self-transcending” humanism. The Greek word ek-stasis literally means “standing outside of.” We are familiar with the ordinary usage of “ecstasy” to describe certain psychological and physical states in which a person seems to be “standing outside” himself, to transcend his ordinary self. Most of us have probably experienced ecstasy in sexual love, or perhaps when totally caught up in listening to certain kinds of music; and we have at least heard about phenomena such as whirling dervishes, trances of various sorts, and mystical states.
          Following the lead of philosophers such as Paul Tillich, however, I am not using the word “ecstatic” in its ordinary sense instead I am applying its etymological suggestions of “transcending” or “going beyond” to something much broader. In my case, “ecstatic” is an apt description of the kind of humanistic outlook I wish to commend. “Ecstatic” humanism is a humanistic perspective which transcends or goes beyond purely secular forms of humanism. Ecstatic humanism is humanism which, precisely because of its preoccupation with human experience in its fullness, seeks to be sensitively open-minded about the possibility of dimensions of experience and reality beyond our present knowing. Ecstatic humanism tries to remain constantly aware of the limitations of the human situation and human knowledge. Ecstatic humanism makes positive contact with, and learns much from, the religious traditions while remaining “reverently agnostic” about many of their details. Ecstatic humanism is too filled with wonder over the mysteries surrounding our existence to be content with narrow, reduced accounts of man and his world.
          In its attitude of wonder, openness, religiousness, ecstatic humanism also transcends or goes beyond purely secular humanisms in a sense somewhat akin to the ordinary usage of “ecstatic.” Ecstatic humanism is likely to be personally attuned to those aspects of human experience which singularly “take us out of ourselves” — religious experience, love, art and beauty, the devoted search for truth — as especially important clues to the “self-transcending” character of man himself.
          Ecstatic humanism seeks, then, to steer a course between explicit religious belief on the one hand and atheistic or reductionistic humanism on the other. It is decidedly a form of humanism in building its outlook upon the best knowledge we have from human reasoning about our experience. But it is a serious and sensitive attention to man in his “self-transcending” characteristics — religion, values, artistic creativity, knowledge and communication, introspection — which opens ecstatic humanism out onto the religious dimension and forbids it from accepting the truncated outlooks of a purely secular humanism. I am arguing, in other words, that an ecstatic or self-transcending humanism is a more fully adequate humanistic position. It is a humanism which recognizes both the limitations of our human situation and knowledge and the mysterious depths and possibilities glimpsed in our human experience.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
 The case for an Ecstatic Humanism—being “skeptics with naturally religious minds” or “open-minded ‘reverent’ humanists”

For me there is always in play the question of how best to describe where, religiously and philosophically speaking, I am. I’m sure it would be always in play whatever it was I did professionally, but it becomes extremely pressing when one has, as I do, a public-facing religious and ministerial rôle. This is because people are constantly wanting to know what it is I believe and, when they find out I am the minister of this liberal, freethinking church, the first question is often immediately followed with another, namely, “Are you a Christian then?”

Those of you who know me well know that I often reply by saying that I am a “Christian atheist” because I think it is precisely the truth-seeking drive found in Christianity that, over two millennia, has inexorably and inevitably led to the development of a certain species of atheism, an atheism that is, however, still clearly a product of the liberal Christian tradition. As some of you will know, Don Cupitt, the Dean Emeritus from over the road at Emmanuel College, calls this species of atheism “secular Christianity.”

[Another way of putting this is that, when looked at in a certain way, the natural outcome of Christian thinking is atheism and this was why the German philosopher Ernst Bloch could provocatively could say: “Only a good Christian can be a good atheist; only an atheist can be a good Christian.”]

Just to clarify, being this kind of atheist does not preclude continuing to use the word “God” because God is now understood in wholly immanent, this worldly terms. Woelfel reminds us that, in the poetic, mythological language of the Christian atheist, God has died “completely to his transcendent status and identifies himself entirely with humankind and our world” and the “only revelation of God is [now found in] the faces of us unlikely human beings, his only worship our compassionate devotion to one another and to the needs of our earth.” I would argue that this is exactly what Jesus was doing in his own teaching in which everything is dissolved into the call to justice and charity to one’s neighbour.

However, although the appellation “Christian atheist” has the benefit of being both true (for me anyway) and creatively and usefully shocking to those who cannot see that — under certain circumstances anyway — the words “Christian” and “atheist” go together like “love and marriage and a horse and carriage”, I realise it is a term which can often sound overly negative to many people. This has meant I’m always on the lookout for other ways I might describe where I am at and, thanks to James W. Woelfel, I hold in quiet reserve just such an alternative term, “ecstatic humanism”, a description of which you heard in our readings (pp.23-25).

I bring it before you today for consideration because I think it might speak well, not only to many members of this local community, but also to many people in an around this city who might be interested in joining a community such as this. Anyway, I thought it might be helpful for you to have up your sleeve such a term for those moments when you are called upon to describe in general terms what kind this church is actively offering the world.  

It seems likely to me that most people who attend, or who might be interested in attending, this church would be happy to be described [after the interesting British philosopher Ronald Hepburn] as “skeptics with naturally religious minds” or what Woelfel calls “open-minded ‘reverent’ humanists”. Woelfel adds that he also thinks of himself as “kind of ultra-liberal ‘Christian heretic’” (p. 14) and, although I quite like this latter term, I realise this will resonate with far fewer people.

Woelfel’s mention of Christianity here is very important — not because he thinks Christianity is in some fashion absolutely superior to other religious traditions, he does not — but because of the straightforwardly contingent truth that it is “the religion which has decisively shaped and permeated our Western culture and dominates the world of religion by its sheer numbers and influence.” It’s also important because, as he observes, “it is the religion whose origins, history, and ideas the American or European religious thinker is ordinarily the most well-versed.” Because of this Woelfel thinks it is, therefore, the religion “with which most religiously perplexed people must come to grips with in a special way, since it has both created out problems and will probably offer the most natural resources for our groping solutions” (pp. 16-17). 

Again, it seems to me that the special, yet modest, rôle that is played by this church is that it provides a supportive yet critically inquiring community where a certain kind of “religiously perplexed people” can come to grips in meaningful and healthy ways with the implications of being born into a culture which has been so decisively shaped and permeated by Christianity. Importantly, despite this very close relationship with Christianity, this community has never been desirous of producing Christians per se (even ultra-liberal Christian heretics like Woelfel and, perhaps, me) but, instead, genuinely inquiring religious humanists, the very kind of free-spirits and archeologists of morning that my own work has long concentrated upon. 

It is clear that what is going on here is “humanist” in its aims because, to quote some more words of Woelfel, we have long dedicated ourselves to “the growth of humane and scientific knowledge and its application to the rational solution of human problems, the alleviation of human oppression and suffering, the enlargement of individual human rights and freedoms, the widening of educational, social, cultural and economic opportunities — in general, to the enhancement of human life.”

We are a “humanist” community because we try to base our lives and our decisions upon the best knowledge we have of humankind and the world “especially through the sciences, and to seek thoughtful, reasoned solutions to human problems.” We are a “humanist” community because we also look to human criteria in our thinking and living, because we believe “that this is all we have to go on in any solid and public way” (pp. 19-20).
   
But we are also a “religious” community because doctrinally atheistic or reductionistic humanisms always feel to us like “truncated humanisms.” Woelfel reminds us that such truncated humanisms do not seem to us to be

. . . fully humanistic because they are not open to all that man and his encompassing universe possibly are. They are not sufficiently sensitive either to the range of and depth of the human spirit or to the limitations of our situation or knowledge. They tend arbitrarily to draw boundaries around human experience and the world and presumptuously to declare that the matter is closed, the reality completely described and circumscribed (p.21).

As Woelfel notes, this kind of approach simply reveals an “insensitivity to data, to ‘the facts,’ and [an] overconfident reasoning — both of which are aberrations of the humanist approach to knowledge” (p. 21).

In other words, most of us here are likely to be happy to be called “religious humanists” because, like Woelfel, we are people who have found the extremes of either a “religious certitude” or “a purely secular humanism — unacceptable” (p. 14).

Consequently, for Woelfel and, indeed, for me:

A truly whole and adequate humanism is one which, precisely in its absorbing preoccupation with [hu]man[ity], is sensitively open to the possibility that man himself may be more than we think at any given time — that he may, for example, be a creature involved with dimensions of reality of which our knowledge either is ignorant or has only scratched the surface (p. 22).

After my eighteen years as the minister here, a ministry which draws heavily, and rests gratefully, upon the twenty-four years of Frank’s ministry, as well as those of the four previous ministers and one significant lay leader in the person of the founder of this community, Professor F. J. M Stratton (Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge from 1928 to 1947), what Woelfel is describing seems to me to be in general terms pretty much what this community has been offering people in Cambridge for the last one-hundred and four years, namely, an “ecstatic” or “self-transcending” humanism that takes the Christian tradition seriously but without ever allowing itself to be restricted or oppressed in any way by its previous forms, metaphysical beliefs and dogmatic conclusions.

So, to conclude my remarks this morning, let me very briefly return to the reading you heard earlier in which Woelfel outlines this ecstatic humanism (pp. 23-25).

It’s important to be clear that he is using the word “ecstatic” in its straightforward etymological sense of “transcending” or “going beyond.” He uses the word because it’s a position which is simply seeking “to be sensitively open-minded about the possibility of dimensions of experience and reality beyond our present knowing” and of remaining “constantly aware of the limitations of the human situation and human knowledge.”

In a way this is, as many of you will be aware, a restatement of the poet John Keats’ important and influential idea of “negative capability” that, at times, we have no choice but to live “in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason”.

Both Keats and Woelfel in their different ways and times want to convey to us the idea that, although humanity’s potential is clearly, in huge part, importantly defined by the scientific knowledge it possesses, humanity is defined as much by what it does not possess. This is because to be fully human we have no choice, as Woelfel realises, but to find ways to behold with wonder and awe “the mysteries surrounding our existence” — mysteries which include, of course, “religious experience, love, art and beauty, the devoted search for truth”.

Of course, as “skeptics with naturally religious minds” and “open-minded ‘reverent’ humanists”, we’ll remain at least as critical and inquiring of our religious responses to the mysteries surrounding our existence as we are about our current scientific understanding, but my point today is that in a place like this we are affirming that a truly whole and adequate humanism requires both aspects to be in play in our lives and I continue to recommend it to you.

A few photos of a wild and windy early winter saunter through Fulbourn Fen and along Fleam Dyke

4 December 2018 at 14:37
Wadlow Wind Farm from Mutlow Hill
Yesterday I went off on my bicycle to Fulbourn Fen in order to saunter quietly along one of my favourite paths which runs along the top of Fleam Dyke to Mutlow Hill. It's one of the best places I know in which to enter into a philosophical reverie, a process that was no better described than by Henry Bugbee in his "The Inward Morning: A Philosophical Exploration in Journal Form". Here's the pertinent passage:

During my years of graduate study before the war I studied philosophy in the classroom and at a desk, but my philosophy took shape mainly on foot. It was truly peripatetic, engendered not merely while walking, but through walking that was essentially a meditation of the place. And the balance in which I weighed ideas I was studying was always that established in the experience of walking in the place. I weighed everything by the measure of the silent presence of things, clarified by racing clouds, clarified by the cry of hawks, waters of manifold voice, and consolidated in the act of taking steps, each step a meditation steeped in reality (The Inward Morning, p. 139).

In a fine companion volume to this book, "Wilderness and the Heart - Henry Bugbee's Philosophy of Place, Presence and Memory" the philosopher Daniel W. Conway notes that this passage reveals that:

Walking is not merely a calisthenic propaedeutic to the heroic labors of philosophizing. Rather, walking functions as the engine of immersion, which enables him to take the phenomenological measure of the wild he temporarily inhabits (Wilderness and the Heart, p. 6).

Well, yesterday, was a perfect example of this process, especially since at times, it became very wild and windy.

All photos taken with a Fuji X100F and are all straight out of the camera. The only changes made were to crop the two photos of Wadlow Wind Farm and the suset from 3:2 to 16:9.

Just click on a photo to enlarge

The five barred gate and beech tree at the end of Fleam Dyke hard by Mutlow Hill


The north western approach to Mutlow Hill from the end of Fleam Dyke

The north western approach to Mutlow Hill from the end of Fleam Dyke

The magnificent beech tree on the edge of Mutlow Hill (to the left)

The sun comes out for a moment lighting up the end of Fleam Dyke.

Sunset over Fulborn Fen

Sunset and its reflections in puddles near Fulbourn Fen

Another photo of Wadlow Wind Farm from Fleam Dyke

Not TINA but TATIANA - An advent address to prepare for the celebration of a lower case "c" christmas

2 December 2018 at 15:56
The Advent Star now alight in the manse
READINGS: Matthew 3:1-3

Dietrich Bonhoeffer in a letter written to his fiancée from his prison cell in Tegel Prison on December 13th 1943:

Waiting is an art that our impatient age has forgotten. It wants to break open the ripe fruit when it has hardly finished planting the shoot. But all too often the greedy eyes are only deceived; the fruit that seemed so precious is still green on the inside, and disrespectful hands ungratefully toss aside what has so disappointed them. Whoever does not know the austere blessedness of waiting — that is of hopefully doing without — will never experience the full blessedness of fulfilment.

From The Inward Morning: A Philosophical Reflection in Journal Form (University of Georgia Press, 1958 [new ed. 1999], pp. 221-222) by Henry Bugbee

[I]n all our doing there seems to be this aspect of learning to make answer and of groping for articulation which may thread us on a central strand of meaning capable of bearing the weight of all the disparate moments of our lives. But we are more or less locked in ourselves and at a loss how to make answer with our lives, to sing a true song. Frenetic questioning is of no avail, restless questing in itself aside from the point; these still suppose a case, however necessary they may be to the discovery of their irrelevance. It is in and out of silence, a deep stillness, that the full honesty of the true human spirit is born — and born to sing in word and deed that demand their own increase. This, this song that each of us must find his own voice to sing, and this alone, can incarnate for him explanation of his life. Its active testimony is the consolidation of belief. True response, then, is from silence, the still center of the human soul, and the corollary to this is patience. For the readiness is all. But patience is not postponement, not falling away from on-goingness; it is the readying to step clean forth (ecstasis), and there ever comes a time when the question sinks home: *when, if not now?* This seems to be what Zen is driving at when it demands, say a word, quick! This present moment.
          Is it not more accurate to say that we participate in creation than that we create? Is not creation as it touches us in what we do an interlocking of the resources with which we act, an interlocking of them with that which firms them and claims them as a province assimilated to incarnation?

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Not TINA but TATIANA — An advent address to prepare for the celebration of a lower case “c” christmas

Over the past few weeks I’ve offered you some interconnected thoughts on why, where- and whenever it turns up, I think we should consider finally letting go of the influential idea that we already know (in fixed and final terms) the ends towards which we believe we are, somehow, inevitably moving.

So, in the run up to Halloween I suggested we should think about letting go of our ideas about all utopian, capital “F” futures in favour of more modest and achievable lowercase “f” futures. Following the example of the contemporary Italian philosopher Franco “Bifo” Berardi, to do this is gratefully to accept the world’s natural and innate ‘futurability’ which alway allows there to be possible, alternative futures (good and bad, preferable and undesirable) to the ones currently being offered to us by our dominant theologians, philosophers, politicians and economists under the mantra of TINA coined by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, “There Is No Alternative.” However, true human freedom from eternal bondage and oppression is found in the world’s natural and innate futurability and, as the Greek economist and writer Yanis Varoufakis has put it, this means we can remind people of the often obscured truth of TATIANA, “That, astonishingly, there is an alternative.”

Then, in our Remembrance Sunday service, I suggested something similar in connection with peace, namely, that we should think about letting go of all ideas about utopian capital “P” Peace in favour of a more modest and achievable lower case “p” peace. Quoting the poem “Making Peace” by the Anglo-American poet Denise Levertov I noted that, lowercase “p” “. . . peace, like a poem, is not there ahead of itself, can’t be imagined before it is made, can’t be known except in the words [and actions] of its making.”

In other words I have been saying that any real, peaceful future (lowercase “p” and “f”) is only to be found inscribed as possible in the world as we find it now and in the decisions we take now — the world is not ahead of us. As you may remember, “Bifo” Berardi also reminds us that the task of creating such a peaceful future always begins with the need patiently to observe “the chaotic intricacy of matter, of events, of flows, and seek[ing] for a possibility of order, a possible organization of chaotic material.” Only following such a period of patient waiting can we hope to begin to  “extract fragments from the magma then try to combine them, in an attempt to reverse entropy: intelligent life is this process of local, provisional reversal of entropy.”

Today, on the first Sunday of the season of Advent (or should advent this be spelt with a lowercase “a” advent?) — the season of patient waiting and preparation for christmas — I want to do something similar in connection with capital “C” Christmas and argue for the need to re-learn the ancient art of patient observation of “the magma” in order to create and celebrate from out of the chaotic intricacy of matter, of events, of flows an alternative, lower case “c” christmas which, just like a poem, is not there ahead of itself, that can’t be imagined before it is made, that can’t be known except in the words and actions of its making.

We need to do this because there are many problems with capital “C” Christmas and the biggest one for me is that we nearly always come at it as if we already know what (in fixed and final terms) it is towards which we believe we are, somehow, inevitably moving. You see the capital “C” Christmas is another expression of the problematic capital “F” Future which I think we need to let go.

So before, before we go on we should ask what, for us today, is a capital “C” Christmas?. Well, since it is such a complex hodgepodge of medieval Christian theology, Victorian moral family sentimentality and rampant, neoliberal consumerism, it turns out to be a fiendishly complicated thing haunted by spectres of both capital “C” Christmas past and capital “C” Christmas future. Here are just three of the most obvious layers.

Capital “C” Christmas is haunted by the ghosts of our belief that once-upon-a-time, and one day in some hoped-for future age, there was and will be born an incarnation of a supernatural, transcendental God among us or ‘Emmanuel’, the very Messiah, the chosen one of God — a figure who has and/or will save us from our foolish and sinful selves. The Christian Church has, remember, long told us that, as far as it is concerned, to the solution that is Christ (the Messiah) there is no alternative — TINA.

Capital “C” Christmas is also haunted by the ghosts of our belief that once-upon-a-time, and one day in some hoped-for future age, there was and will be the absolutely perfect capital “P” Peaceful gathering of family and close friends in a house warmed by log fires, decked with holly and ivy, graced with a beautiful tree and filled to overflowing with festive food, wine and song. To this one dimensional image of in what must consist the perfect Christmas gathering our culture insists there is no alternative — TINA

Capital “C” Christmas is also haunted by the ghosts of our belief that once-upon-a-time, and one day in some hoped-for future age, there was and will be found the perfect ultimate gift both to be given and received. To this seasonal call to buy, buy, buy our culture also insists there is no alternative — TINA.

But the truth is, year after year (now totalling 2018) the supernatural messiah never comes, the perfect gathering of family and friends never quite occurs — fraught as it always is with hidden or explicit tensions and disappointments of one sort or another including, of course, death and illness — and, lastly it is also negatively affected by the failed attempt to find the perfect, ultimate gift which often puts a further strain on one’s already stretched finances and, even then, the gift eventually given doesn’t quite come up to the mark and the gift received is not quite that for which one had hoped.

Because we are told there is no alternative (TINA), such a capital “C” Christmas, when believed in and doggedly aimed for, always turns out to be an illusion and leads only to either vague or strong disappointments. But, fortunately, we know we live in a world ruled not by TINA, but by TATIANA that reminds us, astonishingly, there is an alternative, namely a lower case “c” christmas. But what would that kind of christmas be like?

Well, to repeat, it seems to me to be something like a poem, it’s a christmas not there ahead of itself, one that can’t be imagined before it is made and which can’t be known except in the words and actions of its making. So we can’t say what it will be like but we can point to some processes that would allow it to come into being.

It is this thought which brings me back to advent because it is only through a process of patient waiting and observation studying “the chaotic intricacy of matter, of events, of flows” that we can go on properly to “seek for a possibility of order, a possible organization of chaotic material” — one such possibility that can emerge into modest existence (albeit for just a moment in this and that local community) is, I think, an alternative lowercase “c” christmas.

The first thing patiently to look at and see clearly in the chaotic material of life is that the Advent story as it is recounted in the texts of Matthew and Luke is already deeply problematic because it was written by authors who already believed they knew the capital “C” Christmas towards which all the characters referenced in the story were heading. It is, of course, towards the capital “C” Christ of capital “C” Christmas — the metaphysical saviour from another world who comes with a message to which there is no alternative (TINA). This, of course, only serves to occlude the many other modest, beautiful and creative alternative human possibilities for “salvation” are always already in “the magma” that is “the chaotic intricacy of matter, of events, [and] of flows”.

However, notwithstanding the fact that we know the Advent and Christmas story as a whole to be a creative fiction and not an historical truth, let’s imaginatively put ourselves in the shoes of John, Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zechariah, the Magi and the shepherds as if they were real people. The point is, surely, that they didn’t have a clue about to what and where they were heading. It’s not that something was standing in their way obscuring their view of the destination it’s simply that the world is never there ahead of itself — in this sense there never was a capital “F” future for them to see, despite what the Gospel writers claim. 

The characters in the story were, just as “Bifo” Berardi noted, people like us who must patiently observe “the chaotic intricacy of matter, of events, of flows” from out of which they were able to “seek for a possibility of order, a possible organization of chaotic material.” Following this they, and we, can only ever begin by “extract[ing] fragments from the magma” and then trying “to combine them, in an attempt to reverse entropy.” The genuinely first, lowercase “c” christmas story emerged from “the magma” — it was not and never could have been ahead of itself. It think we really should see this as a reminder that there never is a capital “C” Christmas ahead of us and that we must always slowly, carefully and patiently be making an alternative lowercase “c” christmas, locally evoking it into existence, now here, now there, and always already for the first time.

But something important stands firmly in the way of this creative process regularly occurring in our contemporary culture. It is, quite simply the loss of the ability to wait patiently. This is because, without this skill, there cannot be the necessary, careful, quiet and even silent observation of life’s chaotic material which are the only available materials out of which we can make a new lowercase “f” future, a new lowercase “p” peace and a new lowercase “c” christmas relevant for our own age.

As you heard earlier, the imprisoned German pastor and theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, expressed this loss of the ability to wait patiently succinctly and startlingly when he frankly acknowledged that “Waiting is an art that our impatient age has forgotten.” What was painfully true in 1943 seems to me to be catastrophically true today.

But, as the American philosopher Henry Bugbee noted, “It is in and out of silence, a deep stillness, that the full honesty of the true human spirit is born — and born to sing in word and deed that demand their own increase.”

With these words we begin to arrive at a sense of in what I think consists the kind of birth (nativity) that can occur in a lowercase “c” christmas. It’s a moment when we and those around us suddenly find our own voices to sing, and it is in this kind of ever newly born choir/community that we find we are incarnating “an explanation of life” which is a thread “of meaning capable of bearing the weight of all the disparate moments of our lives.”  It’s in such a living unfolding community, constantly and consciously being born out of “the chaotic intricacy of matter, of events, of flows” that we find a sense of what is meant by the words which begin all our morning services: “Divinity is present everywhere, the whole world is filled with God” and that, astonishingly, there is always an alternative — TATIANA. This ever-unfolding and emerging community will be for us an “active testimony” and “the consolidation of [our] belief” but it is vital to see that all this can only follow on from a patiently engaged in silence in which “readiness is all.”

“But”, as Bugbee insists we remember, “patience is not postponement, not falling away from on-goingness; it is the readying to step clean forth (ecstasis), and there ever comes a time when the question sinks home: when, if not now? This seems to be what Zen is driving at when it demands, say a word, quick! This present moment.”

And so we find ourselves back at this present moment on the first Sunday of Advent.

The lowercase “c” christmas I am recommending we try to evoke into existence and then celebrate here — the only christmas that can to my mind ever be truly achieved and which will never disappoint — is to be found right here, right now in the quality of our patient, careful, quiet, and even silent, observation of life’s chaotic material which, to repeat, are the only available materials out of which we can make a new lowercase alternative “f” future, a new alternative lowercase “p” peace and a new alternative lowercase “c” christmas.

So, be still, for “patience is not postponement, not falling away from on-goingness; it is the readying to step clean forth (ecstasis), and there ever comes a time when the question sinks home: when, if not now?

Thoreau's Journals and some photos of 'Salts Hole', Holkham, Norfolk-a somewhat smaller body of water than than Walden Pond

28 November 2018 at 13:08
Salt’s Hole, Holkham Whilst I was staying in Wells-next-the-Sea last week with Susanna I took a moment on a rainy day to drop into Crabpot Books on Staithe Street. To my surprise and delight I found the massive (and I mean massive) two volume 1962 Dover Edition of Henry David Thoreau’s Journals . I’ve never seen it for sale for under £150 but there it was before me for the astonishing and affordable price of £31.50! Naturally, I bought it, but then had the almost Herculean task of lugging it back on the bus and the train in addition to our luggage. Still, I’m glad I persevered, for as careful general readers of Thoreau will know (from the more readily available selections from his Journals ) they are full of him at his most ung...

A visit to Waxham and Happisburgh in the footsteps of M. R. James, Jonathan Miller, Lawrence Gordon Clark and Mark Fisher

27 November 2018 at 13:17
Mr Paxton visits Froston (i.e. Happisburgh) Church As a teenager growing up in the 1970s every Christmas I would await a couple of TV reruns on the BBC with great anticipation. One would be a film by Jaques Tati; the other would be a ‘Ghost Story for Christmas’, two of which very quickly became favourites, ‘Whistle and I’ll Come to You’ (directed by Jonathan Miller in 1968) and ‘A Warning to the Curious’ (directed by Lawrence Gordon Clark in 1972). Both of these TV productions of stories by M. R. James’ were filmed in various parts of Suffolk and Norfolk including Wells-next-the-Sea where throughout my life I have spent many a happy holiday hour with my parents, grandparents and, in the last twenty years in November arou...

Mr Chips as a vision and incarnation of a wholly immanent and natural "God"

18 November 2018 at 16:11
READINGS:
Peter O'Toole as Mr Chips (1969)

Jesus said: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9).

—o0o—


I hasten to add that I am not so naïve as to think that the demise of the transcendent God within my own interpreted experience entails the universalized conclusion that he does not exist. I have become increasingly impressed by the inescapably contextual character of all our “ultimate concerns.” I can appreciate the fact that all sorts of people deal with existence in terms of faith in the sovereign God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. On questions of ultimate meaning, none of us knows for sure who is closer to the mark. But in my own ongoing struggle to make sense of the Christian context of life- and world-interpretation, I find basic elements of that context which I simply cannot render coherent any longer, and I earnestly wonder how other persons manage to.

—o0o—


As some of you will know, “Goodbye, Mr. Chips” is a novella written by the English writer James Hilton published in October 1934 which tells the story of a much-loved school teacher, Mr Chipping, and his long career at Brookfield School, a fictional minor British boys’ public boarding school located in the fictional village of Brookfield, in the Fenlands. It appears that the model for this school was The Leys School here in Cambridge where Hilton was a pupil between 1915–18. The novella depicts the massive social changes that Mr Chips (as the schoolboys call him) experiences beginning with his arrival at Brookfield in the September of 1870, aged of 22 and running through the First World War and on to his death in November 1933, aged of 85, shortly after Hitler’s rise to power. At the beginning of his career Mr Chips is somewhat conventional in his beliefs and he exercises firm discipline in the classroom. However, after meeting and marrying Katherine, a young woman whom he met whilst on holiday in the Lake District, his views begin to broaden, and his classroom manner becomes less severe. Despite Chips' rather mediocre academic credentials and his view that his own subjects, Greek and Latin, are dead languages, we discover him to be an effective teacher who becomes highly regarded both by the students and the school’s governors.

An extract from Chapter 14

1917, 1918. Chips lived through it all. He sat in the headmaster’s study every morning, handling problems, dealing with plaints and requests. Out of vast experience had emerged a kindly, gentle confidence in himself. To keep a sense of proportion, that was the main thing. So much of the world was losing it; as well keep it where it had, or ought to have, a congenial home.
    On Sundays in Chapel it was he who now read out the tragic list, and sometimes it was seen and heard that he was in tears over it. Well, why not, the School said; he was an old man; they might have despised anyone else for the weakness.
    One day he got a letter from Switzerland, from friends there; it was heavily censored, but conveyed some news. On the following Sunday, after the names and biographies of old boys, he paused a moment and then added:—
    “Those few of you who were here before the War will remember Max Staefel, the German master. He was in Germany, visiting his home, when war broke out. He was popular while he was here, and made many friends. Those who knew him will be sorry to hear that he was killed last week, on the Western Front.”
    He was a little pale when he sat down afterward, aware that he had done something unusual. He had consulted nobody about it, anyhow; no one else could be blamed. Later, outside the Chapel, he heard an argument:—
    “On the Western Front, Chips said. Does that mean he was fighting for the Germans?”
    “I suppose it does.”
    “Seems funny, then, to read his name out with all the others. After all, he was an ENEMY.”
    “Oh, just one of Chips’s ideas, I expect. The old boy still has ‘em.”
    Chips, in his room again, was not displeased by the comment. Yes, he still had ‘em—those ideas of dignity and generosity that were becoming increasingly rare in a frantic world.

—o0o—

ADDRESS
Mr Chips as an incarnation of a wholly immanent and natural “God”

This is one of those addresses which starts with a frank admission of a particular kind of darkness and despair. I do this because I think we always need to be meeting together in the spirit of honest truth seeking and, if there is darkness and despair about, then it must be frankly acknowledged — and even when, at times, there is no obvious answer to them. But, today, how this address begins is not how it ends for I do feel able to bring before you some reasonable and educated hope that can resist, albeit in a modest practical way, the darkness and despair with which I’m going to begin. Whether the hope I bring is enough for you personally is, of course, another matter but, be assured, some kind of hope will be offered by the end.

Last week, Remembrance Sunday, I celebrated with you the fact that in the evening there was going to be an ecumenical service of peace and reconciliation at the local German Lutheran Church in connection with the one-hundredth anniversary of the ending of the First World War. That anniversary, and the fact that we still seem to be heading towards what is to me and I know for many of you a distressing and wholly unnecessary break with Europe, meant I felt it was vital to cancel our own evening service and join this unashamedly European focused act of memorial. I was pleased to be joined by seven other members of our congregation in a gathering of more than sixty people from half a dozen churches across the city. I’m truly glad I went but I have to confess that, although the act of European solidarity did energise and uplift me, the conventional theological and religious content of the service did not. So, what was going on?

Well, as I sat there, I realised it was yet another one of the increasing number of ecumenical religious events I attend where, despite my deep connection with, and (I hope genuine) loyalty to a practical and ethical way of living which centres on the example of the human Jesus (especially for me as mediated through Tolstoy’s “Gospel in Brief”), I was forcibly reminded that I simply no longer hold any Christian metaphysical beliefs and, as a Unitarian (of sorts) certainly not belief in the Trinitarian version of monotheism or, indeed, any version of monotheism. Consequently, the central hope being offered up in the ecumenical service — namely, that the supernatural, transcendent God of Love in the form of the Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost would finally be able to save and restore us all following the kind of horrific violence seen in all wars — left me unmoved.

At the time I was powerfully reminded of a short piece written by the American philosopher and theologian James W. Woelfel in 1976 which had a great influence on my own thinking when I first came across it back some fifteen years ago. Woelfel notes that what had caused him to lose his own belief in the God of monotheism was that “there is simply too much suffering” in the world. Here is what he says:

Dr. Bernard Rieux, the narrator of Albert Camus’s challenging statement on suffering called The Plague, sums it up with appropriate intensity and particularity. This world, he says, is “a scheme of things in which children are put to torture.” It is a world in which, from many causes, children are too easily stunted, warped, denied, deprived, abused, malnourished, diseased, shot, gassed, bombed and generally robbed of their potentiality. What happens to children is a particularly graphic indicator of the depth of our human bondage to forces within ourselves and our planet.

Woelfel additionally tells us that his own religious despair was “not over finite existence as such, but over the crushingly heavy burden” of what seemed to him to be “nonsensical bondage”. It was “the sheer excess — the disproportion of our human bondages and the absurdity resulting from this excess, the grotesque pointlessness of so much of it” that undermined his “sense of ultimate meaning as transcendent willing purpose.”

I realise this sort of admission can be a profoundly disturbing thing to hear but my strong sense is that, at least at times, many of us here feel the same — I certainly do — and it is clearly something that many, many other secular people also feel in our wider society.  Anyway, last weekend, as we remembered in particular the conflict of 1914-1918, could there be found any better words to describe it than “grotesque pointlessness”?

As I sat in my chair looking around at the sixty other people present I found I could only earnestly wonder, as Woelfel earnestly wondered, how other persons were able to render coherent the underlying supernatural, transcendent theological elements found in the hymns, prayers and collects being used. 

Please don’t mishear me at this point. I’m not laughing at or pouring scorn upon those present who can render these theological elements coherent because, as far as I can meaningfully measure these things, most of the people there I have found to be good and often remarkable, they are people whom I both like and greatly admire. Also, as Woelfel says, I, too, have become increasingly impressed by the inescapably contextual character of all our “ultimate concerns” and I am perfectly able to appreciate the fact that all sorts of people deal with existence in terms of faith in the sovereign God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So there really is no laughter or scorn here, but only a genuinely earnest wondering about how on earth others can continue to render this God coherent?

This wondering brings me back to my earlier point about my own continuing deep connection with, and loyalty to, a practical way of living that centres on the example of the human Jesus. This is because, these days, it is only through the human that I can find any kind of theological and religious hope which I am still able to render coherent and plausible.

Like Woelfel, and I know many of you, I also find myself “somewhat drawn to certain aspects of what I understand of the world orientation of Gautama the Buddha: the difficult art of learning to accept the quite specific limitations and possibilities of my life without making myself unhappy struggling to affirm beliefs I cannot honestly affirm.” But upbringing, temperament and, let’s not forget, my public rôle as a minister in a church deeply rooted in the liberal Christian tradition, means that, again like Woelfel:

I am still more comfortable dealing with my life-situation in the more familiar terms of the Christian tradition. And at this stage in my pilgrimage, that has come to mean the myth of the God who in Christ dies to his deity and lives only as grand and miserable human beings within this beautiful ruined Eden called earth.

[This is a version of what is known as “Death of God theology” — a broad theological movement to which I myself belong.]

This means that, both for Woelfel and for me, the only possible revelation of “God” is one found in “the faces of us unlikely human beings, [and] his only worship our compassionate devotion to one another and to the needs of our earth.” In short, this “is the only version of the Christian myth that I can find personally tolerable and meaningful.”

Woelfel asks — as perhaps some of you might ask, and certainly many believing Christians will ask — whether any of this is at all biblical? And Woelfel and I answer, of course it isn’t. But, as Woelfel wisely reminds us, “a great deal that passes historically and at the present time for Christian faith and theology is not biblical but an imaginative development or a logical implication out of the biblical sources.”

So now, with this particular a/theistic, and certainly non-supernatural and non-biblical version of Christian myth held firmly in mind — i.e. that the only revelation of God is found in the faces of us unlikely human beings and his only worship our compassionate devotion to one another and to the needs of our earth — I can now turn to the only moment in last week’s ecumenical service that, in theological and religious terms, truly uplifted me and which gave me what felt like genuine hope. It occurred during a fine reading of the passage from “Goodbye Mr Chips” which you heard earlier.

What struck me, really struck me when I heard the passage — almost to the point of tears — was that, in comparison to Mr Chips modest but beautiful act in the school chapel in remembering “THE ENEMY” as well as the English schoolboys who had died, all the supernatural metaphysics on display in the service were, and are, to me as nothing because in that moment in the character of Mr Chips I truly felt I was beholding the only kind of face of the only kind of “God” in which I can now believe. Not, of course, the grand supernatural, metaphysical God of monotheism who was constantly being evoked throughout the service in the various prayers, hymns and collects but, to repeat Woelfel’s words I quoted earlier, a wholly immanent God seen in “the faces of us unlikely human beings” and that the only worship I was then, and am able to now take part in is in “our compassionate devotion to one another and to the needs of our earth”.

In our own frantic, secular age with its threats from various intolerant nationalisms and climate change, do we really need any other incarnation of “God” than that found in the countless numbers of ordinary men and women who, like Mr Chips, never stop keeping before us ideas of dignity and generosity?

So I give thanks to “Mr Chips” who during that evening last week was for me a saving vision and incarnation of a wholly immanent and natural “God”
❌