When you have grown up with a particular framework for understanding the world and theology, it is not a simple task to listen through different ears to a different vocabulary. But, this is, in fact, what Jesus asked his friends and enemies to do – just read the gospels and this is the story: who dared to listen and look at God, the world and us through a different lens, and who could only try to shut out the heresy?
The Bradford Diocesan Clergy Conference began today at Swanwick in Derbyshire. I guess it's one of those things – like preaching – where you just have to be there to 'get it'. We began with an utterly human session with David Runcorn on 'keeping faith in a time of change'. Then we had a first session with Diarmuid O'Murchu on the developing cosmological context of human spirituality. It is in this context that we explored the implications of human belonging to the interconnected web of relationship with people, creation and the cosmos.
What struck me while listening to this was the clash of vocabulary for articulating theologically why the world is the way it is and how we are to understand it and God. If we are locked into a closed system in which theology encourages orientation towards 'other world' salvation, the talk of an open system of engagement with the created order 'now' seems odd. Or just wrong. If we have grown used to thinking in terms of particular doctrines, then all this cosmological stuff just sounds like New Age nonsense.
But the reason for having this on our programme is simply to challenge (or encourage?) us as clergy to think outside our conventional linguistic and theologically conceptual frameworks about the usual stuff: human meaning, life on the planet, spirituality that is engaged with reality and not just an escape from it, the moral claims of responsible living as beings in community in an interdependent cosmos.
It is far better to listen to stuff that challenges our preconceptions than simply to hear what confirms our assumed frameworks and makes us feel comfortable. After all, part of the role of clergy is to stir other people up into hearing the Gospel differently, listening through different ears, looking though different eyes, and catching glimpses of God's glory that would remain hidden if we only ever look through familiar lenses.
We are at the beginning. There is more to come. But, someone has to do the hard work of trying to find a vocabulary for relating the varying disciplines of science, social observation, anthropology, philosophy and theology to each other in a way that encourages intelligibility. We have to work at this; it is not easy. But, it is interesting to consider how much is to do with difference in 'content' (understanding of God and the world) as opposed to difference in 'language' for trying to express what is essentially always incomplete and mysterious.
As I discovered while working for the British Government thirty years ago (as a linguist at GCHQ), theology has to address and cope with the massive complexity of the real world – and that needs to be expanded to include the totality of the real cosmos.
Posted with Blogsy
September 19, 2012 at 6:21 am
Great post. I wish I was there. I’m a devotee of O’Murchu’s work and would love to have met him over dinner and late conversation in Swanwick. O’Murchu’s “Jesus in the Power of Poetry” is simply stunning – and prophetic – and I’ve just preordered his latest addition to the corpus. Well done Bradford for continuing to be so richly imaginative. I’m reminded of Bishop John V Taylor’s phrase “tomorrow’s bread today” whenever I think of / read Diarmuid O’Murchu.
Certainly “it is not a simple task to listen through different ears to a different vocabulary” but it’s also absolutely essential at this moment in world history and – thirty years into parish ministry – the most exciting, challenging vocation any of us could wish for. Will transcript / recording be available? Enjoy the rest of the conference – and very many thanks for expanding “to include the totality of the real cosmos”.
September 19, 2012 at 7:22 am
But in some ways the only tool we have to apprehed reality is language, so in a sense language is reality.
September 19, 2012 at 11:40 am
Hmmm … hope the clergy there who are struggling with issues of dwindling, ageing, congregations; apathetic communities; parishioners with mind-bendingly complex issues stemming from their selfish, nihilistic, hedonistic life-choices, find the theology of linguistics about the cosmos helpful!! Intellectually stimulating I’m sure, but helpful or useful…?
September 19, 2012 at 11:48 am
Clergy need to be stretched intellectually and spiritually as well as attend to the functional stuff of parish life. A conference is designed to stimulate and encourage at lots of levels and our programme also has biblical input, entertainment, worship and other speakers. It is a menu, not a single dish.
September 19, 2012 at 11:58 am
Nick did you actually read the stuff on O’Murchu’s website before you invited him? There are some seriously weird essays on there. The X-Files of Christian theology.
September 19, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Your posting made me reread relevant verses of Hindu scriptures; including these:
That kind of knowledge by which one sees
One mode of being, changeless, undivided
In all contingent beings, divided as they are,
Is Goodness [knowledge]. Be sure of this.
But that kind of knowledge which in all contingent beings
Discerns in separation all manner of modes of being,
Different and distinct, –
This thou must know is knowledge born of passion.
But that kind of knowledge which sticks to one effect
As if it were all, – irrational,
Not bothering about the Real as the true object of all knowledge -
This trifling knowledge is Darkness’ own. So it is laid down.
The Bhagavad-Gita XIII 20-22
I take this to mean that in knowing the Unknowable, we have to resort to all kinds of vocabularies, narratives and perspectives which we should treasure and explore even as we have to attend to ‘building the parish’ or whatever.
September 19, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Fair enough
September 19, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Yes events such as conferences can challenge and extend awareness. Elder daughter recently held a first folio Shakespeare, awe and wonder come in many forms!
September 19, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Andrew, I’ll resist the sort of response your comment deserves. What is your problem? Should we only invite people who say what we want to hear in words that make us comfortable? Or is there a virtue in listening to people who come at things from a different angle? We don’t have to agree with him. In fact, the clergy are so mature here that pretty well everyone engaged with what he had to say and asked some excellent critical questions. Several of the more conservative clergy were grateful that we got someone left-field whose language alone makes you think hard about why we think the way we think about what we think. Maybe you can’t cope with that, but we can.
September 19, 2012 at 6:18 pm
[...] via The web of belonging « Nick Baines’s Blog. [...]
September 19, 2012 at 7:50 pm
I rarely learn anything from people I am 100% in agreement with.
September 19, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Wow – this kind of thinking makes me nervous (I share some roots with Andrew Carey), and at the same time wistful: wish I was away on a conference ‘stead of up to here in ‘parish’ – ministry?!
Since your blog, Nick, usually encourages me to get out and keep on keeping on – offering Jesus in bluntest possible terms – carefully aimed! – I reckon it must be true that this kind of stretchy thinking works its way down to be good for us.
So best of luck to you! – keep blogging.
September 19, 2012 at 9:20 pm
I was surprised when I saw some of the essays on the website. I won’t quote from them specifically but you say yourself he’s left field.
September 19, 2012 at 11:45 pm
So what’s the problem, Andrew?
September 20, 2012 at 8:19 am
How encouraging to read about the mirror of difference being genuinely valued.
September 20, 2012 at 9:10 am
“clergy there who are struggling with issues of dwindling, ageing, congregations; apathetic communities; parishioners with mind-bendingly complex issues stemming from their selfish, nihilistic, hedonistic life-choices…”
If clergy really had so little comprehension of and compassion for the lives of their parishioners, we’d at least know why their churches were empty.
But these people would then be precisely the ones who need to be shaken out of their small moralistic and simplistic universe every now and then and be helped to engage on a slightly more expanded scale.
It sounds like a brilliant conference!
September 20, 2012 at 9:18 am
I enjoy listening to and reading stuff I disagree with. I love debate. I’m sure that O’Murchu’s talks stimulate discussion and perhaps that’s all they need to do. However at a Diocesan Conference an endorsement of some kind is implied of some pretty extreme ideas. I might be wrong but that leaves me uncomfortable.
September 20, 2012 at 9:25 am
Then, Andrew, maybe you need to be uncomfortable. You really think that invitation equals endorsement? I am pleased that my clergy – of all complexions – seem to have a more mature approach to thinking.
September 20, 2012 at 10:29 am
The endorsement is in taking his ideas more seriously than they merit and giving them an undeserved prominence. I’ll quote from a not unrepresentative passage from his website:
“1. We need to outgrow the stultifying reductionism of the 2000 year bench mark.
2. Jesus did not come to rescue or redeem us – there is nothing from which we need to be rescued, other than our own patriarchal dysfunctionality which is our problem and not God’s
3. Jesus, along with the incarnational figures of the other great religions, affirms and celebrates all we have achieved throughout our evolutionary journey of 7,000,000 years.
4. Jesus embodies for us and points us in the direction of our next evolutionary leap as a human species (See Evolution: Essay 2).
5. From an evolutionary perspective, it is the humanity of Jesus that is all important, not his divinity. Fidelity to the transformative humanness of Jesus is what will guide us to become more God-like.
6. And the wholeness that Jesus models for us is not in the power of his Death, but in the power of the radical way he lived Life – so radical, original and inspiring that it cost him an untimely death.
7. And central to this new way of being human is the call to work for right relationships and the building of faith communities based on love and justice. Relational wholeness rather than individual prowess is the goal to which we are all called.
8. Finally, Jesus serves as a power not to be imitated, but rather as an empowerer who can liberate us to empower others so that together we can build up that new world order, which the Gospels call the Kingdom of God.”
In this passage we find extremism; an implied claim of special gnosis; and a breathtaking rejection of any unique signficance to Jesus.
September 20, 2012 at 7:38 pm
I have never responded to a post on a blog before but I have read your responses Andrew and I am slightly perplexed.
I am just back from the clergy conference you comment on . I can only speak personally of my experience of the conference and Diarmuid O’Murchu but you have a strange take on what happened. Before Monday I had never heard of Diarmuid O’Murchu. I knew little about his academic disciplines and the issues he was wrestling with. Without some background in science , and philosophy and social psychology it was s struggle in the lectures to follow his argument and work out the implications BUT (But in big letters) I was able for a few hours to be challenged to think about things, that as a parish priest I would never have encountered in the normal run of my life. He had some superb insights and I encourage anyone to hear him and listen as he himself wrestles with combining belief in God and His interaction with His creation
The reason for my writing this post was a reaction to your comment that by his lecturing to us “an endorsement of some kind is implied”. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was one speaker amongst Margaret Barker, John Bell , David Runcorn and Bishop Nick. We were told at the very start to listen, take what God says to us through the speakers and stretch our minds. Mr O‘Murchu was a gift to us all as part of that process.
Final note- He was received well and politely by most people and in an atmosphere of openness, kindness and encouragement. He was questioned about some of the more radical parts of his thinking especially around the subjects of the atonement and the incarnation .
We weren’t harmed by that but challenged and inspired= and grateful.
September 20, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Andrew, as I said, our clergy are more mature than you would wish. They have minds and can think for themselves. The idea of endorsement is nonsense. I don’t know what you are afraid of – do you think the poor darlings need to be protected rather than stretched?
September 20, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Nick you seem to be implying that I fear for the spiritual health of your clergy. That’s not the issue for me. It’s about your judgement in endorsing such marginal and loopy thinking. There is after all so much good stuff out there.
September 20, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Andrew, get over the ‘endorsement’ thing. I’ll leave it to those who were there to decide if the judgement of the planning group was wise. I find your judgement misplaced. Move on.
September 21, 2012 at 10:20 am
Oh dear….Andrew!
Imagine coming across John the Baptist 2000 years ago and listening to his words. Imagine meeting the disciples John and James and hearing their account of the Transfiguration. Imagine meeting all those people struggling with physical and emotional disabilities who had encountered Jesus and listening to their testimony. Imagine listening to all that before you even meet Jesus. What would your ‘judgement’ be? Weren’t the Pharisees the accusers of marginal and loopy thinking?
As part of this clergy conference planning group, I feel I have right to make a comment. Not in defense, but rather on behalf of the rest of the group. Yes, we certainly knew Diarmuid O’Murchu was a risky choice for a clergy conference. Even Margaret Barker and John Bell were a risky choice for some. We wanted the conference to be creative by stretching the mind to the possibility of different thinking.
It is always far too easy to book the ‘right’ speakers and to be led by the expectations of others. It is far too easy to read the books we prefer and listen to the people we like to hear. But where is the challenge if we never step outside our comfort zone, reading the same old stuff and listening to the people we prefer? How do you expand your mind if you dismiss the very idea of listening to something new, whether you agree with it or not?
I am very grateful to Bishop Nick, for not ‘endorsing’ all the speakers and plans made for our conference, but for ‘allowing’ the planning group to be creative and less predictable. So far, the ‘judgement’ from those who were at the conference seems to be that we were ‘wise’ in our decisions. Of course Andrew, you weren’t there to hear what any of the speakers said and didn’t experience the conference as a whole.
September 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm
I’m not sure I should comment after the ‘move on ‘ instruction from Nick. I’m also not sure whether I’m being called a Pharisee or whether O’Murchu is John the Baptist? You’re setting up a straw man in suggesting that that the alternative to O’Murchu is someone unchallenging, and comfortable. The alternative might be someone who at least had a vaguely sensible theology.
September 21, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Having served in the Bradford Diocese since 1983 and therefore attended more clergy conferences than I care to remember, I can honestly say that this latest conference has been one of the most stimulating and enjoyable. As John points out, If we want to hear things we know beforehand we will agree with, we can attend conferences etc laid on by our ecclesiastical clan. I am grateful for having been helped to think outside of the box by speakers with whom I might not totally agree, but from whom it has been a privilege to learn. Nothing new in this – one of the earlier Bradford clergy conferences had Michael Goulder putting the case for atheism – hardly something that the then Bishop of Bradford could be accused of endorsing!
September 22, 2012 at 11:54 am
“A vaguely sensible theology”??? Andrew – is that the same as a nice neatly packaged theology, conforming to a particular way of understanding? Because that’s what you seem to be protesting about!
One of the first things ordinands are taught at theological college is to open their ears, hearts and minds to the possibility of something new, to expect the unexpected, otherwise we reduce God and limit him to our own understanding. The God I know isn’t neatly packaged, he is limitless, eternal, infinite and boundless.
September 22, 2012 at 2:38 pm
hey Andrew – I thought you said you weren’t going to quote specifically from Dairmuid O’Murchy’s essays?! I had a look and quite liked his zany approach as a valiant attempt to square the unsquarable (it’s all a mystery anyhow), but if you’d said his poetry was lousy, we’d definitely be seeing eye to eye
Now then, Meissen Commission – does that have anything to do with Beatrix Potter?
September 22, 2012 at 6:45 pm
John, no it’s not the same thing at all. Now I could have understood the point of inviting Goulder – there was a serious theologian of integrity – not a make it up as you go along merchant. Had you chosen O’Murchu for your comedy night I should have envied the clergy of Bradford. Jane is too kind with the word ‘zany’. He is to theology what Dan Brown is to literature.
September 22, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Andrew, I think we’ll end it there. You are beginning to look silly – and obviously more theologically competent than me and all my clergy. I am closing this thread