I ended the service at Drumchapel Essenside URC with these brilliant words from Roddy Hamilton:

let us go out
with quiet boldness,
tender daring,
simmering anger,
impatient justice.

let us go out with provocative peacemaking
into advent,
enough to crack open the moribund and dry faith of the world
in it’s spent and necrotic cravings.

let us go out with a message
that disturbs the world with restless whispers
about god and incarnation,
goosebumps and justice.

let us go out
and muffle our laughter
behind an unnerving truth
heaven-shaped
sharp-edged
waiting to crack it all open
and let the glory through
with a living word:
jesus

Restless whispers.  Goosebumps and justice.  That’s what Advent is for me.

Let the waiting begin.

On Friday I spent the morning at a meeting of Christian Youth Workers who are discussing setting up a network. To help us think about what the network should be and how we could describe it Neil Pratt from ICC led us through a discussion on ‘what is Christian Youth Work?’.

I’ve always been a little skeptical of the term. I agree that there are youth workers who are Christian but I see little that defines youth work as Christian beyond the motivation of the worker.

We ended up in a discussion about motivation, evangelism v education. For me, youth evangelism is not the same as youth work. Youth work is educational and not dependent on young people coming to faith.

What do you think?

I’m fed up with people who don’t know what they are talking about jumping on band wagons because it suits their purposes.

Question Time (BBC)  over the past few weeks has seen a whole load of people calling for a referendum on the new European ‘constitution’.  It is painfully obvious that the vast majority of these people have never read the proposed document, know very little about it or its implications but because the newpaper they read has decided it’s a bad thing then they agree.

The same has happened with Archbishop Rowan Williams and his comments on faith and the law.  It has been widely reported that Williams called for the introduction of sharia law in the UK.  Let’s just think about that for a moment.  The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks we should be governed by Islamic law.  Really?  Of course that’s not what he said and anyone who has half a brain and who actually listened to what he said knows that’s not what he said!  But why should the facts get on the way of an intelligent man making some thoughtful remarks on the biggest issue of our time?

And before you think I’m a big fan, I’m not really.  I think he is a brilliant thinker but I’d prefer him to be a bit more decisive as a leader.  That said, I’d rather have a thinker than a reactionary in his role.

The other day Williams suggested that Muslims should perhaps (do you see the important word here… perhaps - he’s encouraging people to discuss the idea) be able to use certain parts (not chopping people’s hands off for theft, although I’m not sure the Daily Mail would have that much of an issue with this) of sharia law to settle disputes like divorce, inheritance and other family problems where Islamic law is not at odds with civil law.  These decisions would then be ratified by a civil court.  His reason?  Some people, of all faiths, feel that God is a higher authority than the civil court.  Again, anyone want to disagree that some people, Christian, Muslim or Jew , think that?  Why should these people not be able to settle their legal disputes using their religious frameworks as long as they are not in conflict with the civil law?

This is the same principle as DIY divorce, or even mediated divorce.  You sit down with a third party, work out who gets what and then the court ratifies that decision as long as both parties are happy with the arbitration.  If not, the court decides in the usual fashion.

Can anyone tell me what’s wrong with that?  No, thought not.  But it makes a good story… as long as the facts don’t get in the way.

I had Ethics class today at Uni.  A quick spin through feminist and postmodern ethics.  It was hard work but fascinating.  One of the many thoughts that struck me was that these ethical theories explain clearly the differences in Traditional Church and Emerging Church.  I’ll try to explain.  For me the main differences in the two forms of church would seem to be something like this:

Traditional Church
Meta narrative, justice, generalisation, rules, preaching, structure, right and wrong, telling, creeds, liturgy

Emerging Church
personalisation, discovery, engagement, how does that work for me?, collective decisions, creative.

I wondered if it was about taste, preference, what you are used to.  People say that old people like church as it is because they are comfortable with it.  I don’t disagree, but why do they engage more easily with traditional church and why are there exceptions?

I think it’s all about ethics.  Traditional church was born out of the Enlightenment.  It is big on Reason and Knowledge.  On experts and rules that apply to everyone (10 commandments and stuff).  It is all based on the ethics of Kant.  His ethics of Justice that apparently us men like.  Rules, fair play and justice.

The thing is our postmodern society with its feminist critique would suggest that we have moved away from Kant’s rigid ethical framework to a world which is much more willing to say that knowledge is contextual, rules are not universal but depend on the place and circumstances of their application.  There are no experts, at least none that know more than me about my life.  Perhaps an Ethic of Care is where we find ourselves with more consideration given to how our decissions and actions affect people around us and around the world.

So, back to where I started this ramble, the church.  Is the church for telling us how it is?  Enforcing the rules?  Telling us what to believe and how to believe it?  Or is it about giving us the tools to make good decisions?  To share our stories, our experiences of God in our lives and to make a difference to the lives of others?  I know which I’m more comfortable with, but I think I maybe understand a little better why other people might want the other kind of church, and that’s ok.

For another illustration of what I’m talking about click HERE to read Jonny Baker’s comparison of traditional church concerns and his emergent community.