Who ticks your box?

I was flipping through the old Church Crimes on the train home and I read a wee article reminding us that this year it's the 50th anniversary of the publication of "Honest to God".  It reminded me that Bishop John Robinson was much influenced in his thinking by Tillich, Bultmann and Bonhoeffer, the cutting edge theologians of the days of his formation in Cambridge.  My theology was formed by being introduced to Karl Barth at University.  However, equally significant was my encounter with C S Lewis and my discovery of a variety of different "spiritual writers" - St John of the Cross, Ignatian writers, Martin Thornton and the Rule of St Benedict.  Perhaps my temperament naturally inclines to a more structured and dogmatic outlook, although the encounter with darkness and a profound sense than mystery rather than logical system are central.  But I think part of the attraction was a willingness to engage with the world.  Barth was anti-Nazi, Lewis experience both the horror of the trenches and the pain of bereavement.  John of the Cross was imprisoned for his views, Ignatius suffered a disabling injury at Pampalona.  Perhaps what made me engage with a thinker was their engagement with reality, even as I sometimes ran away from that.

Engaging with reality requires a level of honesty that I always find impressive.  Even if the person has human flaws, that is always a quality I find impressive.  Of course some use honesty as an excuse for being plain blasted rude.  Spiritual honesty is a gift I value.  Who floats your boat in terms of theology and spirituality?  And why?

Proceeding from the Father and err...

St Maximus the Confessor, who refused to get his Epanokamelavkion in a twist over this!

I am still slightly surprised that at yesterdays parish AGM went spent time discussing leaving the Filoque clause out of the Creed.  To be honsest it scarcely struck me as a pressing mission issue.  It never has really.  However, Three Lambeth Conferences (1888, 1978 and 1988) have recommended that the Filioque be dropped from the Nicene Creed by churches that belong to the Anglican Communion.  We've just been rather slow on the uptake in most provinces.  I suppose I am theoretically in favour of unity with the orthodox but realistically, the ordination of women and a variety of ethical issues makes this unlikely for at least a millenium or so.  Still at least we weren't obsessing about women in the episcopate and it ws all conducted in a calm and courteous manner - n beard pulling a la Nicea!

For once in my life I agree with a Bishop!

Yeah, you read it right the first time!

The Bishop of Edinburgh gave an absolutely superb talk on how he's approaching the Lambeth Conference at St John's Princes Street tonight (Monday). It was the best bit of theology I've heard from a Bishop since I heard David Jenkins give the Charles Gore Lecture in Westminster Abbey in 1991. And it was the best reflection on the Trinity I've heard since the late, great James Bruce Torrance taught me at Aberdeen University in the 1980's.

His analysis of the current crisis was original, acute and incisive. He highlighted the difference between Provinces like the SEC where theological diversity is both a necessity and a virtue and the Provinces of the Global South which tend to be the product of missionary organisations. They imparted a monochrome Anglican theology from one part of the ecclesiastical spectrum to their converts and stressed the necessity of singing from the same hymn sheet as the norm to enable effective evangelism in an often and even still hostile context. Philosophically he challenged the idea that the debate is a clash between right and wrong world views, because if you hold God to be transcendent, then he is beyond our powers of ethical description and the current debates are a clash between different Goods, equally valid but different. He used a rather neat line from Isaiah Berlin to challenge both the conservative and radical groupings: "Happy are they who rest secure in unchallenged dogma - they are comfortable in their self-inflicted myopia". Brilliant!

I wasn't so taken with his analysis of different legal systems, but his reflection that the economy of the Trinity is not just an interchange of perfect love, but also a wrestling in intercession between the 3 persons as shown in the Garden of Gethsemane was simply superb. Disagreement, conflict and painful struggle is part of the Trinitarian nature of the Church and to opt out of that into a conservative holy huddle or a liberal glee club is to turn your back on God and fail to follow the Commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain - that was a stunning challenge to all engaged in debate at this time.

I was so impressed that I told him so - publicly - which is so not my usual style. I urged him to put the lecture on the Diocesan website because this challenge needs to be heard by more than the 60 or old Piskies in St John's tonight. 600 bishops need to hear it too! He agreed to do something with the website. It should be online in the next few days. Read it when it appears -it is seriously good, thought provoking stuff.

O God! I'm not a liberal!

Our little course using "Living the Questions" DVD material is ongoing in the hall on Thursday nights. Stimulating stuff, that gets the happy half dozen talking and ye Rector (that's me folks)shows off his hibernating scholarship. Last night we got to lives of Jesus. After the 1st bit, I was debating strongly with one of the faithful (and he genuinely is) in defence of biblical criticism as a useful, nay essential tool. Then we got to Marcus Borg on what he believes about Jesus. It was when we got to the Resurrection that the rubber hit the road and my voice came out saying: "Well, to be honest, I really part company with this lot here."

I am not really terribly liberal in theology. I actually do believe he rose again, is alive and I have a relationship with him. It isn't "an eschatolgical manifestation of the ground of our being" (whatever that is) or a culturally conditioned response by the religious bit of my id, ego or super ego. Incarnation is a reality, as is resurrection. Otherwise, I really was wasting my time and got 50 quid under false pretences from the family whose 93 year old ma I planted with prayer in the local cemetery yesterday afternoon.

Then I read this and think: "dogmatic little bugger!" Try again. For me, incarnation and resurrection are real and matter. I say the creed without a qualm and am grateful that I can. If others have difficulty with that, but feel they can say the creed by doing some (what I regard as) intellectual gymnastics and travel with people like me in the mad ecclesiastical organisation I work for, then great, I'm happy and welcome aboard, let's journey together. Let me say the creed ex animo and I'll let you say it cum grano salis. And we'll still meet at the altar rail together and break bread together on our knees.

Hey! Maybe I am really a liberal after all. Just doctrinally a wee bit conservative. I think I can live with that.