It's been a week since I last blogged on forgiveness though in between I had a conversation in which I was sharing what I've been learning with a friend. I also felt that I really wanted to engage now with some thinking about forgiveness rather than the case studies -perhaps with a view to looking at some more case-studies after some reflection.
So here we look at CS Lewis. He links forgiving with loving ones enemy. I think it is Lewis' deistinction between loving the sinner and hating the sin that has stuck with me and lies behind somewhere the way that I have reacted to the stories of forgiveness I have been looking at. He applies the notions to forgiveness so that it becomes clear that forgiving someone does not mean we have to agree with what they did [or do] and it does not mean that we have to like them. In this piece we close on the words "Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere, he can be cured and made human again."
And I certainly feel that the themes that come in the article here have been seen in the stories we have looked at so far: forgiveness doesn't mean calling what is bad good nor pretending that we like it. It is about humanity and finding or refinding humanity.
31 March 2004
Westwood vs Williams
Rowan Williams has some helpful things to say about religious education and in relation to atheism. He shows he is no slouch in the thinking game -so how amusing to read in today's Guardian Vivenne Westwood saying "Anybody who's religious is a nutcase. No, they're lunatic. He [Philip Larkin] said that when he read the Bible, he couldn't imagine how even one person in the world could believe that crap". Atheist 'fundamentalism' can be as unthinking and flagrantly dismissive of others as any other.
It seems that Rowan's main point is that atheism isn't a single system of thought but usually a protest and to understand it requires knowing what is protested against. Ie "Which God don't you believe in?"
The other interesting thing he highlights is how the thinking behind the report on RE seems to fall back on tacit assumptions of secularism to the detriment of other ways of viewing the world -the same old problem we always face in institutions that claim to be secular as a way of being neutral about religious claims but in fact demand the subservience of religions to their secular viewpoint. We cry 'foul'! Or if we are more circumspect we might echo what +Rowan says here "the notion of a default position for the human mind or self, poised to decide its ‘values’, is a dangerous fiction".
He does a good job of meeting the problems implied by a strong form of incommensurability in relation to matters of faith and reason.
It seems that Rowan's main point is that atheism isn't a single system of thought but usually a protest and to understand it requires knowing what is protested against. Ie "Which God don't you believe in?"
The other interesting thing he highlights is how the thinking behind the report on RE seems to fall back on tacit assumptions of secularism to the detriment of other ways of viewing the world -the same old problem we always face in institutions that claim to be secular as a way of being neutral about religious claims but in fact demand the subservience of religions to their secular viewpoint. We cry 'foul'! Or if we are more circumspect we might echo what +Rowan says here "the notion of a default position for the human mind or self, poised to decide its ‘values’, is a dangerous fiction".
He does a good job of meeting the problems implied by a strong form of incommensurability in relation to matters of faith and reason.
Sellafield criticised in Europe
Apparently [and again it's been said for years] BNFL are not good news when it comes to cleaning up the waste. There continue to be bids by the nuclear power industry to tout nuclear as the answer to global warming -perhaps it could but what do we do with all the gloopy stuff left over?
How green was my Silicon Valley?
One environmentalist commented "The federal government is operating under the terrible misconception that global warming pollution is good for the economy," said Ralph Cavanagh, energy director at the Natural Resources Defense Fund. "But now Silicon Valley is saying the opposite. And Silicon Valley has more credibility on the issue." 'Nuff said?
Credit where it's due
The other day I blogged about the speech by George Carey and the reaction by some Muslim organisations and in it I agreed with George Carey that moderate Muslims should be seen to be disowning radical islamism. Well, this article shows that perhaps it is happening. So two cheers for the MCB. The letter they have sent to Mosques all over Britain says "Islam categorically forbids violence and killing of innocents, let alone indulging in violence which can cause death and mayhem," -which sounds pretty unequivocal to me. and more we are told that booklets are being printed that will remind Muslims of their obligation to help safeguard Britain's security.
The full text of the letter from the MCB urges religious leaders to do various things. My two cheers are for doing this; I reserve my third cheer for when we in Bradford see the effects of the call "To develop active contacts with other faith communities and civic organisations in order to help maintain social peace and good community relations" -we've been trying to get mosques to do this for years but it really has been like pushing water up a hill.
The full text of the letter from the MCB urges religious leaders to do various things. My two cheers are for doing this; I reserve my third cheer for when we in Bradford see the effects of the call "To develop active contacts with other faith communities and civic organisations in order to help maintain social peace and good community relations" -we've been trying to get mosques to do this for years but it really has been like pushing water up a hill.
civil liberty dangers of the plutonium econmoy
One of the dangers of nuclear power is its vulnerability to attack by terrorists and the great deal of damage that such an attack could wreak. We've been saying this since the mid 'seventies but it's taken Al Qaeda to wake governments up -or so it seems. I am told that the police force that guard nuclear materials in the UK have pretty draconian powers ...
Dead zones in the seas
First the ozone hole now we learn of holes in the hydrosphere caused by run off from fertilisers used in conventional chemically enhanced agriculture. Need to factor this into thinking about GM too ...
29 March 2004
Fallen technology
This has important perpectives to put over. A recognition that technology carries it's own entail of presuppositions and habits [which can be critiqued by the likes of cultural studies people] -that there is a truth to the idea that 'the medium is the message'. Bill Wylie-Kellermann writes in part of his contribution to this dialogue "Technology is best counted among the fallen principalities and powers and hence moves with a life of its own. Human beings who wield these tools (be they PC owners or software kings) imagine they are in the driver's seat, granted greater control, but they are in fact driven. They are wielded by mechanisms of efficacy and speed. They are in the grip of and at the mercy of their own "tools." In the alienation of human beings from God, they are at once alienated from themselves, their social constructions, their own powers,"
Just so and so nice also to see a powers theology being used in the service of cultural critique.
I think my take on the point at issue in this dilogue -do we control or are we controled by technology is 'Yes' to both and 'no' to both. The real problem is that there is a dialogic relationship -no; a chaotic-emergent relationship where the feedback from the interrelating of the two elements creates a new and somewhat unpredictable situation. We both control and don't quite control technology. We can't reach clisure with it but we can try to use it and be prepared to critique our using of it and be prepared to notice when it takes on a life of its own and what ends that life serves.
I think that Dave Batstone in this is articulating something like my position when he says; "So what does it mean to be spiritually alert in an age of technology? It means being conscious of the choices that are before us and where they are likely to lead. It means charting how knowledge is distributed and how to access it. It means learning the ideas, skills, and strategies that enable success in a given location. It means learning how to use the resources of local communities to establish leverage against dominant elites. It means intentionally creating the kinds of community that allow us to live with dignity. It means learning how to take care of people, not just people learning how to take care of themselves."
Now my question falls back to: what of technology in worship [and that includes candles and pipe organs!]? And what of it in mission?
Just so and so nice also to see a powers theology being used in the service of cultural critique.
I think my take on the point at issue in this dilogue -do we control or are we controled by technology is 'Yes' to both and 'no' to both. The real problem is that there is a dialogic relationship -no; a chaotic-emergent relationship where the feedback from the interrelating of the two elements creates a new and somewhat unpredictable situation. We both control and don't quite control technology. We can't reach clisure with it but we can try to use it and be prepared to critique our using of it and be prepared to notice when it takes on a life of its own and what ends that life serves.
I think that Dave Batstone in this is articulating something like my position when he says; "So what does it mean to be spiritually alert in an age of technology? It means being conscious of the choices that are before us and where they are likely to lead. It means charting how knowledge is distributed and how to access it. It means learning the ideas, skills, and strategies that enable success in a given location. It means learning how to use the resources of local communities to establish leverage against dominant elites. It means intentionally creating the kinds of community that allow us to live with dignity. It means learning how to take care of people, not just people learning how to take care of themselves."
Now my question falls back to: what of technology in worship [and that includes candles and pipe organs!]? And what of it in mission?
Turbulence for the wind industry?
Investors are betting that the UK won't meet it's renewables targets and at present trends that may be true. However, the question may be whether or not an exponential virtuous circle could develop in whaich case I suspect all bets would be off. There's also some good news at the bottom of the article ...
Less oil than they thought
It may be that the oil crunch would come sooner than expected -Shell in line with a number of other oil exploiters has downsized its estimate of global reserves. Nearer then draws the time that shall surely be making it uneconomic to run the energy of the world as we have been. It could be good news for the climate if it wasn't for the fact that the greenhouse effect has already kicked in and we can't wait for market forces in this case to deliver the best change.
Carey on Islam
Looks like George Carey has caused a kerfuffle with his speech about Islam -but when you look at the text and then soem of the quoted objections to it -perhaps it looks like one or two specific criticisms which do not take away from the general substance? Hard to say for sure but the perceptions that George Carey articlates are ones that I know various people who are reasonably aducatged about Islam share at various points and those who decry what he has said I think probably need to show that they have 'heard' those more substantial points in what he has said.
I have heard many moderate Muslims decry wahhabi approaches to Islam and it might have been better for the soundbite detractors [or their editors?] to have told us whether they agreed or not with wahhabism, rahter than, in effect, to prop it up; this is precisely the challenge, it seems to me, that Carey makes; will moderate Muslims please stand up and not leave the talking and the doing to the radical activists? Admittedly one of the sounbite critics points out that there are plenty of condemnations forthcoming from the Muslim community ... but it somehow doesn't feel like it and I kow from local experience that there seems to be some reticence to go public in criticism of harsher forms of Islam.
Our difficulty is how to encourage it to happen without interfering? I think that George Carey has done a good thing in putting the hard points. He may not be right at every point but he's a darn sight better informed than most [including many muslims] and some of the points deserve better answers than have been reported.
I have heard many moderate Muslims decry wahhabi approaches to Islam and it might have been better for the soundbite detractors [or their editors?] to have told us whether they agreed or not with wahhabism, rahter than, in effect, to prop it up; this is precisely the challenge, it seems to me, that Carey makes; will moderate Muslims please stand up and not leave the talking and the doing to the radical activists? Admittedly one of the sounbite critics points out that there are plenty of condemnations forthcoming from the Muslim community ... but it somehow doesn't feel like it and I kow from local experience that there seems to be some reticence to go public in criticism of harsher forms of Islam.
Our difficulty is how to encourage it to happen without interfering? I think that George Carey has done a good thing in putting the hard points. He may not be right at every point but he's a darn sight better informed than most [including many muslims] and some of the points deserve better answers than have been reported.
27 March 2004
Church may end up as sect, warns bishop
I had been about to blog this when my machine ran into difficulties. In a sense it is bringing to our consciousness what Mike Riddell wrote at the beginning of his book "Threshold of the future": that we need to get out of denial about the demise of organised religion particularly church, in the west and get on with the job of being the church that we can be and are called to be.
I seem to feel that much of my parish ministry has been tied up with trying to help churches to face the reality that things ain't what they used to be, that 'folk religion' no longer has a guaranteedly Christian substructure [if it ever did ... but that's another issue], that we are failing to connect with what we now label as postmodernism. In fact the biggest scandal is that we are clearly in the midst of a huge revival in spiritual interest but lack the credibility/plausibility to be part of it much because to today's spiritual seekers the church is part of the problem and mimics too exactly the unspiritual, over-busy, philosophically materialist and modernist world that they are reacting against.
Simon Sarmiento comments on this too and I found a particular resonance with this: "Part of the problem is the Church’s pre-occupation with dogma and division, at the expense of its moral message; part is because of its incompetence in managing its finances and organising its workforce."
Not sure I fully agree about the dogma and divions vs moral message but I do feel I've seen a little too much of the not being good at managing finances and organising workforce in the last 18 months [culminating in my job being restructured out of existence when most people in the diocese seem to think it one of the cutting-edge mission jobs] as the miscommunication, failure to pick up signals [and I was part of it -not knowing that it wasn't being handled by others, I failed to do so myself] and not thinking through implications. Unhappily this has had serious consequences for my family and pulled me out of a situation which was just becoming fruitful and where possibilities for new engagements between sacred and secular were opening up. The pity of it is also that although finances were the driver, it should not have been a huge hurdle to overcome. Bradford diocese: you dropped the ball.
I seem to feel that much of my parish ministry has been tied up with trying to help churches to face the reality that things ain't what they used to be, that 'folk religion' no longer has a guaranteedly Christian substructure [if it ever did ... but that's another issue], that we are failing to connect with what we now label as postmodernism. In fact the biggest scandal is that we are clearly in the midst of a huge revival in spiritual interest but lack the credibility/plausibility to be part of it much because to today's spiritual seekers the church is part of the problem and mimics too exactly the unspiritual, over-busy, philosophically materialist and modernist world that they are reacting against.
Simon Sarmiento comments on this too and I found a particular resonance with this: "Part of the problem is the Church’s pre-occupation with dogma and division, at the expense of its moral message; part is because of its incompetence in managing its finances and organising its workforce."
Not sure I fully agree about the dogma and divions vs moral message but I do feel I've seen a little too much of the not being good at managing finances and organising workforce in the last 18 months [culminating in my job being restructured out of existence when most people in the diocese seem to think it one of the cutting-edge mission jobs] as the miscommunication, failure to pick up signals [and I was part of it -not knowing that it wasn't being handled by others, I failed to do so myself] and not thinking through implications. Unhappily this has had serious consequences for my family and pulled me out of a situation which was just becoming fruitful and where possibilities for new engagements between sacred and secular were opening up. The pity of it is also that although finances were the driver, it should not have been a huge hurdle to overcome. Bradford diocese: you dropped the ball.
The Scriptorium: heading for a relaunch
Yesterday I had lunch with Julian Gray [of Visions, York] and Adrian Riley [formerly of Host, Bradford] to discuss the rather untended website referenced by the title of this piece. We hope to relocate it to another server and to be able to develop the site some more to provide a definitive collection of resources and ideas for 'alternative worship' making it easier both to upload and to download stuff. We've also talked about blogging and instant messaging [possibly together!]. Watch this space for more developments.
I'm back!
Back on line at last, with at least my links and passwords re-collected and my address book reconstructed. Shame about all the mail I've lost -though I've been reflecting that perhaps I didn't need to collect all of it really; it's that hoarding instinct my wife finds endearing [ahem! should that be perplexing or annoying?]. I reflect now that I have kept emails because I was interested in them but in fact they are often archived online in email groups and in fact I rerely referred to them. My enneagram type is supposed to enjoy finding knowledge and hoarding it.
Anyway I do regret the loss of those helpful little emails telling me what my password and user name for various sites are and a few more personal keepsake emails [notes of appreciation for looking at when the world feels against me, you know the kind of thing].
The other interesting reflection though is how much of my life has become bound up with email. I'm not so bad now but there have been times when it has felt loke an addiction: though mostly oin fact it was the desire to communicate and exchange ideas that was the buzz.
I'm glad I'd backed up most of my collection of images. I wonder whether it'd be better to leave them on CD and keep the hard disk space for interesting experiments in linux...
Anyway I do regret the loss of those helpful little emails telling me what my password and user name for various sites are and a few more personal keepsake emails [notes of appreciation for looking at when the world feels against me, you know the kind of thing].
The other interesting reflection though is how much of my life has become bound up with email. I'm not so bad now but there have been times when it has felt loke an addiction: though mostly oin fact it was the desire to communicate and exchange ideas that was the buzz.
I'm glad I'd backed up most of my collection of images. I wonder whether it'd be better to leave them on CD and keep the hard disk space for interesting experiments in linux...
25 March 2004
An apology -normal service will be resumed asap
According to my site stats I do get some traffic to this site so I think I should apologise that there's been little activity for the last couple of days -basically my main machine which has all the bits and bobs I need for blogging on it, crashed and needed a reinstall. The delay is while I reconstruct my data as far as possible. Back soon, honest!
23 March 2004
What would the smile left behind be? Cof E disappears?
On a more serious note, this article reporting Bishop Nigel McCulloch's remarks about the possible disappearance of the CofE is sobering, nice to see someone senior saying what some of us have been fearing [and getting depressed by]. I certainly echo his remarks about legislative demands [and they are so often important and necessary]. It's as if the unsustainability of the institutional form we currently have is being underlined. Don't get me wrong; I think that any human organisation will have some institutional form or else it is not an organisation just loads of individuals sharing space. I better understand now what I think that the house church people were trying to do. Though there's a salutary lesson in that experiment; those churches have, on the whole, become just as 'institutional' as the rest of us [sometime more rigid]. I think what we need is a way to hold together the historical and institutional continuity whilst losing the kind of rigidity that we currently experience -or is it not rigidity but something else?
I was interviewed for a diocesan post last week [not my present diocese] and I candidly remarked in 'my' questions at the end that I feared it was "the job that ate my life" and since my earlier presentation had been about how the church was failing -on the whole- to connect with the spiritual revival that this country is seeing at present and one of the reasons is that we are not perceived as sufficiently 'spiritual'. So it was interesting that the reactions to my suggestion that we are working too hard and simply replicating the problem of seeming too like the rest of the 'world' and not spiritual -our busy-ness is part of that. When one of the interview panel said something about a 'prophetic voice' I realised that I probably wasn't going to get the job!
I suppose what I'm feeling towards with this is that we need to run a church whose very form incarnates our message and where human spiritual and physical welfare is at the heart. Too much of what we do is about keeping the 'show on the road' without any sense of something bigger beyond that.
I was interviewed for a diocesan post last week [not my present diocese] and I candidly remarked in 'my' questions at the end that I feared it was "the job that ate my life" and since my earlier presentation had been about how the church was failing -on the whole- to connect with the spiritual revival that this country is seeing at present and one of the reasons is that we are not perceived as sufficiently 'spiritual'. So it was interesting that the reactions to my suggestion that we are working too hard and simply replicating the problem of seeming too like the rest of the 'world' and not spiritual -our busy-ness is part of that. When one of the interview panel said something about a 'prophetic voice' I realised that I probably wasn't going to get the job!
I suppose what I'm feeling towards with this is that we need to run a church whose very form incarnates our message and where human spiritual and physical welfare is at the heart. Too much of what we do is about keeping the 'show on the road' without any sense of something bigger beyond that.
Aramaic for the Passion
I guess because I'm a linguistic scientist by BA and the fascination with matters linguistic that I still have, this caught my eye. It looks genuine [I don't think someones passing off Klingon as Aramaic] in that it matches the bits I know of Aramaic and there is a family resemblance to Hebrew and Arabic. I think it's wonderful that some of those very modern words have been translated!
19 March 2004
Check out the other blogs
I've been blogging every couple of days or so during Lent about forgiveness, [see here].
And there are dribs and drabs of ecological news and comment -some nice links. [See here].
And there are dribs and drabs of ecological news and comment -some nice links. [See here].
Cost of Iraq to USA
Interesting little site with a running total of the rising cost of the occupation of Iraq since the whole thing kicked off last year -and this is just the USA figures. I can't be alone in thinking that that kind of money could have been spent better; perhaps bribes to all Iraqi citizens to overthrow Saddam? Given the previous blog entry I suspect that offering an instant first world income to all Iraqis would have been cheaper. What we need now is a site that calculates to rising cost of putting humans on Mars ... that'd be sobering too.
What if all the world were developed?
This is just such an intereting thought experiment that it deserves a bit more publicity. Sure, there are a couple of weaknesses in it [as illustrated by the idea of the ecological footprint -where would we find the resources to support 10 billion affluent lifestyles? To be fair the article does explore some of that but it doesn't address the issue of resource use. "Natural Capitalism" may give us some of the answer to that but it'd be lovely to think that we would have that problem: developed world subsidising of agriculture [for example] militates against it; trade rules selectively imposed to the detriment of developing economies militate against it...
18 March 2004
Budget not very green at all
In fact about the best was a reduction of VAT on some energy saving products -good but hardly wide ranging. Use the link to the Friends of the earth site for fuller critique. Consultationon biofuels was promised but again that's jam tomorrow.
An IRA bomber and the child of a victim of his
The story this links to is one of the most interesting and articulate and possibly the most challenging to make sense of in terms of forgiveness. First of all there seems to be no desire to be forgiven on the part of Pat, he stands by his actions. Then there is Jo saying "But I can experience empathy, and in that moment there is no judgement. Sometimes when I’ve met with Pat, I’ve had such a clear understanding of his life that there’s nothing to forgive." So, in some ways this story may not be about forgiveness at all as the protagonists understand it. But that seems to be all part of the difficulty of defining it in the first place.
Jo says also "To say “I forgive you” is almost condescending – it locks you into an ‘us and them’ scenario keeping me right and you wrong". Which seems to be almost directly opposite to the way that previously-considered stories have defined it, where it has been precisely about not locking into an 'us and them' scenario.
However, the other interesting thing is the tie-up with notions of right and wrong. And I suspect that this is the key thought to understanding Jo and Pat's perspectives here: I think that it is true, given exporations so far, that forgiveness is about recognising right and wrong first of all. If there has been no wrong then we are not going to forgivel there is nothing to forgive. Only if a wrong has been committed do we find ourselves in the land of forgiveness. So Jo's empathy -very real and sympathetic understanding- of Pat's perspective is actually about [in terms of what I've reflected before] excusing. Pat doesn't want forgiveness but understanding and 'excusing'.
Jo writes: "Over the past two and a half years of getting to know Pat, I feel I've been recovering some of the humanity I lost when that bomb went off. Pat is also on a journey to recover his humanity". I find this intriguing; what humanity has been lost? What does it mean to recover it?
Given that the next sentence is about how Pat can find it hard to know that he has come to care for the daughter of "someone he killed through his terrorist actions". I think that Jo sees that linked to the issue of lost humanity: so perhaps it's something to do with recognising and feeling a common humanity, caring for others, having compassion. But I find this intriguing too because lost humanity is an issue of right and wrong in some way, surely [?] -the very framing of the issue implies that losing humanity is in some way wrong while gaining it or retaining it is right or at least 'better'. However, perhaps it isn't a case of right and wrong in the simple sense but we actually do start to move into the area of notions of sin. Humanity is good but losing humanity is something that may not be wrong in terms of a specific wrong done to another person; it may be that a lost humanity results in wrongdoing though; which does sound something like the relationship between sin and sins.
So what it looks to me like we have in this story is a recognition of common humanity and a fellowship in fallenness in some way. In my [christian-informed] terms the loss of humanity alluded to seems to be a kind of proto-recognition of 'falling short of the glory of God'. There is seen to be some kind of justification for Pat's actions but somehow that something important has nevertheless been lost in the doing of them. However this is also located in a web of wrongdoing that is not only about the perpetrator who is also seen as something of a victim. It does seem that we are in the territory of original sin here. But where do we go to find forgiveness or healing for a lost humanity? The loss of humanity is a sin against onself and against God ... it is surely included in that phrase in one of the Anglican general confessions "... we have marred your image in us...."
Pat while standng by his actions says " I will always carry the burden that I harmed other human beings". What is this burden? Lost humanity? a recognition of wrong at some other level? Is there a mixture of admission of wrong here and yet justification which has yet remained unpicked. Is there a need for a perpetrator of a wrong, at least in some cases [perhaps of deliberate action], to feel that their reasons are understood and seen to have some kind of justifications in notions of right or justice or even empathy before thay can be in a place to recognise the wrong in what they have done. It would certainly fit with what we know from work with conflict resolution; that it is important for people to feel really 'heard' before they can properly address what is being said on/by the other side.
Forgiveness cannot escape wrestling implicitly or explicitly with ideas of right and wrong. Sometimes it is hard to unpick the rights and wrongs and even to decide just what is right and wrong. Pat's work with Causeway and its healing work seems to be a recognition that in the grander scheme of things there is something wrong about violence... Jo's empathetic response is perhaps Pat's best chance to feel heard and understood and so come to a place where wrongdoing could be acknowledged and he might be able to decide not to stand by what he has done. That sounds judgemental of me, perhaps ... and maybe I have something to learn. ?
However, I do recognise in Pat's reaction -as I read it here- something in my own reactions to finding myself having to recognise that something is wrong and that I am implicated in it (see, even the way I'm writing about it is 'shifty'). It is hard to admit my part in it unless I feel that someone can at least see that I had good or at least understandable reasons for doing [or not doing] as I did. If I feel that there is some understanding then it becomes easier and even possible to put that aside and deal with what I find hard to face -that I have done wrong. Hard to face because it cuts at the knee my sense of self-esteem and my sense of being esteemed by others; I feel shame waits at the door and perhaps even guilt stands behind that.
In relation to God this tells me how important it is that we have a real sense of God's loving empathy before we can admit sin. If we do not feel that, I find it hard to know how how we could actually confess our sins.
Jo says also "To say “I forgive you” is almost condescending – it locks you into an ‘us and them’ scenario keeping me right and you wrong". Which seems to be almost directly opposite to the way that previously-considered stories have defined it, where it has been precisely about not locking into an 'us and them' scenario.
However, the other interesting thing is the tie-up with notions of right and wrong. And I suspect that this is the key thought to understanding Jo and Pat's perspectives here: I think that it is true, given exporations so far, that forgiveness is about recognising right and wrong first of all. If there has been no wrong then we are not going to forgivel there is nothing to forgive. Only if a wrong has been committed do we find ourselves in the land of forgiveness. So Jo's empathy -very real and sympathetic understanding- of Pat's perspective is actually about [in terms of what I've reflected before] excusing. Pat doesn't want forgiveness but understanding and 'excusing'.
Jo writes: "Over the past two and a half years of getting to know Pat, I feel I've been recovering some of the humanity I lost when that bomb went off. Pat is also on a journey to recover his humanity". I find this intriguing; what humanity has been lost? What does it mean to recover it?
Given that the next sentence is about how Pat can find it hard to know that he has come to care for the daughter of "someone he killed through his terrorist actions". I think that Jo sees that linked to the issue of lost humanity: so perhaps it's something to do with recognising and feeling a common humanity, caring for others, having compassion. But I find this intriguing too because lost humanity is an issue of right and wrong in some way, surely [?] -the very framing of the issue implies that losing humanity is in some way wrong while gaining it or retaining it is right or at least 'better'. However, perhaps it isn't a case of right and wrong in the simple sense but we actually do start to move into the area of notions of sin. Humanity is good but losing humanity is something that may not be wrong in terms of a specific wrong done to another person; it may be that a lost humanity results in wrongdoing though; which does sound something like the relationship between sin and sins.
So what it looks to me like we have in this story is a recognition of common humanity and a fellowship in fallenness in some way. In my [christian-informed] terms the loss of humanity alluded to seems to be a kind of proto-recognition of 'falling short of the glory of God'. There is seen to be some kind of justification for Pat's actions but somehow that something important has nevertheless been lost in the doing of them. However this is also located in a web of wrongdoing that is not only about the perpetrator who is also seen as something of a victim. It does seem that we are in the territory of original sin here. But where do we go to find forgiveness or healing for a lost humanity? The loss of humanity is a sin against onself and against God ... it is surely included in that phrase in one of the Anglican general confessions "... we have marred your image in us...."
Pat while standng by his actions says " I will always carry the burden that I harmed other human beings". What is this burden? Lost humanity? a recognition of wrong at some other level? Is there a mixture of admission of wrong here and yet justification which has yet remained unpicked. Is there a need for a perpetrator of a wrong, at least in some cases [perhaps of deliberate action], to feel that their reasons are understood and seen to have some kind of justifications in notions of right or justice or even empathy before thay can be in a place to recognise the wrong in what they have done. It would certainly fit with what we know from work with conflict resolution; that it is important for people to feel really 'heard' before they can properly address what is being said on/by the other side.
Forgiveness cannot escape wrestling implicitly or explicitly with ideas of right and wrong. Sometimes it is hard to unpick the rights and wrongs and even to decide just what is right and wrong. Pat's work with Causeway and its healing work seems to be a recognition that in the grander scheme of things there is something wrong about violence... Jo's empathetic response is perhaps Pat's best chance to feel heard and understood and so come to a place where wrongdoing could be acknowledged and he might be able to decide not to stand by what he has done. That sounds judgemental of me, perhaps ... and maybe I have something to learn. ?
However, I do recognise in Pat's reaction -as I read it here- something in my own reactions to finding myself having to recognise that something is wrong and that I am implicated in it (see, even the way I'm writing about it is 'shifty'). It is hard to admit my part in it unless I feel that someone can at least see that I had good or at least understandable reasons for doing [or not doing] as I did. If I feel that there is some understanding then it becomes easier and even possible to put that aside and deal with what I find hard to face -that I have done wrong. Hard to face because it cuts at the knee my sense of self-esteem and my sense of being esteemed by others; I feel shame waits at the door and perhaps even guilt stands behind that.
In relation to God this tells me how important it is that we have a real sense of God's loving empathy before we can admit sin. If we do not feel that, I find it hard to know how how we could actually confess our sins.
16 March 2004
Passion of Christ pirated and seeling like hot cakes in ......... Jeddah!
Curiouser and curiouser, notwithstanding any comments yesterday on Muslim repsonses to the film this seems even more telling.Mostly the article focuses on copyright theft issues and enforcement in Saudi Arabia -where the article was written. However much more interesting to me is the unwritten story of why so many Muslims are interested in this story. Maybe it is just because it is a film from the west and it's being bought like any other, or maybe it's something of a sign of ... spiritual searching for more than Islam is offering?
15 March 2004
Killing others goes against the grain
Channel 4 had part two of its investigation into killing tonight. In it it was made very clear how unnatural killing others is; how hard it is to train soldiers to actually do it and how difficult it is for those who are so trained to live with themselves afterwards. The the book "The Eternal Child" it was noted how much less violent human societies are than other primate societies.. Need to put this in dialogue with theologies placing violence at the heart of human fallnness.
meat-free is better
In 1982 I became vegetarian because of the arguments derived from Ron Sider's works about sustainable living. And now we are seeing these arguments entering an even more public arena. What this article helps us to see is the truly stupendous amount of animals that are in existence soley to become meals for humans. And then you calculate what it costs in resources to maintain thsoe animasl in their short but resource-hungry lives. It's surely time to at least see meat as an occasional treat rather than an everyday right.
Forgiving the murder of a child
I had not read today's story when I wrote my response to the last story, so I was interested to note this: "If you want to live happily and at ease in this life you have to learn to forgive. It shouldn’t matter if the person is unable to ask for forgiveness or even acknowledge that they’ve done wrong, because forgiveness cannot be based on conditions" -which pretty much said what I was feeling towards. Graciousness is written into the forgiveness 'genetic code'. Resotrative justice then has to be based on the idea of the rehabilitation of offenders.
This story also picks up one of the other themes from earlier reflection; "from the very first day we heard about the death of Victoria, we began praying that one day we would be able to forgive." Forgivness is a process we have to go through. To forgive involves us in dllaing with our reactions and learning to see things clearly and to identify what is wrong and what is excusable and what is truly to be forgiven and to [re]discover a common humanity.
This story also picks up one of the other themes from earlier reflection; "from the very first day we heard about the death of Victoria, we began praying that one day we would be able to forgive." Forgivness is a process we have to go through. To forgive involves us in dllaing with our reactions and learning to see things clearly and to identify what is wrong and what is excusable and what is truly to be forgiven and to [re]discover a common humanity.
Muslim view of The Passion
Written by a USAmerican Muslim this article gives a good insight into the apologetic concerns of Muslims vis-a-vis Christion faith. He says; " Muslims are perfectly poised to offer a view that no one seems to be talking about." which is true and he goes on to kind of avow and disavow a via media. The crucial [sorry!] point in this is "a Muslim would say there is no Christ killer and, therefore, no need to associate anyone with that indictment and no need to cause anyone to fear it". Of course the Muslim view struggles against the historical evidence at this point and this may be one reason why no-one is tlaking about it. The Muslim view has other difficulties since it is not necessarily based on an accurate/necessary reading of the qu'ran but is rather a custom of interpretation. It would be interesting to see this debate start up perhaps.
I think that the main insightful point is: "In an important way, "The Passion" is an accidental expose about the religious sensitivities of our times, about a wounded spirituality that seems to require sensationalism to keep the faithful going." And he isn't just tilting at Christianity when he says that. But it seems to me that there's a lot to agree with in that statement.
A telling comment is " a view that was also shared among some early Christian sects, like the Basilideans who believed that Christ himself was never crucified." I do hope that Christian apologists to Islam don't engage in similarly sloppy thinking and reading of the evidence with regard to Islam's history. Yes the Basilideans did so think, but they did so not because they had an authetic insight into history that the rest of the church and the world covered up, rather their Gnostic ideology of disparagement of the flesh couldn't countenance the idea. Gnostic ideas are generally not compatible with Islam either ...
The odd thing is that Abusharif says: " What happened to Jesus at the end of his life was not about violence, but about honor in the face of vehement rejection. God raised His prophet to Himself" which is actually pretty much what many Christians would assent to stated simply in that way -leaving of the next clause. In fact this statement is compatible with Christian theology and also the qu'ran. All that is needed by Muslims is to put away the traditional anti-Christian interpretation of their Book at this point. God made it seem that it was the Jews [yes that's how it is in the qu'ran -maybe not so via media after all] killed Christ but in reality it was the plan of God, just as at the battle of Badr.
And of course no comment form a Muslim source could be complete without something along the line of: "To deify Jesus, however, is considered an affront to the primordial foundation of the religion project: the oneness of God and His sole divinity." Just doesn't get it. We really do affirm the oneness of God guys. If Jesus actually is God in human form then we can't avoid the paradox but to imply that we are tritheists is unfair and an implicit accusation of duplicity.
In fact the qu'ran needs to be interrogated on this point: in it it seems to be implied that Christians worship a trinity of Father Son and Virgin Mary. We do not do what the qu'ran seems to condemn at this point. First, Mary is not worshipped as God and second if trinitarian theology is interpreted as saying anything other than there is one God then it is being misinterpreted or misrepresented.
I do hope that we can clear away such misunderstandings and so talk about the real issues...
I think that the main insightful point is: "In an important way, "The Passion" is an accidental expose about the religious sensitivities of our times, about a wounded spirituality that seems to require sensationalism to keep the faithful going." And he isn't just tilting at Christianity when he says that. But it seems to me that there's a lot to agree with in that statement.
A telling comment is " a view that was also shared among some early Christian sects, like the Basilideans who believed that Christ himself was never crucified." I do hope that Christian apologists to Islam don't engage in similarly sloppy thinking and reading of the evidence with regard to Islam's history. Yes the Basilideans did so think, but they did so not because they had an authetic insight into history that the rest of the church and the world covered up, rather their Gnostic ideology of disparagement of the flesh couldn't countenance the idea. Gnostic ideas are generally not compatible with Islam either ...
The odd thing is that Abusharif says: " What happened to Jesus at the end of his life was not about violence, but about honor in the face of vehement rejection. God raised His prophet to Himself" which is actually pretty much what many Christians would assent to stated simply in that way -leaving of the next clause. In fact this statement is compatible with Christian theology and also the qu'ran. All that is needed by Muslims is to put away the traditional anti-Christian interpretation of their Book at this point. God made it seem that it was the Jews [yes that's how it is in the qu'ran -maybe not so via media after all] killed Christ but in reality it was the plan of God, just as at the battle of Badr.
And of course no comment form a Muslim source could be complete without something along the line of: "To deify Jesus, however, is considered an affront to the primordial foundation of the religion project: the oneness of God and His sole divinity." Just doesn't get it. We really do affirm the oneness of God guys. If Jesus actually is God in human form then we can't avoid the paradox but to imply that we are tritheists is unfair and an implicit accusation of duplicity.
In fact the qu'ran needs to be interrogated on this point: in it it seems to be implied that Christians worship a trinity of Father Son and Virgin Mary. We do not do what the qu'ran seems to condemn at this point. First, Mary is not worshipped as God and second if trinitarian theology is interpreted as saying anything other than there is one God then it is being misinterpreted or misrepresented.
I do hope that we can clear away such misunderstandings and so talk about the real issues...
13 March 2004
Blackout Britain
If anything says that we should be encouraging decentralised solutions to electricity and power supply generally, it's this. Make it easy for me to put PV's on my roof and turbines in my garden and the scale of the problem quickly falls. Ivestment is necessary but why not make it to the smallest scale possible?
Anyway, if you check out the article don't neglect to read the very last paragraph where the Greenpeace response is given.
Anyway, if you check out the article don't neglect to read the very last paragraph where the Greenpeace response is given.
and restorative justice
For me the final paragraph has the most to reflect on:
" haven’t forgiven anyone, because I have no one to forgive. No one was charged with this crime, and so for me forgiveness is still an abstract concept. But if I knew that the people who sent my bomb were now prisoners in themselves, then I’d happily unlock the gates – although I’d like to know that they weren’t going to make any more bombs."
There is clearly something here about the need to feel that some kind of repentance has taken place, that there is an admission of wrongdoing and that in so doing there is some kind of commitment to not repeating the wrong. I'm not sure from this how conditional Fr Michael is being in his feeling towards forgiveness and I'm not saying that it would necessarily be wrong to be conditional since this is partly what I'm trying to get my head and my guts around ... I know that I have felt similarly about wrongs done to me in the past: that I find it easier to forgive if I know that there is repentance of some kind; now why is that? I guess some of it may be that unrepentance would seem malicious; the refusal to recognise that harm had been caused and damage done or the justification of it in the name of a supposed greater-good that I do not acknowledge to be a greater good or even if I did to cause me to sacrifice without my consent. All of those seem wrong and to forgive might seem to condone or to agree with the wrongdoing. I certainly know people who have refused to forgive where they believed that in so doing their hurt would go unrecognised and the wrong would be condoned in some way....
Michael goes on to say: " I believe in restorative justice and I believe in reparation. So my attitude to the perpetrator is this: I’ll forgive you, but since I’ll never get my hands back, and will therefore always need someone to help me, you should pay that person’s wages. Not as a condition of forgiveness, but as part of reparation and restitution."
There's some interesting question her about forgiveness and justice. SOme versions of forgiveness would surely be about not seeking reparation but simply letting the offender go free, so to speak. I think I need to think more about the relationship between forgiveness and reparation. I am very warm to the ideas of restorative justice. Perhaps my unease at this part of what Michael says is that is seems to make forgiveness dependent on performance and so keeping the offended person potentially in thrall to the perpetrator's lack of response for as long as they don't make reparation. But we need to be able to move on. I suspect he isn't actually proposing that, given what he says in the first part of his piece about becoming a victor not just a survivor. But it is easy to see how the conditional forgiveness couold creep in -which is not forgiveness in the sense that it is a seeking of some kind of revenge?
I don't know; this area of it I find quite perplexing....
" haven’t forgiven anyone, because I have no one to forgive. No one was charged with this crime, and so for me forgiveness is still an abstract concept. But if I knew that the people who sent my bomb were now prisoners in themselves, then I’d happily unlock the gates – although I’d like to know that they weren’t going to make any more bombs."
There is clearly something here about the need to feel that some kind of repentance has taken place, that there is an admission of wrongdoing and that in so doing there is some kind of commitment to not repeating the wrong. I'm not sure from this how conditional Fr Michael is being in his feeling towards forgiveness and I'm not saying that it would necessarily be wrong to be conditional since this is partly what I'm trying to get my head and my guts around ... I know that I have felt similarly about wrongs done to me in the past: that I find it easier to forgive if I know that there is repentance of some kind; now why is that? I guess some of it may be that unrepentance would seem malicious; the refusal to recognise that harm had been caused and damage done or the justification of it in the name of a supposed greater-good that I do not acknowledge to be a greater good or even if I did to cause me to sacrifice without my consent. All of those seem wrong and to forgive might seem to condone or to agree with the wrongdoing. I certainly know people who have refused to forgive where they believed that in so doing their hurt would go unrecognised and the wrong would be condoned in some way....
Michael goes on to say: " I believe in restorative justice and I believe in reparation. So my attitude to the perpetrator is this: I’ll forgive you, but since I’ll never get my hands back, and will therefore always need someone to help me, you should pay that person’s wages. Not as a condition of forgiveness, but as part of reparation and restitution."
There's some interesting question her about forgiveness and justice. SOme versions of forgiveness would surely be about not seeking reparation but simply letting the offender go free, so to speak. I think I need to think more about the relationship between forgiveness and reparation. I am very warm to the ideas of restorative justice. Perhaps my unease at this part of what Michael says is that is seems to make forgiveness dependent on performance and so keeping the offended person potentially in thrall to the perpetrator's lack of response for as long as they don't make reparation. But we need to be able to move on. I suspect he isn't actually proposing that, given what he says in the first part of his piece about becoming a victor not just a survivor. But it is easy to see how the conditional forgiveness couold creep in -which is not forgiveness in the sense that it is a seeking of some kind of revenge?
I don't know; this area of it I find quite perplexing....
11 March 2004
Interesting sidebar on the slave trade
I ran into this from a source discussing with apologetics to Muslims though it is actually a piece of independent academic research. The issues that Muslims often raise is that Islam is egalitarian and unrascist and the American slave trade was perpetrated by white Christians against black people. This article points out that muslim background "corsairs" probably enslaved a fair number of Europeans and terrorised southern Europe and the mediterranean.
Of course these folk and others in Muslim north Africa were enslaving black Africans too [who procured the people for the Atlanstic slave trade?] and we should remember that it was Christians who effected the abolition of the slave trade and abolition of slavery. And when one hears of slaves being taken in Sudan by the Islamic regime forces ....
So as always these things are not as simple as they might first appear, and I'm certainly not saying that Chirstian history is innocent of betrayals of the spirit of Christ. When it comes to dialogue or even argument between people of different faiths we should remember as Christians that comparing like with like is the 'do-as-you-would-be-done-by' thing to do; in other words compare the best of ours with the best of theirs and if they do the reverse then truthfully and grace-fully to point out that we all have skeletons in the closet. I guess the issue then becomes whether those skeletons are a necessary product of the true spirit of the spirituality or religion or not.
Of course these folk and others in Muslim north Africa were enslaving black Africans too [who procured the people for the Atlanstic slave trade?] and we should remember that it was Christians who effected the abolition of the slave trade and abolition of slavery. And when one hears of slaves being taken in Sudan by the Islamic regime forces ....
So as always these things are not as simple as they might first appear, and I'm certainly not saying that Chirstian history is innocent of betrayals of the spirit of Christ. When it comes to dialogue or even argument between people of different faiths we should remember as Christians that comparing like with like is the 'do-as-you-would-be-done-by' thing to do; in other words compare the best of ours with the best of theirs and if they do the reverse then truthfully and grace-fully to point out that we all have skeletons in the closet. I guess the issue then becomes whether those skeletons are a necessary product of the true spirit of the spirituality or religion or not.
Rowan does us proud on 'His Dark Materials'.
Well I had to like what he said because it was pretty much the kind of conlusion I'd come to ie that this trilogy is about gods that are less than God [because they are clearly created and finite beings] and about institutions and power and the abuses thereof. I can't quite understand why it is that some Christians have got their knickers in a twist [apparently ACT -I'm surprised] seeing it as blasphemous. Clearly the god portrayed in Pullman's novels is not God -more a kind of demi God [a la Terry Pratchett] and I was still left wondering who created it all -Mormonism seems to suffer from the same demi-Ggd approach to deity and so they would have grounds for disquiet -but not Christians.
But anyway I kind of reckon this is what I want an archbishop to be doing -engaging thoughtfully with popular culture and putting an alternative model of Christian relating to culture in the public domain; one of constructive engagement. Good on you Rowan!
There's some interesting food for thought in his discussion of Dust. I'm not sure I agree with what I understand of what is said -but for me? -I'm still chewing that over.
But anyway I kind of reckon this is what I want an archbishop to be doing -engaging thoughtfully with popular culture and putting an alternative model of Christian relating to culture in the public domain; one of constructive engagement. Good on you Rowan!
There's some interesting food for thought in his discussion of Dust. I'm not sure I agree with what I understand of what is said -but for me? -I'm still chewing that over.
10 March 2004
Forgiving his torturer
I have never been physically tortured and I have never sufferd sustained mental cruelty; those little instances of cruelty and pain I have suffered mean that my imagination can take me into some pretty unpleasant places especially when helped by descriptions of things such as the interrogation chambers of Saddam Hussein's regime. The combination of pain -both as mental anguish and physical abuse- and hopelesssness in the face of apparent malice and lack of common humanity must be so hard to process afterwards. And indeed the story here gives some insight into that.
Eric writes: "My turning point came in 1987 when I came across The Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture. For the first time I was able to unload the hate that had become my prison."
This picks up the Desmond Tutu contribution about forgiveness tying us to perpetrators and forgiveness as a becoming free. I wonder too whether here we are seeing something of the process of naming and 'owning' the hurt?
In the next bit I actually had tears in my eyes as I read it, as Eric finally comes face to face some forty-odd years later with his former torturer whom he had fantasises about killing after giving him a taste of what he had inflicted ... "He was trembling and crying, and he said over and over again: “I am so sorry, so very sorry.” I had come with no sympathy for this man, and yet Nagase, through his complete humility, turned this around. In the days that followed we spent a lot of time together, talking and laughing. It transpired that we had much in common. We promised to keep in touch and have remained friends ever since."
I think that there is something here about having a sense of compassion and shared humanity which helps us to forgive; when we see the other as a fellow human being, as not malicious towards us, as repentant perhsp even deserving our pity [?], then we are more able to consent to absorb the hurt ourselves rather than to attempt to discharge it onto the other
Eric writes: "My turning point came in 1987 when I came across The Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture. For the first time I was able to unload the hate that had become my prison."
This picks up the Desmond Tutu contribution about forgiveness tying us to perpetrators and forgiveness as a becoming free. I wonder too whether here we are seeing something of the process of naming and 'owning' the hurt?
In the next bit I actually had tears in my eyes as I read it, as Eric finally comes face to face some forty-odd years later with his former torturer whom he had fantasises about killing after giving him a taste of what he had inflicted ... "He was trembling and crying, and he said over and over again: “I am so sorry, so very sorry.” I had come with no sympathy for this man, and yet Nagase, through his complete humility, turned this around. In the days that followed we spent a lot of time together, talking and laughing. It transpired that we had much in common. We promised to keep in touch and have remained friends ever since."
I think that there is something here about having a sense of compassion and shared humanity which helps us to forgive; when we see the other as a fellow human being, as not malicious towards us, as repentant perhsp even deserving our pity [?], then we are more able to consent to absorb the hurt ourselves rather than to attempt to discharge it onto the other
09 March 2004
Desmond Tutu on forgiveness
This article picks up something I wrote further back [or did I just think it?], Dr Tutu says: "You should never hate yourself for hating others who do terrible things: the depth of your love is shown by the extent of your anger."
I think that we need to recognise anger and even hatred as a side-bar to love. If we love, anger when the object of our love is marred or destroyed really is a sign of our love; indifference feels no such anger because it feels no love. Even hatred of the perpetrator is a sign of the fact we love. I'm not saying we should be content to stay with such feelings but we shouldn't censure them, rather we should recognise them and learn from them; what do we learn about ourselves and our relationships from the fact that we feel them?
I think that perhaps this gives us a window into the wrath of God who loves each of us and all of the creation fiercely .... If God loves and there is evil, then God must be wrathful where people and creation are wrecked and marred.
In the early stages of grief and anger it is hard to hear the next bit "Remaining in that state [of anger and hatred] locks you in a state of victimhood, making you almost dependent on the perpetrator."
That is the sad irony of unforgivness and hatred and so forgiveness is really enlightened self-interest. So, " If you can find it in yourself to forgive then you are no longer chained to the perpetrator. You can move on, and you can even help the perpetrator to become a better person too."
What if the perpetrator is also someone we love? We might want to remain 'chained to' them but in a differnt kind of way -I'm thinking here also of the situation of God who loves even us who are the perpetrators of hurt to those others God loves....
Dr Tutu goes on to say, " the process of forgiveness also requires acknowledgement on the part of the perpetrator that they have committed an offence.". And here I hit a semantic barrier; what do we mean by forgiveness? Some would say they can forgive without acknowledgement by the perpetrator; I've heard more than one relative of IRA bombing victims say they did. I'm actually very sympathetic to Tutu's definition here in the light of God's self-revelation; Christian forgiveness from God does seem to havre an important componenet of repentance involved, so perhaps reconciliation is the fuller meaning of forgiveness? But it does seem possible for some people to hold the disposition to forgive and to have let go so that they "are no longer chained to the perpetrator" and can move on. Perhaps this is part of the condition of finite temporality we exist under, forgiveness cannot always be consummated in reconciliation.
I think that we need to recognise anger and even hatred as a side-bar to love. If we love, anger when the object of our love is marred or destroyed really is a sign of our love; indifference feels no such anger because it feels no love. Even hatred of the perpetrator is a sign of the fact we love. I'm not saying we should be content to stay with such feelings but we shouldn't censure them, rather we should recognise them and learn from them; what do we learn about ourselves and our relationships from the fact that we feel them?
I think that perhaps this gives us a window into the wrath of God who loves each of us and all of the creation fiercely .... If God loves and there is evil, then God must be wrathful where people and creation are wrecked and marred.
In the early stages of grief and anger it is hard to hear the next bit "Remaining in that state [of anger and hatred] locks you in a state of victimhood, making you almost dependent on the perpetrator."
That is the sad irony of unforgivness and hatred and so forgiveness is really enlightened self-interest. So, " If you can find it in yourself to forgive then you are no longer chained to the perpetrator. You can move on, and you can even help the perpetrator to become a better person too."
What if the perpetrator is also someone we love? We might want to remain 'chained to' them but in a differnt kind of way -I'm thinking here also of the situation of God who loves even us who are the perpetrators of hurt to those others God loves....
Dr Tutu goes on to say, " the process of forgiveness also requires acknowledgement on the part of the perpetrator that they have committed an offence.". And here I hit a semantic barrier; what do we mean by forgiveness? Some would say they can forgive without acknowledgement by the perpetrator; I've heard more than one relative of IRA bombing victims say they did. I'm actually very sympathetic to Tutu's definition here in the light of God's self-revelation; Christian forgiveness from God does seem to havre an important componenet of repentance involved, so perhaps reconciliation is the fuller meaning of forgiveness? But it does seem possible for some people to hold the disposition to forgive and to have let go so that they "are no longer chained to the perpetrator" and can move on. Perhaps this is part of the condition of finite temporality we exist under, forgiveness cannot always be consummated in reconciliation.
Now subbed to bloglines for RSS feed
Hey I don't quite get it but I gather that this could mean that you the reader will find it easier to know when I update my blogs. Link button in the column on the right. Enjoy!
The real problem with GMO's
George Monbiot hits the nail on the head: the real problem is pwtents of genetic material and therefore the ownershop of everything we eat or grow and the knock on effects of TNC's owning everything we eat and wear ... it's a brave new world and I'm not very happy about some of it .... Mr Monbiot [points out that GMO foods are not contributing greatly to ending world hunger which would be far more usefully dealt with by giving more people basic access to necessities and means of production. It's not rocket science -far from it we should be diverting money from some of the rocket science into what we know could be achieved in making this plaent fit for all to live on.
08 March 2004
Chinese meterologists deeply worried by climate change
And well they should be -I've been reading recently [The Ecologist] about the growth of the deserts in the centre of Asia after the longest droughts in living memory. And with China having such a huge population and economic growth there being massive this is a major issue for the whole world. If they're worried, I'm worried.
Polluted-pays Farmers could be liable for 'genetic pollution'
A worrying development here is that a farmer has been succesully sued by Monsanto for growing patented crops and the fact that it was as a result of 'pollution' and not deliberate was not deemed to be a defense. Now I'm not necessarily agin all gmo's but this is clearly contrary to natural justice. Polluter pays? -Surely should, even if the pollution is genetic.
06 March 2004
Greenpeace report on Wind power in Europe
Pointer here to a report on the potential for windpower in Europe. Quite big claims of very large chunk of Europe's energy being potentially sourced in offshore wind power by 2020. Link at the bottom to the full report.
Not just overfishing
For a few years now I've not eaten fish and as much as anything it's because we seemed to be overfishing and I wasn't comfortable with contributing to that. The article doesn't actually give me a green light to eat fish but it does give pause on blaming the low fish stocks on overfishing exclusively -climate change may be playing a bigger part than we had thought. Fishing isn't going to help fish to adapt though.
After Alder Hey
It's the last two paragraphs that interest me most in this account.
"There was a lot of anger among the Alder Hey families, because no one was prosecuted. Justice hadn’t been done, and people felt betrayed and let down." I find myself reflecting on the relationship between justice, anger and forgiveness. Ange here because justice has not been done. Implying that had justice been done, then the anger would not be there [though of course there are cases when justice may be done and it isn't felt to be justice in which case the anger remains]. Doing justice appeases anger and brings forgiveness, though is it really forgiveness if it is the meeting of the claims of justice? I think I ask this question because I think I was starting to believe that forgiveness is most fully about relinquishing a claim upon another for 'justice'? So is this another candidate for the continuum of forgiveness? -Excusing-justice- understanding-forgiving. Justice acknowledges a wrong and so is not excusing. But there is not necessarily a dimension of understanding that is of making a connection on the grounds of human compassion.
And this leads me to wonder whether there is not a need for 'letting off' in there somewhere? -Letting off acknowledges a wrong and decides not to hold onto the wrongedness, yet it also implies that the letting off has come about because either the wrong is not important or because the wrongdoer is not important enough to the one wronged.
"Forgiveness was a not a word I used at first, but hearing the bitterness and anger I knew I didn’t want to go down that road. So I prayed to be able to forgive. In the end I came to forgive the surgeon who did the illegal stripping, and the hospital management. I chose forgiveness because I did not want to be destroyed by bitterness. What happened was out of my control, but how I respond is within my control."
Clearly here 'forgivness' is antonym for '[holding on to] bitterness'; so whatever else it is for this writer, it is something about having potential for relationship with the wrongdoer that is not based on bitterness, that is on a desire for retribution or on hatred or wvwn perhaps on a claim for justice [which may be the same as retribution?].
I'm also interested that forgivness is a process that one can pray to be able to undertake...
"There was a lot of anger among the Alder Hey families, because no one was prosecuted. Justice hadn’t been done, and people felt betrayed and let down." I find myself reflecting on the relationship between justice, anger and forgiveness. Ange here because justice has not been done. Implying that had justice been done, then the anger would not be there [though of course there are cases when justice may be done and it isn't felt to be justice in which case the anger remains]. Doing justice appeases anger and brings forgiveness, though is it really forgiveness if it is the meeting of the claims of justice? I think I ask this question because I think I was starting to believe that forgiveness is most fully about relinquishing a claim upon another for 'justice'? So is this another candidate for the continuum of forgiveness? -Excusing-justice- understanding-forgiving. Justice acknowledges a wrong and so is not excusing. But there is not necessarily a dimension of understanding that is of making a connection on the grounds of human compassion.
And this leads me to wonder whether there is not a need for 'letting off' in there somewhere? -Letting off acknowledges a wrong and decides not to hold onto the wrongedness, yet it also implies that the letting off has come about because either the wrong is not important or because the wrongdoer is not important enough to the one wronged.
"Forgiveness was a not a word I used at first, but hearing the bitterness and anger I knew I didn’t want to go down that road. So I prayed to be able to forgive. In the end I came to forgive the surgeon who did the illegal stripping, and the hospital management. I chose forgiveness because I did not want to be destroyed by bitterness. What happened was out of my control, but how I respond is within my control."
Clearly here 'forgivness' is antonym for '[holding on to] bitterness'; so whatever else it is for this writer, it is something about having potential for relationship with the wrongdoer that is not based on bitterness, that is on a desire for retribution or on hatred or wvwn perhaps on a claim for justice [which may be the same as retribution?].
I'm also interested that forgivness is a process that one can pray to be able to undertake...
04 March 2004
Lovelorn can be a physical illness
It's no surprise perhaps but it is now demonstrated that having your heart broken can lead to physical illness. It's a stress-related thing and is in fact down to the same kind of mechanisms already identified and known to be responsible for sri's. However it does add a further plus to the need for pastoral care and emotional intelligence to be part of the fabric of our lives.
03 March 2004
New look Northumbria Community site
Well the clue is in the title. But I commend the fact that the info on how one becomes a NC-er is there as well as piccies of what to expect and a nice homely invitation to a cup of tea.
Forgiving misdiagnosis
This seems to be an instance of forgiving because not doing so would add to the sum of ill in the world and would have been kind of self-defeating by making it harder for people to practice medicine. It was a recoil from being vindictive. Here it seems to be that forgiveness is about putting the past behind because it would get in the way of a better future. Then there is also something about recognising that it was a mistake [rather a series of mistakes] so a lot of it falls at the excused end of the scale [see last entry]. Has anything been done with malice, it may have been harder to simply lay things to rest and make a positive out of it?
The issue that this couple wrestle with seems to be somewhere in the middle of individual vs corporate responsibility. It would likely have been the the NHS thhat was sued had they done so yet it would have been the individuals concerned who would have been responsible. The difficulty here is how far the corporate is responsible and how far the individuals. Is it easier to forgive individuals who are part of a system that is bigger than they are and in whose name they operate? If so, is this because we actually acknowledge that coporate bodies involve some kind of 'pooling of sovereignty'? And if so, what of the Geneva convention?
The issue that this couple wrestle with seems to be somewhere in the middle of individual vs corporate responsibility. It would likely have been the the NHS thhat was sued had they done so yet it would have been the individuals concerned who would have been responsible. The difficulty here is how far the corporate is responsible and how far the individuals. Is it easier to forgive individuals who are part of a system that is bigger than they are and in whose name they operate? If so, is this because we actually acknowledge that coporate bodies involve some kind of 'pooling of sovereignty'? And if so, what of the Geneva convention?
The ultimate incompleteness of life's meaning
Stephen Hawking now thinks that a final GUTOE is impossible and basis this conclusion on his reading of Godel's incompleteness theorem. Kataphatic theology finds a classmate? the paper is published online under the title Gödel and the end of physics. [The article starts with a formidable warning about not reproducing it in any way but I can't see that linking to the original should be a problem]. Actually it seems to be an acknowledgement that chaos spells the end of the Newtonian hopes of a complete description of the universe, past, present and future, but maybe I missed something reading too quickly ...
Jesus demands creative control
Not sure how long this link will remain pointed at the page -so, if it's moved on by the time you try it use the search facility with the title for this posting. Anyway as someone who likes a silly joke to cut the tension this article seemed like a good idea to put in the mix about the Passion of Jesus Christ film.
02 March 2004
British Elite turn to Islam
Very interesting to see this especially as the origin of the article is the Sunday Times. I think I'm intrigued by it but also wanting to put some other context. I have seen figures suggesting that the number of people involved in British Buddhism rose from c 5,000 to something like 50,000 during the 1990's. I'd like to find out a bit more about that fugure [I think it was from an article in an OMF publication]. So clearly we aren't looking at a flow solely into Islam but rather a manifestation of British spiritual searching combined with the feel for the esoteric, exotic and/or cross-cultural [and perhaps even the supposed rooting for the underdog?]
The thing that kind of galls though is the 'trophy' converts thing: it is understandable for Muslims to take delight in such conversions and for the people concerned to publically proclaim their new-found faith. However this is a one-way traffic: Muslim background believers [ie those who have become Christians] do not have the same liberty because the normal interpretation of Sharia means that such people are at risk and most of them do not wish to place their families and friends in danger of official or unofficial reprisal for the 'crime' of giving up Islam to become Christians. I think I'd be more impressed if at least some of these new Muslims would also make some kind of stand for religious liberty for those who wish to take the opposite road. "There is no compulsion in religion" is a text that is to be found in the Qu'ran, presumably it has been abrogated or reinterpreted by sunna? I'll have to find out sometime.
The thing that kind of galls though is the 'trophy' converts thing: it is understandable for Muslims to take delight in such conversions and for the people concerned to publically proclaim their new-found faith. However this is a one-way traffic: Muslim background believers [ie those who have become Christians] do not have the same liberty because the normal interpretation of Sharia means that such people are at risk and most of them do not wish to place their families and friends in danger of official or unofficial reprisal for the 'crime' of giving up Islam to become Christians. I think I'd be more impressed if at least some of these new Muslims would also make some kind of stand for religious liberty for those who wish to take the opposite road. "There is no compulsion in religion" is a text that is to be found in the Qu'ran, presumably it has been abrogated or reinterpreted by sunna? I'll have to find out sometime.
Feeling others' pain -the brain science
When I was learning counselling we were told never to say "I know just how you feel". Well perhaps we need to review that advice according to the discovery reported here based on imaging brain activity. Actually the discovery doesn't really make the advice redundant because the fact remains that each person's reactions to and 'wiring' for things such as pain or distress is individual [if we were computers we'd each have built our own operating system from scratch]. What this discovery amounts to is that when we empathise, the part of our brain that deals with our own pain [or whatever, presumably] is activated.
I'm starting to ponder the theological implications of this in regard to incarnation and things like Hebrews 4 ...
I'm starting to ponder the theological implications of this in regard to incarnation and things like Hebrews 4 ...
New cold process for producing hydrogen from ethanol
I can't decide whether I really think this is good or bad; after all to feed the UK's possible demand for fuel if it were grown as 'biodiesel' you'd need [I'm told] to cover the whole of the UK with crops. However as a transitional feature to enable an easier change from hydrocarbon to hydrogen economy this has definite pluses.
More money into PV in UK
This article announces an extra £5m to be ploughed into encouraging PV usage in Britain. Good news but a mere drop in the ocean. Still most of it, as far as I can tell, goes into the match funding of PV in buildings.
If you're intersted in actual products then Sunpower are the people mentioned in the article but not given a link.
If you're intersted in actual products then Sunpower are the people mentioned in the article but not given a link.
01 March 2004
From Chechnya to UK
This story involves violations that I can only imagine and shudder at and so I am wary. To rework a stock phrase, "tread carefully for you tread on my hurt". Nevertheless I have set myself the task of learning from such experiences and as a no-longer young adult my learning is most effectively done by matching it up with my own learning so far and so my own questions, experience and observations.
Camilla writes: " I will never forgive the act, yet I can forgive the man who raped me" and I find this intriguing and suggestive. Intriguing because it raises for me the question of what we mean by forgiveness. It alerts me to the fact that we seem to operate with a number of definitions not all of which seem helpful or even truly about forgiveness when they are thought through further. What is the difference between forgiving and act and forgiving a person? Apart form grammatical considerations about verbal transitivity! I shall hazard a guess: forgiving an act is about either or both of forgetting it and/or discounting it. Forgiving a person for Camilla seems to be about excusing and understanding and so being able to [re-]create a bond of affirming relationship with the perpetrator [an echo of the idea that to understand all is to forgive all?] -to make reconciliation possible.
And/but for her, clearly forgiveness has a dimension which is about the forgiver finding a sense of inner peace: "I believe forgiveness begins with understanding, but you have to work through layers to obtain it. First you have to deal with anger, then with tears, and only once you reach the tears are you on the road to finding peace of mind.".
I value this because it chimes with my own experience that forgiving is a journey/process of understanding the hurt, the magnitude of the hurt the injustice, the anger ... I wonder whether this needs to be the case because only if we understand what needs to be 'let go' can we actually let go and forgive.
Jon writes: "Like Camilla I’ve come to an understanding of where our captors, and where her violator, were coming from. Not many people in this world do stuff out of pure maliciousness." This 'understanding' is important; I'm still wondering whether it is forgiveness or excusing -in the case of forgivness there is arecognition that a wrong has been committed whereas in excusing we recognise that while something nasty has happened, there is no blame. At a simple level excusing would be letting someone off a blow to the head because you recognised that they did it because they had tripped up and put out their hand to steady themself and it had connected with your head quite simply by accident not design. Forgiving would be letting them off because they did it by design perhaps out of anger or even because they wanted to hurt you.
But this latter scenario maybe helps to connect with Jon's thought for deeply: it is easier, in my experience to forgive when we can understand why something was done and when we understand that it wasn't done with malice than when we understand [rightly or wrongly] that it was done with malice. The malice or lack of care is the hardest to forgive; it is personal. The former is somewhat akin to excusing in that we gain an understanding and we don't take it personally. Perhaps there is a continuum: excusing-understanding-forgiving.
Camilla writes: " I will never forgive the act, yet I can forgive the man who raped me" and I find this intriguing and suggestive. Intriguing because it raises for me the question of what we mean by forgiveness. It alerts me to the fact that we seem to operate with a number of definitions not all of which seem helpful or even truly about forgiveness when they are thought through further. What is the difference between forgiving and act and forgiving a person? Apart form grammatical considerations about verbal transitivity! I shall hazard a guess: forgiving an act is about either or both of forgetting it and/or discounting it. Forgiving a person for Camilla seems to be about excusing and understanding and so being able to [re-]create a bond of affirming relationship with the perpetrator [an echo of the idea that to understand all is to forgive all?] -to make reconciliation possible.
And/but for her, clearly forgiveness has a dimension which is about the forgiver finding a sense of inner peace: "I believe forgiveness begins with understanding, but you have to work through layers to obtain it. First you have to deal with anger, then with tears, and only once you reach the tears are you on the road to finding peace of mind.".
I value this because it chimes with my own experience that forgiving is a journey/process of understanding the hurt, the magnitude of the hurt the injustice, the anger ... I wonder whether this needs to be the case because only if we understand what needs to be 'let go' can we actually let go and forgive.
Jon writes: "Like Camilla I’ve come to an understanding of where our captors, and where her violator, were coming from. Not many people in this world do stuff out of pure maliciousness." This 'understanding' is important; I'm still wondering whether it is forgiveness or excusing -in the case of forgivness there is arecognition that a wrong has been committed whereas in excusing we recognise that while something nasty has happened, there is no blame. At a simple level excusing would be letting someone off a blow to the head because you recognised that they did it because they had tripped up and put out their hand to steady themself and it had connected with your head quite simply by accident not design. Forgiving would be letting them off because they did it by design perhaps out of anger or even because they wanted to hurt you.
But this latter scenario maybe helps to connect with Jon's thought for deeply: it is easier, in my experience to forgive when we can understand why something was done and when we understand that it wasn't done with malice than when we understand [rightly or wrongly] that it was done with malice. The malice or lack of care is the hardest to forgive; it is personal. The former is somewhat akin to excusing in that we gain an understanding and we don't take it personally. Perhaps there is a continuum: excusing-understanding-forgiving.
more on the last story offorgiveness ...
Alistair further says: " But I don’t think I have a right to ask for forgiveness. .... asking for forgiveness is more about the needs of the perpetrator than the needs of the victim, or of the family who have lost a loved one."
Certainly when I think about my own wanting forgiveness from someone, when it has been from a position of recognising [as with Alistair] the utter wrongness of something I've done and the fact that I cannot un-do it and that there's nothing that can actually make it right again, there is a done-ness to it; an un-call-backableness of it that means that there really is no "right" to ask for forgiveness. It seems to me that the point of real forgiveness is precisely this: it gratuitous nature; it cannot be forced or bought or levered; it is a gracious reponse. If we will only ask for forgivenss if we feel we have a right to it then we won't ask: we'll never have the right; we only ever have a desire and can only ever throw ourselves on the mercy and perhaps, to some extent, the understanding and common humanity of the person we are asking forgiveness from. There is a strong thread of it being about the needs of the perpetrator rather than the victims. The victims have no 'need' to forgive, there is no claim on them save perhaps that of not storing up bitterness for themselves.
Inb fact Alistair in the midst of the piece I have just quoted says that asking forgiveness " places yet another burden upon relatives and family members." It could have the potential to do this. I'm not sure that it would fell to be that unless the family and frineds felt there was some kind of moral obligation to forgive, but if they did then it is probably the case that the asking would be no greater a burden than they already felt ... maybe .... I can see in these words -perhaps- a projection of feeling the lack of anything to 'enforce' a claim on forgiveness onto those who might do the forgiving; a senseo fo the gratuity of what is being asked. And that sense is important because it comes from a real sense that forgiveness is going to cost the forgiver something, and that I find interesting; that forgiveness costs the forgiving party or else it is not forgiveness. [discuss?].
Certainly when I think about my own wanting forgiveness from someone, when it has been from a position of recognising [as with Alistair] the utter wrongness of something I've done and the fact that I cannot un-do it and that there's nothing that can actually make it right again, there is a done-ness to it; an un-call-backableness of it that means that there really is no "right" to ask for forgiveness. It seems to me that the point of real forgiveness is precisely this: it gratuitous nature; it cannot be forced or bought or levered; it is a gracious reponse. If we will only ask for forgivenss if we feel we have a right to it then we won't ask: we'll never have the right; we only ever have a desire and can only ever throw ourselves on the mercy and perhaps, to some extent, the understanding and common humanity of the person we are asking forgiveness from. There is a strong thread of it being about the needs of the perpetrator rather than the victims. The victims have no 'need' to forgive, there is no claim on them save perhaps that of not storing up bitterness for themselves.
Inb fact Alistair in the midst of the piece I have just quoted says that asking forgiveness " places yet another burden upon relatives and family members." It could have the potential to do this. I'm not sure that it would fell to be that unless the family and frineds felt there was some kind of moral obligation to forgive, but if they did then it is probably the case that the asking would be no greater a burden than they already felt ... maybe .... I can see in these words -perhaps- a projection of feeling the lack of anything to 'enforce' a claim on forgiveness onto those who might do the forgiving; a senseo fo the gratuity of what is being asked. And that sense is important because it comes from a real sense that forgiveness is going to cost the forgiver something, and that I find interesting; that forgiveness costs the forgiving party or else it is not forgiveness. [discuss?].
The passion of Christ -a further theological issue
There's plenty in this and other articles about the film's alleged anti-semitism [I've not yet seen it so won't comment just now]. What I found intriguing is the following quote from the article referenced in the link:
"There is no resurrection in this film. A stone is rolled back, a zombie-Jesus is seen in profile for a second or two, and that's it. But there is a reason for this. In Gibson's theology, the resurrection has been rendered unnecessary by the infinite capacity of Jesus to withstand pain. Not the Risen Jesus, but the Survivor Jesus. Gibson's violence fantasies, as ingenious as perverse, are, at bottom, a fantasy of infinite male toughness." -James Carroll
This is indeed telling. I have my doubts aout a film that appears to be essentially a stations of the cross in the sense that the medieval fascination with suffering is not representative of the gospel accounts which are relatively unsentimental about the suffering [for more on this see the essay "The Meaning of His Suffering" on this site]. For some people it may be helpful but I'm also aware of some who already have difficulties with our "Messianic death cult" who will feel that this underlines their point about the sado-masichistic, anti-body tendencies in Christian faith.
But this comment by James Carroll seems to give a lot of pause for thought: has Gibson indeed retold the story with a theology that is Hollywood Machismo, in fact a kind of sacred violence which betrays the true intent of the gospel [see Walter Wink's comments on the theme of redemptive violence and its essentially pagan origins]. If this is so then there is a lot more to think about once the controversy about anti-semitism has died down.
"There is no resurrection in this film. A stone is rolled back, a zombie-Jesus is seen in profile for a second or two, and that's it. But there is a reason for this. In Gibson's theology, the resurrection has been rendered unnecessary by the infinite capacity of Jesus to withstand pain. Not the Risen Jesus, but the Survivor Jesus. Gibson's violence fantasies, as ingenious as perverse, are, at bottom, a fantasy of infinite male toughness." -James Carroll
This is indeed telling. I have my doubts aout a film that appears to be essentially a stations of the cross in the sense that the medieval fascination with suffering is not representative of the gospel accounts which are relatively unsentimental about the suffering [for more on this see the essay "The Meaning of His Suffering" on this site]. For some people it may be helpful but I'm also aware of some who already have difficulties with our "Messianic death cult" who will feel that this underlines their point about the sado-masichistic, anti-body tendencies in Christian faith.
But this comment by James Carroll seems to give a lot of pause for thought: has Gibson indeed retold the story with a theology that is Hollywood Machismo, in fact a kind of sacred violence which betrays the true intent of the gospel [see Walter Wink's comments on the theme of redemptive violence and its essentially pagan origins]. If this is so then there is a lot more to think about once the controversy about anti-semitism has died down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...