Holy Through Thanks: Mindful Gratitude

 I found this blog post by Richard Beck very stimulating. First of all, I enjoyed the articulation of something that has long been a part of my spirituality that is spiritual practice.

 Thankfulness marks the boundary between the sacred and the profane.

In the Slavery of Death I argue that gratitude accomplishes this because the object in question--which includes not just possessions but also things like your time, attention, status and your very life--is relocated in the mind by thankfulness, making us able to "lose" and "let go" of the object as we live for and share with others. Thankfulness sanctifies the world because thankfulness creates the capacity to use things--by letting them go or sharing them--in holy ways. 

For me it has long seemed that blessing is first about thanksgiving. When Jesus blesses the bread and wine at table with his disciples, we understand that such a blessing involved the normal Jewish practice of giving thanks for the gift of food, and perhaps for God's mighty acts. This would have been the main content of the words of blessing. Consecration is first and foremost about gratitude and thanksgiving. This involves a recognition of the goodness of the thing (or person) and of its or their place in the purposes of God. In a sense this is to recognise that the thing or person is already consecrated. It is to become aware of something that is already true: that all things come from God and are meant to serve God's good will for all things. Consecration isn't something God does. It is something that we do in response to God's goodness and in recognition that we may play a part in God's good purposes by receiving and passing on appropriately what has been shared with us. If thankfulness marks the boundary between the sacred and the profane, then we know that the boundary exists mainly in and runs through our minds and attitudes.

And then it seems to me that gratitude, embedded in our outlook by the practices of thankfulness, is a fundamental means by which our ability to live in a godly fashion is bolstered and enabled in practical terms. What I have written as 'embedded in our outlook' is, I think, what Richard means by 'relocated in the mind'. Consecration by blessing (ie thanksgiving) is something that happens in our minds rather than in the world because it is actually a usually-unrecognised fact about the world (seen by the eyes of faith only). It is a re-orientation of outlook which by repetition may become a habit of outlook and a bedrock of the practice of the presence of God and of the discernment of grace in the world.

As such, we can understand it to be a mindful practice. And I mean that in something of the sense of mindfulness as the practice of giving sustained attention to something and of doing so in an open, curious and compassionate  (perhaps 'loving' or 'appreciative') way. It seems to me that practices of giving thanks are likely to be mindful in this sort of way. Whether these are practices of 'saying grace' over food and other things we consume or encounter in life, or whether this is something like the practice of counting our blessings or Examen. Each of these practices are ways, with repetition, to change our brains and hence our minds.

Experimental Theology: The World Is Made Holy Through Thanks:

Applauding St John's Nottingham for context based training for ministry

When I interviewed for the post I held at St John's from 2007 to 2011 as Mixed Mode and Practical Theology Tutor, in the bit where I got to ask the panel questions, I asked what the rationale for residential training was and why all their training was not mixed mode, contextually-based. I feel that question has, in a sense, borne fruit (though I am by no means claiming a direct causal link) in the developments that David Hilborn outlines in the statement linked to by this post. I do indeed pray for the wise implementation of this bold, brave, step and for its fruitfulness in the lives and ministries of lay and ordained people training and trained by St Johns.



It seems to me that perhaps this course of action could not be taken earlier because the conditions were not in place: the Ministry Division of the CofE was certainly not very comfortable with the approach of mixed mode training and St Johns itself had to adapt to that climate, having innovated to produce a mixed mode pathway in the first place. Something like this was needed to take it to the next level.



I don't any longer have an inside view on what more precisely it will all look like. However, I do hope that something more of the vision I articulated at my interview might be able to be expressed: that each student can find a high degree of customisation of their learning, driven by the questions, demands and live issues of their context, so that they can not only learn about things, but so that they can learn how to learn in ministry and develop skills and habits of reflection.



▶ A statement by Revd. David Hilborn, Principal of St John's College Nottingham - November 12th 2014 - YouTube

Propaganda? I think perhaps the government's tax-spend graphic probably is

The British government is putting out a statement to all taxpayers showing how their tax has been spent over the last year
At this point I can't find the official one online. However, this one appears to have the categories fairly similar especially in having 'welfare' as a single, huge, category.

The TUC has accused the government of propaganda. At first I though "Oh come on; they're just showing the figures, whether you like them or not ...", however, having seen the alternative graphic below, I've changed my mind.

Looking at that, where 'welfare' is broken down further, it becomes obvious that the choice to show it as 'welfare' is a political, propagandistic, decision. Even the fact that it's going with "welfare" is significant: redolent with the connotative meanings that we all pick up from USA TV which have the non-verbal subtitles like "scroungers" or "drag on prosperity". It is also mostly used when discussing what used to be called "social security", but look at what is included in reality: all sorts of stuff that people actually approve of -like health. And look at the proportions of expenditure on the approved stuff compared with the political-football stuff. Disingenuous or what?

So, do let your colleagues, team-mates, friends and relatives know: "they're hiding things under the labelling: it's propaganda for the Conservatives and it's paid for by the state and so isn't included in the restrictions on political spending in the year running up to an election". Very clever and rather cynical.