Reflections on two conversations; one started at the beginning in Marks gospel(hat tip to Steve new principle of BBC) and one started at the end with the crucifixion (hat tip to Debbie a co worker at CYM).
Marks gospel starts in a different place to the other gospels, in the wilderness. Mark 1 4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region . This wilderness is a spacious and wild place, that no-one owned, things didn’t grow, a place beyond and outside the city. It was this place that God came down. Mark 1 v10 As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” Then Jesus was then sent further out into the desert. Mark 1 v 12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert

With Debbie we were talking about change and mission, linking to questions about the nature church and what facilitates change; is it about understanding or practice. Do people change in response to seeing something different or through the understanding that can be gained from dialogue.? Obviously there is an element of both but in a church context I think we seek to get people to rethink church through engaging at an understanding level and because we have the sub cultural weakness of evolutionary approach to change (see series of posts starting here) any change will be limited. Debbie’s comment was “remember Jesus was crucified outside the city walls” and change came from; or was motivated from outside.

Now I may be putting two and two together and coming up with six but surely there is a link between the beginning of Mark and Jesus outside the city and the end and Jesus outside the city. What is the significance for ministry and change of Jesus’ approach to remaining outside the city? Maybe it relates to looking for the third way of doing things, maybe (excuse me whilst I go into metaphor mode) it it is about being outside the city with people to discover what God wants you to do (Mark 1) and then getting on with doing it regardless of who in city takes notice or gives permission, going into the city from time to time but knowing that the real action happens outside the city walls.

Maggie posted some great thoughts linked to our earlier strand around love. Check her thoughts out find her blog on the list

I was meeting with some friends about a month or so ago and one of them commented that he didn’t believe in the infallibility of the Bible. Then just the other day I met a chap who complained that he’d met a minister that believed in evolution.

These two statements made me think about what is implied by a belief in the infallibility of the Bible.

The big problem, it seems to me is that everyone will inevitably have a different interpretation of the Bible and that everyone’s interpretation of the Bible (and I’m using interpretation to also mean perception of what it means) must have errors – let’s face it, we are only human!

So what does it mean to say that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Is a statement that cannot make be of any use? I’m going to assume that the Bible is infallible (in fact I tend to believe that it is), however, we now have a huge problem in that nobody has an infallible interpretation of the Bible. So therefore is it meaningless to say that the Bible is the infallible word of God?

If the Bible is the infallible word of God then it doesn’t it make absolutely no difference to anyone because we all make mistakes in interpreting it. What is more important is that ‘the faith we have is infallible’ – which must be true be because faith is from God. What we believe to be faith can only be fallible if it isn’t faith at all.

We know God through faith, through his Spirit communicating to us. This is through all sorts of things, not simply the Bible. It is surely more important to know God than to know what the Bible says about God? (and no, I’m not saying that it isn’t important to know what the Bible says about God!)

On the road to Emmaus the question asked of the stanger walking with the disciples was “Are you only a visitor here?”. Jesus’ presence, before creation and through and beyond time makes us the visitors. What sites will we see as visitors and how many will we miss if we think we are the tour guides?

A Mighty Wind the movie

Richard was telling me yesterday that he is covering ethics with his students at college. What a great subject! Not because you learn how to ‘do ethics’ but because you learn (hopefully) that ethics don’t really do what they say on the tin!

As I see it, the problem with ethics is that it relies on our intellects. We know about 0.000001% (or perhaps a little less) about stuff, about the world we live in, about the people we live around, about ourselves, about the effects of our actions. On the other hand God knows 100% about stuff. So, who would you rather trust?

That kind of leads us onto ‘how to know God’s mind’… and that’s an entirely different subject, certainly not ethics! Let’s face it, I don’t have a ‘system’ for knowing my best mates.

Would there be any truth in saying that in the Law of the Old Testament is an ethical system? I don’t know, maybe you know? Any answers?

Great couple of days on retreat, led my Stuart Murray (post Christendom). We did some work on parables and values all good stuff. Over the retreat I was also reading A Scandalous Prophet The way of Mission after Newbigin. Someone I have great respect for, and whose work over the years I have valued greatly. The first chapter is on Newbigin as a public theologian but I couldn’t help questioning what was written as a very Christendom approach (I am aware he was writing at a time when this was stronger) but it also made question the whole role of debating theologically with structures and power systems, and how do we approach change and dialogue in a more powerless way. How we promote a system that is more about powerless persuasion and journey and not one that promoted as the right and only alternative?

I kind of link it to a stange idea about applying to go on Big Brother, with the idea to see if I could get the whole group to aggree on certain values and questions to promote through the whole programme. Real basic lowest common denominator (LCD) stuff like “where is the love” or “if you don’t know your nieghbour then talk to them” or even just concious raising stuff like “why is the world not like it could be”. Or even develop a symbol that summed up these kind of statements. I thought we could spray cleaning fluid into the grass so every time the camera showed the garden a message would be seen.

Anyway back to the real world, I wonder if LCD is the kind of public theology we need in the post christendom world.

Been thinking a lot about this verse 22 from Mark 1 recently and its links to ethics and truth. Jesus always saw the ethic behind the text or letter of the law which is why he got into trouble so much with those legalists. As we look and search for truth in contemporary society what is the deep ethic (thanks for the phrase Nikki) behind the text that gives shape and inform us so that a) we can set appropriate boundaries and b) speak with authority and authenticity.

Jesus crossed boundaries with an authenticity I would say that stemmed from him knowing the Spirit of the law and interpreting this into action that gave him authority. What was about him that enabled people to see this authority and respond in such a way, just give up stuff and follow him? Was he so immersed in the deep ethic of love that people saw this in his being?

21They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.

The Final Inquiry on dvd