connexions

Two articles in today’s Church Times caught my eye. The first had me exclaiming, “What!” It’s about “churchy chat-up lines”. Ed Bevan reports that “painful pick-up ploys were put forward by members of the Christian Connection site, which last week held a dating workshop to encourage members to ignore one-liners.” Here is a sample:

“Is this pew taken?”
“You float my ark.”
“I just don’t feel called to celibacy.”
“My parents are home, wanna come over?”
“I didn’t believe in predestination until I met you.
“How many times do I have to walk around you before you fall for me?”
“Now I know why Solomon had 700 wives. He never met you.”
“The name is Will. God’s Will.”

Cheesy, or what! The problem, apparently, is that “Christians often feel ‘conflicted’ about dating.” Anyway, I thought “Connexions” might make a contribution to un-conflict hormonally challenged disciples, by coming up with some less risible advances. Here are three to get us going:

“Fancy a Bible role-play on the Song of Songs?”
“Hey, baby, wanna come over for a prelapsarian fancy dress party?”
“The name is Judas. As in well hung.”

The other article is Giles Fraser’s weekly column, entitled “Doctor Who proves the success of the gospel”. Fraser writes that the popular BBC sci-fi series is an excellent “way to raise themes in theology” because “the programme is stuffed with Christian references. The central figure is a nameless man (messianic secret?) - and a ‘Lord’, no less - set in an epic struggle of good against evil. He is always saving humanity from disaster, with little more than a device that opens doors. And, unlike any other superhero I can think of, he never uses violence. Indeed, the Doctor’s final triumph over his arch-enemy, the Master, ended with the words: ‘I forgive you.’” (Interestingly, the main writer for the new Doctor Who, Russell T. Davies, is an atheist - but not surprisingly when you consider that the only good Jesus film ever made, the brilliant The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, was directed by by the gay atheist Paolo Pasolini.)

Fraser’s contention will be music to the Spock-like ears of our (take-me-to-your) leader and Doctor aficionado Richard Hall, Who, were the programme scheduled for Sunday morning at 10:30 (and were it not for recorders), would seriously reconsider his ministerial vocation.

Finally, speaking of outer space, you will all probably know that the Chief Astronomer of the Vatican, the Revd. José Gabriel (!) Funes, has said that the existence of aliens would not contradict faith in God. A letter in todays’ Independent raises the question as to whether, unrelated to Adam and Eve, they would be tainted by original sin. Of course for a Scotist like myself, untainted aliens would not be a theological problem, as, fall or no fall, the Word would still have been made flesh. Funes adds the rather redundant remark that aliens would still be God’s ceatures, as I would have thought that the existence of American evangelicals proved the point long ago.

Have a good weekend!
Kim

United Methodist Reporter Blog :: Way to recycle some good publicity
I hope I’ll be forgiven for reproducing this blog post in full. It cracked me up.

In his 2006 essay on homosexuality, the United Methodist Church and the church universal, Bishop Timothy Whitaker wrote the following about the pastoral responsibility of United Methodist pastors/churches:

“What is necessary is not to bar certain persons from membership, but to maintain the public teaching and pastoral guidance of the church so that persons are lovingly directed away from practices the church believes are not consistent with the divine purpose for the sake of their growth in grace.”

Bishop Whitaker writes in terms not of what he recommends, sees, or prefers as the best or ideal outcome, but of what is necessary. I am translating the word necessary as “required” or a “must have” or “must do” thus leaving no option for another church or pastoral course of action. On the other hand, he recognizes that faithful United Methodists disagree on the topic, even as all are bound to obey the Discipline. However, can the Discipline fairly be interpreted to require the type of pro-active position he advances, as opposed to refraining from doing those things that are banned by the Discipline? It seems to me that requiring this action challenges pastoral integrity. It is one thing to dissent from teachings and yet uphold and enforce them. However, to be required to take the further step of enacting a Bishop’s supported means of upholding the Discipline, when such disciplinary statement(s) does not outline a specific course of action or enforcement, except as to ordination and same-sex unions or ceremonies, is a violation of the conscience as formed in faith; of academic freedom in the study of science, pyschology, sociology, and medicine; and freedom as to non-essential matters. By use of the term “non-essential” I’m not referring to the Disciplinary language on the topic, but of a specific interpretion of pastoral duty when no concensus of pastoral duty, apart from the disciplinary prohibitions, exists.

The 2004 United Methodist Book of Discipline provides, among other things:

Paragraph 2702-1:

1. A bishop, clergy member of an annual conference (¶368), local pastor,14 clergy on honorable or administrative location, or diaconal minister may be tried when charged (subject to the statute of limitations in ¶ 2702.4)* with one or more of the following offenses: (a) immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage;*** (b) practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,15 including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies;*** (c) crime; (d) failure to perform the work of the ministry; (e) disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church; (f) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church; (g) relationships and/or behavior that undermines the ministry of another pastor;16 (h) child abuse;** (i) sexual abuse;17 (j) sexual misconduct** or (k) harassment, including, but not limited to racial and/or sexual harassment; or (l) racial or gender discrimination .

Is Bishop Whitaker meaning to either imply or state outright that United Methodist pastors who fail to lead homosexual persons out of same-sex practices may or should be considered for the filing of a chargeable offense, under perhaps sections (d), (e) or (f)? If so, the most likely section would seem to be (d) failure to perform the work of the ministry — since Bishop Whitaker seeems to be claiming that his “necessary” claim should be a vital part of ministerial duties.

Your opinion, thought or musing?

Joel Betow
Stroud, Oklahoma USA

Dave Faulkner :: Welcome to Toddworld

A very useful post.

I came across the following Ethics Test today, on a sheet of A4 folded in a book, as I was going through the “Moral Theology” section of my library.

This test has only one question, but it’s a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will learn a lot about your moral character. No one else will know, so you won’t be fooling anyone but yourself if you are not truthful. The test features a completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a spontaneous decision. Remember, complete candour is crucial. Please read slowly and thoughtfully. Good luck. Here is the situation.

You are in Miami, Florida. There is chaos all around you caused by a mega-hurricane; the waters are rising, approaching a flood of biblical proportions.

You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you are looking for an opportunity to take a picture that will make you famous and secure your career.

There are people, cars, even houses swirling all around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury and there is nothing you can do.

Suddenly you see a man floundering in the waters. He is fighting for his life, clutching at floating objects while trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. The man looks familiar. Suddenly you realise who it is. It is George W. Bush, the President of the United States! He is about to go under - forever.

You have two options. You can save the President’s life, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death of the world’s most well-known and powerful man.

So here is the question. Remember, your answer must be both spontaneous and honest. Would you:

(a) select high contrast colour film
or
(b) go with the classic simplicity of black and white.

Kim Fabricius

Ben Myers has started a one movie meme. I’ll play!

1. One movie that made you laugh
Groundhog Day

2. One movie that made you cry
Titanic.

Only kidding!

The Elephant Man

3. One movie you loved when you were a child
Jason and the Argonauts

4. One movie you’ve seen more than once
Dark Star

5. One movie you loved, but were embarrassed to admit it
An Officer and a Gentleman

6. One movie you hated
Grease

7. One movie that scared you
Ringu

8. One movie that bored you
Titanic

9. One movie that made you happy
Close Encounters of the Third Kind

10. One movie that made you miserable
Hotel Rwanda

11. One movie you weren’t brave enough to see
Can’t remember the title: something like “Swedish Nymphos”. I was 13, and some friends had a dare about trying to get into the cinema. I bottled it. The others got turned away at the door.

12. One movie character you’ve fallen in love with
Barbarella.

13. The last movie you saw
Sunshine

14. The next movie you hope to see
Atonement is the next thing on our rental list.

I’d like to tag all my internet friends. You know who you are!

massivetruth :: Jesus and Linux. Any preachers out there with congregations full of geeks *might* consider this as a sermon illustration.

I can just imagine the blank looks I’d get…

This is, like, totally “right”.

via In The Agora

ASBO Jesus is worth looking at every day. Great stuff.

Spirit lite by Kim Fabricius

It won’t go away. The spirituality craze I mean. I thought it might. This is an age of faddism, and it’s also an age when most people have the attention span of a gnat, but it looks like spirituality is here to stay. Now it’s even made the telly. Not long ago Channel 4 brought to our screens a “reality” programme called Spirituality Shopper. The former triple jump star and media Christian Jonathan Edwards shadowed a bunch of very sad sods as they sampled in life what you will find in print in the “Mind, Body and Spirit” section of Waterstone’s, picking-and-mixing – very postmodern – everything from crystals to the Kabbalah. These shoppers hoped that these “therapies” might provide a quick fix to cure their sick souls, but apart from the odd buzz they were disappointed. Through all this bathos Edwards somehow managed to keep a straight face, when no doubt he was thinking, “Well, duh!”

I’m being very critical. But I promise that this is going to be an evenly balanced sermon – I’ve got a chip on both shoulders! Wait till I get to the church! But for a time I want to continue to deconstruct what you could call “Spirit Lite”.

Inhabitatio Dei doesn’t like them, and threatens a kneecapping. If you’re an ‘Emerging Church’ type, or have leanings in that direction, I’d avoid him if I were you. I think he means it.

What the church can learn from Wikipedia is a fascinating article from Hacking Christianity. Apparently, it is the first post in what will be a series of 4, and the rest should be well worth catching up with.

What if your church structure looked like Wikipedia and allowed for “rough” forms of ministry to try out? Untried, unfinished, possibly disastrous forms of ministry. Doesn’t that scare you? It should…can you imagine our reputation if we let un-thought-thru forms of ministry run amok? (*cough* like sponsoring Halo game nights, anyone?) But if Wikipedia taught champions of Nupedia that dedicated amateurs could be better than professional products, then can’t our ministry initiatives learn the same thing?

Certainly, there’s a lot to think about. However, we musn’t forget that for Wikipedia to work, a considerable amount of effort has to go into the ‘infrastructure’ that supports it. I’m attracted to the notion of a ‘wiki-church’, but we certainly don’t have the required infrastructure in place now, and I admit to not being sure what that would look like. Perhaps it’s my lack of imagination. Second, and more important, although Wikipedia has undoubtedly been a roaring success, the wiki idea does not seem to have really caught on. The editors of wikipedia are a very small fraction of those who read it. Similarly, in the church we talk of ‘the ministry of the whole people of God’, how many church members and friends are really prepared to get their hands dirty with ministry?

The latest round up

A bargain with God? by our friend Kim. Not strictly a Pentecost sermon, but good stuff all the same.

Well, today I am here to tell you that God doesn’t do bargains. I mean the whole idea, really, is a no-brainer. Why should God do deals with us? What do we have to offer God that he doesn’t already have? And indeed – pardon the sacrilege – why should we trust God to deliver the goods we’re expecting? I mean the deity has form, doesn’t he? Two words should suffice: Good Friday. For heaven’s sake, man, God didn’t deliver his own totally sinless and obedient Son from torture and death, he watched him get strung up between those two thieves, terrorists – so what, am I God’s gift that I am going to be exempted from fortune’s slings and arrows? What makes me a special case? The idea that God might owe me for good – or them for bad – really, folks, it is fairyland. Deserve? As outlaw William Munny (Clint Eastwood) says in that great line from Unforgiven: “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”

Away with our fears,
our troubles and tears!
The Spirit is come,
the witness of Jesus returned to his home.

The pledge of our Lord
To his heaven restored
Is sent from the sky,
And tells us our Head is exalted on high.

Our Advocate there
by his blood and his prayer
the gift has obtained;
For us he has prayed, and the Comforter gained.

Our glorified Head
His Spirit has shed
With his people to stay,
and never again will he take him away.

Our heavenly Guide
with us shall abide,
his comforts impart,
and set up his kingdom of love in the heart.

The heart that believes
his kingdom receives,
his power and his peace,
his life, and his joy’s everlasting increase.

Charles Wesley

Bene Diction shares a Gaelic Blessing sung by Wales’ own Aled Jones.

Thunderstorms bring flash floods to South Wales

Methodist Preacher has found himself “instalaunched” by a link from right wing blogger Michelle Malkin. A piece he wrote about the ‘Matalan posters’ (I wrote about them here) was picked up by Ms Malkin and used for one of those evil-muslims-are-taking-over-the-world pieces that American right wingers seem to lap up these days.

His response to the experience is worth your time.

Bishop Alan provides an excellent response to recent talk about decline in the British Church. He has come up with a clipping from The Times dated 29th July 1971, which confidently predicts the death of the Church in Britain by 2011. Sadly, it is Methodism’s own Dr Kenneth Greet who is being quoted.

As the Bishop observes, it just goes to show the fun that can be had with statistics.

Or, indeed, on a blog. Sound advice uncovered by the Fat Prophet.

How To Behave On An Internet Forum