Last night I began reading Alan Jacobs’ Original Sin A Cultural History. This should be an interesting journey. I’m making a concerted effort to wrestle with an idea, a concept, a theory of the human condition that has fascinated and horrified me ever since I first learned about it.

To my mind, Augustine’s theory of “Original Sin” is so antithetical to the teaching of the Gospels, and the later writings of the fathers as to be . . . . well . . . heretical actually. As I understand it, Augustine says that we are all guilty, that we are all condemned, we are all naturally evil.

I’m sure there is a nuance there that I’m missing but allow me to play with this “recieved” interpretation for a moment.

The problem is that this sets us up spiritually, psychologically, and communally, for failure. It starts from an extremely negative view of the human condition, making us, all of us, bear the guilt of Adam and Eve’s misadventure in the garden.

Traditional explanations for the Fall tell us a different story. Adam & Eve were decieved, they were tricked, and then poisoned, or infected, as such they were made subjects of Death and his oppression, rather than Life, and his liberation. We do not bear their “guilt” rather, because they set a series of events into motion, we are faced with the challenges presented by the consequences of that event.

As I begin this journey to once again attempt to understand this particular theory of Augustine’s – which has had a significant (negative) impact on Western Christian theology for centuries, I’m curious as to how other indie folk – particularly western rite indie folk, assimliate this “doctrine” into our otherwise (largely) very liberal tradition. Do you accept Augustine’s theory? If so how does this impact the theology and praxis of you and your community?

Now here’s an interesting question, and it struck me while doing the morning trawl, one thing led to another led to another and before I knew it I found myself in the website of a convent scanning their FAQ page. What struck me about it was their answer:

“This is one of the hardest of all questions to answer because the person asking it usually has her own ideas about what “traditional” means. . . .”

This really opens a door into talking about what it means to be “traditional” because you have to start by asking the background question – what do YOU mean by “traditional”? In my experience in the indie community it generally falls into two categories (which sometimes but not always overlap).

Category A is ritual. I say ritual and not liturgy because ritual encompasses more than “just” liturgy. Frequently people define “traditional” or traditionalist, or traditionalism by the forms of ritual used in the life of the community. “Traditional” communities often seek to use “old” rituals, and to execute them with a level of precision that would make a drill seargent weep for joy. “Traditional” communities often like “the old language” – and use it liberally throughout their ritual year.

Category B is doctrine. “Traditional” communities in category B emphsise a set of doctrines that they hold to be the “traditional” teaching of “The Church”. Often this body of dictates is a set collection frozen in time, reflecting the real or imagined golden age of “The Church”.

The difficulty with these two (often overlapping) sets is that they are wholly unsuited to the OC/IC ethos. Which brings us back to the question: What is traditional (in our context)?

Here in the UK the Guardian has a regular column called “Bad Science” which exposes . . . well, “bad” science, pseudo science, and “popular science” ideas – like homeopathy. Maggi Dawn has suggested on her blog the brilliant idea of a “Bad Theology” column. So what bad theologies, or pseudo theological ideas would you include, and why?

I fell into this article this morning while making my rounds. It highlights the impending arrival of Earth Day, and notes the rising number of religious communities reflecting on the links between ethics, environmentalism, our food, and our theology.

Today we take our food very much for granted. But this little article was timely not only because of Earth Day, not simply because we are increasingly interested in our personal and collective impact on our environment (and how it affects others), but because we’ve just exited the Great Fast – that time of year when we are very conscious of what we eat, how much we eat, how it is prepared etc.

Lent is over – but can we carry over some of the awareness of the lenten discipline into the rest of the liturgical year, and ask some tough questions about where our food comes from, how it is produced, and what effect that has on those who live around us?

I’ve been more aware over the past few years than ever before of the number of OC/IC folk who are comitted vegetarians and have always wanted to ask – is it because of your faith that you have chosen this discipline; and if so, would you be so kind as to talk about that with the rest of us (even here perhaps)?

Food is not just something you shove in yoru mouth to satisfy a need – it is a product of someone elses labour (maybe even yours) and that labour needs to be respected.

I’ve been thinking about this bus driver who, last week (I think it was) refused to drive one of London’s new “Athiest busses” because he’s an Evangelical Christian. The story has been reported now on both sides of the Great Pond, but here are two references (A and B) for you to look at and ponder. We’ve talked about it a bit here at GCHQ and while I’m still sitting with some of the questions it raises I wonder: did he also refuse to drive busses advertising abortion services? What about busses with adverts celebrating Diwali and Ramadan? I could go on for another two or three dozen lines with these type of questions. Is this an act of hypocrisy, or is this “drawing the line” somewhere in the sand, and what is that line, what does it say about his expression of Christianity, more importantly, how does it reflect on other Christians – like us?

—- Here too is an NPR report on “Advertising Atheism” – I’ve not listened to it in full yet, but hey, its NPR you know it’ll be good. —

Here in the UK I’ve been noticing more news items covering issues relating to assisted suicide and euthenasia. I sat down this morning and did a quick survey of the official positions of a number of denomonations to see if they differed, and what was characteristic about each posistion. It then struck me that I’ve not seen much comment in OC/IC forums on the topic. I know that when I lived in the states in the 80s and 90s assisted suicide and euthenasia were hot topics, looking back, I’m not sure I can remember it being discussed then (in OC/IC forums) either.

Why is that then?

Part of me wonders if it is due to the fact that our liberal/progressive attitudes don’t see this as an issue worth investigating in our communities. But then, there is a compelling argument to be made that suggests that on the contrary – this is a topic worthy of exploration – it affects a number of ethical issues, as well as issues surrounding the local community, relationships with others, and even a sense of our OC/IC identity.

On the other hand – I have noticed over the years that the issues that “matter” in OC/IC forums are frequently not issues considered relevant beyond the boundaries of a small group of OC/IC clergy. This inward looking positioning (conscious and unconscious) is I think detrimental to the community as a whole. In this light then it is not entirely surprising that – in a search of OC/IC sites this morning no mention is made of assisted suicide, euthenasia, or end of life issues.

But curiously enough – I’ve seen on more than one occasion mention of support for a woman’s right to choose. So it would appear that in addition to exploring (arguing) about matters that are only of interest to a small clique of clergy, making sure to hit those “hot button” issues that might attract bums on seats is important . . . . This leads to a rather uncomfortable thread of thinking though.

What I’m interested in at the moment, however, is not necessarily the why’s and why nots of this being discussed in OC/IC forums – but what people within the community think about assisted suicide and euthenasia: how do OC/IC folk resopnd to them, how does it fit within our theology, our tradition?

I was working on my thesis this morning and while considering aspects’ of Nestorius’ warning about the possible excesses of the title Theotokos – found myself thinking about the Roman Catholic idea of Mary as Mediatrix. I wondered to myself if it was not a bit prophetic on Nestorius’ part to raise issue with the title Theotokos, and went in search of some clarity on the use and meaning of Mediatrix. I found this, among others.

One element of this that surprised me was the heavy emphasis of Mary’s suffering at the cross during Christ’s crucifixion – and that it was in this moment that she truly becomes “mediatrix” and dispensor of grace.

My reading of the patristic sources suggests a . . . . counter argument . . . (perhaps not the best term). Mary’s importance as the subject of devotion emerges in the Late Antique period and is not focussed on her suffering, but instead on her becoming the Theotokos – the one who bore the one who is God – it is in this moment, according to the patristic sources, that Mary becomes the source of “super-abundant grace” (St. Proklos Hom. 1.1).

Patristic writers variously pointed to John’s account of Mary at the foot of the cross, as a demonstration of her post-natal virginity (because in vs. 19.26-7 Jesus – her only son, hands her into the care of John, and not for example James); or a fulfilment of Simeon’s prophecy (Lk. 2.35) that her heart would be pierced by a sword.

From an OC/IC perspective I wonder if the use of Mediatrix and it’s complimentary title Co-Redemptrix are actually helpful titles – after all, Nestorius held that the term too readily lent itself to excessive Marian devotion, distorting the true image of Mary as a woman, participating in the economy, and thus her real value in the tradition.

I was reading an article the other day about the famous (imfamous) media campaigner Mary Whitehouse; where she was described as “a comitted Christian”. What struck me was that in the context of the article this was not a good thing – indeed it was a signpost that Mary Whitehouse was barking mad and bloody annoying. I paused for a moment and tried to recall the times I’ve seen that description applied to people in various articles – and sure enough, every time it carried an ostensibly negative connotation.

In some respects it seems to me that the description “a comitted Christian” works the same way as when a reporter or news-reader describes someone as a “homosexual” rather than as gay or lesbian. It’s “code” for this person is depraved, sick, and needs both our pity and our disdain.

What is even more intriguing to me is that I am unable to think of examples of positive tags for “comitted Christians” who are appearing in articles or reports. That is, just as lesbian, or gay, is the “liberal” or “complimentary” term used there does not appear to be such a positive descriptive for us Christians.

My friend Micki Shirey a UCC pastor in Oregon has a lovely blog here. She’s been “tagged” with a simple, but rather interesting question – why blog? what are the rules? and of course the obligatory tag three others. I’ll start by saying, Chris, John, and Tim are “IT”!

Why do I blog? Hmmmmm . . . . well I’ve got two blogs and each serves a different function. I’m posting different answers on the other so you’ll have to visit that one too (grin). Here, my purpose is to explore and give voice to things OC/IC I think we as a movement need to be more visible, not less; and we need to articulate our ideas and theologies from an OC/IC perspective rather than falling into step with the tunes of other traditions. I believe that in sharing our story, in exploring our ideas with one another we discover that as diverse as our motley movement is, we share more in common with one another than we sometimes think. I think that in that process of talking, sharing, and realising common ground, we make friends in unlikely places, and from that forge a stronger sense of connection, and community within the wider movement.

What are the rules? erm, ahhhh, well . . . . it might sound like a cliche, but the person typing at you, or at whom you are typing, is a living embodiment of Christ, act accordingly.

Right, I’m off to do this over at my “summer palace” and hope you’ll visit me there too (it’s got pictures, and movies and cats!)

You may remember earlier posts here about conversion. I’ve long found it unsettling how the wider OC/IC community does not often encourage, or talk about converting from X to and OC/IC identity. What is interesting is that in a number of the interviews I’ve conducted for the Indie Voices Archive this topic has been raised directly or indirectly in the conversation – this by way of pointing out that others are thinking about similar issues.

I’m about half way through an interesting little book I picked up a week ago: Conversion: Old Worlds and New (ISBN 1580461239); a collection of essays exploring cultural/historical/theological issues involved in historic conversion and missionary settings.

One essay talks about resisting conversion within the Christian tradition – that is resisting outside pressures to convert either to Protestantism or Roman Catholicism in in the late medieval period. This particular essay was interesting in our OC/IC setting because – for me at least – it raised the question of why, at least in some quarters, there is a resistence within our community to full conversion? What are the issues and questions involved that are hindering that full transition from one “tradition” within the faith to another?

Another essay was even more interesting as it explored the effect of missionary effort on language, and how missionaries struggled, even altered the language of the audience to convey not only the message of the Gospel – but the message in a particular way so as to also carry political and imperial ideologies. The working example in the essay was Tamil and the Portugese padroado system – very interesting because this too has a historic link with our IC heritage through Vilatte and the Goa Schism.

What it got me to thinking about however, was how it is that today, in our collective effort to present the OC/IC tradition we effectively (and not so effectively) manipulate our choice of language – re-define “standard” or “familiar” thoelogical and linguistic terms thereby challenging ideas we believe are mis-guided even harmful to the faith. What arises from the example of Tamil Christians is that eventually the converted, take over the program, forcing the “imperial” ideology out – and reshaping the langugage and imagery yet again to best suit the local need. I wonder – have we yet come to the point within our context of having our own independent usage of language and imagery – one that expresses our ideas and theology rather than being inherited or borrowed from other traditions? If so what are these?

Finally, the essay I just finished is interesting because it explores the experience of Andean tribes during the Spanish conquest – how their understanding of conversion differed from the expectations of the Spanish. The Andeans did not set the imagined boundary of the new religion in the same place as the Spanish whose borders were perhaps more constricted. Thus, practices deemed idolatrous and pagan to the Spanish spilled over into the life of the Andean Roman Catholic convert community.

What I find interesting here is a reflection on the process of give and take – and the eventual re-setting of the boundaries. If we look now at the shape of Roman Catholicism in South America we see the “final” outcome is quite different from what the 17th century Spanish would have liked. This is a new mission field – looking at a much older one – from my own ethnicity I can see that many of the customs and practices we Central & Eastern Europeans have are holdover’s re-interpreted from our pagan past. This process of negotiating the boundaries has made the shape of Roman Catholicism, and indeed liturgical Christianity wonderfully diverse. I wonder in our setting how this conversation is working? How, for example are the so called continuing Anglican, ISM, and Gnostic groups contributing to our re-negotiation of the boundaries of OC/IC Christianity?

Given that we are “insiders” it is difficult to step outside and see the results of these things at work now within our community; but I think that it is an interesting and worthwhile exercise to sit in our context and consider some of these questions.