There was a rather fun article on the BBC late last week detailing a new campaign (starting in January) by the British Humanist Association encouraging people to reject religion. Posters (not sure if they are actually posters, but hey) will appear on the sides of the much loathed “bendy buses” around the city declaring in pretty colours: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

What I find entertaining about this new campaign is that while the BHA, and Richard Dawkins (who in part has sponsored this) are very shrill in their attacks on people of faith, they still show respect to the deity by capitalising “god”! But this is not the point of my post.

Looking at the article again today I was struck by the wording – and for some reason I recalled Pascal’s Wager (click here for an interesting Wikipedia on the wager), which states that reason cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and as such it is best to work on the assumption that God exists, because the longterm benefit (eternal life, happiness, enlightenment) outweighs the possible loss (nothing) of disbelief.

Pascal (who is also interesting because of his connection to the Port Royal community in Paris) argues that you have to choose one or the other – agnosticism simply won’t do – and live your life accordingly. This, of course opens a whole raft of fun and interesting questions about faith, belief, and living out the wager.

Over the past couple of years – ever since I discovered the glories of SKYPE I’ve been interested in how OC/IC communities, and projects (like our own Indie Voices Archive) can use various new media to reach out beyond the small groups we work within. I’ve done a bit of blogging on it in the past – which you can view here.

I’ve been concentrating on video – using my camcorder, webcam, and camera, to create and edit videos then upload them to ourmedia, the Internet Archive, and Blip.TV (I prefer Blip.TV to YouTube – its . . . classier). The upside of this method is that we can place various projects (interviews, documentaries, reflections, theology, teaching, etc.) before a wider audience. But they also have their limitations (beyond the technical and mechanical) for example they are not live feeds, responses can be days, even months after the original project is finished, which means that the experience, the inspriation for that particular video is no longer fresh in your mind – possibly inhibiting your ability to engage as thoughtfully as you might have liked, since your community have “moved on” to more developed projects.

It is possible via SKYPE for example to do live, real time conversations in large groups, as well as live video (face to face) converstaions with another person. Two years ago, we experimented with a weekly Evening Prayer via SKYPE which allowed a rotation of “leader” and community time afterward. Now I’ve seen a “new” (to me) project called UStream.TV which enables a live feed and . . . it would appear (I’ve not finshed exploring this yet) a capability for real-time reactions (via a chat feed) from the audience.

Recently I’ve discovered a nifty “thing” I’ve know idea how to classify it yet other than to describe it as “video email plus” called seesmic – with nothing more than a webcam it allows you to record messages, and participate in conversations. There is also a plugin (for wordpress users) to enable you to generate both quick video posts, and video comments. I’ve been experimenting with this for the past two weeks, and its been fun. Also I’m currently using it in an “audiance participation” experiment on my other site – you can see that post by clicking here. I’m about to activate that plugin here too.

Used in combination with image and textual resources – PDF’s, dynamic web pages, and even self published material such as from LULU – there is nothing hindering our various communities and projects expanding their ability to become a spiritual resource for others, and to come out from underneath the shadow of other, larger, “better resourced” traditions.

I’ve got an idea list as long as my arm for various projects – right now I’m focussing on mastering the technical and mechanical (see my “other” site for examples). And there is the small matter of finishing the Thesis from Hell (sigh). But I’m interested to know about what projects your community is developing using new media forms, what have you already done, and what was the response? What would (will) you do differently in the future?

Moreover, I would really like to make some space here to highlight those projects, and would appreciate your sharing the links to them.

Last week’s Guardian (and other media here in the UK) reported the death by suicide of a 23 year old man paralysed in a rugby accident in March 2007; this is in addition to the recent reporting of Debbie Purdy, awaiting clarification from the High Court on the law that forbids others aiding those wishing to end their life. The difference between the two cases is that Daniel James’ condition was not a terminal illness in the usual sense, Debbie Purdy on the other hand has progressive MS.

One of the principal arguments in favour of a planned (and as necessary, assisted) death, is the relief of suffering, and ending one’s life with dignity. It is admittedly a strong point – one which from an OC/IC perspective we cannot discount. Is there value in life, purely for the sake of being alive; or does that life require . . . . something else, something personally tangible in order to . . . “justify” . . .  its continuance?

What also emerges here is the rather painful sense of loss . . . . and not just any loss, but the loss of hope. Daniel James described his situation as a prison, a second class existence . . . it was a life not worth living. He could no longer “justify” continuing.

“Hope” is, for us, is embodied in the Incarnation (Mt. 12.21); is expounded upon by the teaching, and actions of Christ, and the Apostle (Rom. 8.24ff): “for in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.” Enduring hope and confidence in Christ then is an essential element shaping our Christian identity. How then are we to discern a way forward in the face of what can only be described as an overwhelmingly “hopeless” situation?

These are not easy questions, and they do not have easy answers. To merely espouse the inherited thinking we bring to the table from our past denominational lives is, I think, short-sighted and does not contribute to expressing the independence of our own discernment and thought as OC/IC believers.

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.