I've just come back from a very enjoyable conversation organised by our Diocesan Mission Adviser on the subject of Liberal Evangelism. There were thirteen of us in the room from the four corners of the Diocese. I am hugely grateful to work in a diocese that welcomes and enables this kind of conversation.
We all enjoyed being able to contribute freely and therefore to some extent confidentially. Not all of us who have liberal tendencies in evangelical churches are 'out' yet.
But to give you a flavour of the discussion, we grappled with things such as:
Young people have more of a sense of shame than a sense of sin. Can you do evangelism without making sin the start of the story?
Jesus taking bread, breaking it and saying 'This is me' is the ultimate deconstruction. How much do we think Jesus wanted a neatly packaged ideology to be his legacy?
If we want to grow in numbers we have to use language that is useful to people. Everyone should be welcome to come in and then to tell us what life is like in their experience.
I felt very much at home with this bunch of explorers.
Showing posts with label Liberal Values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Values. Show all posts
Monday, February 12, 2018
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Education
Liz is away for the night so imagine my joy at dicovering I had forgotten to unset the alarm clock from its usual 6a.m. At least that enables me to catch up on a few things.
One of the difficulties a liberal, chattering society has is chattering with the poorly educated. We have to learn to jettison our assumptions that others will respond to rational argument. Yesterday I was talking to someone about a suggestion made in a meeting of a large Christian organisation. It was a suggestion that everyone thought was great until someone delivered a quality speech against it and then everyone agreed the idea was rubbish. That is fantastic and the way liberal, chattering democracy works. We all listen and are willing to change our minds. Job done.
But how do you change the mind of a Lancashire mother who, complaining that the newly nourishing food in the school canteen is of 'insufficient quality' for her child, smuggles fish and chips through the rails of the boundary between the school and the cemetery, backed up, wouldn't you know, by the local fish and chip shop owner, who is publicly quoted as saying that this argument is about the right of mothers to feed their children? It isn't feeding if done daily, it's assisted suicide. Trust me. I had fish and chips last night and today it's killing me.
Jamie Oliver has won the argument about nourishing food in canteens and demonstrated that, with the right will, minds can be changed. But it took passion, demonstration and hard work. I think he succeeded because his roots aren't liberal chattering class. He knew how to change the minds of the sort of people whose minds needed changing.
How can we make it easier for the poorly educated to change their minds without feeling they have lost?
And how, more complicatedly, do you change the minds of the entire nations, differently educated, who now want to demand an apology from the Pope for daring to quote an ancient, anti-Islamic source in an academic lecture. Before half a day had passed the whole Parliament of Pakistan, most of whom would have been unfamiliar with anything by then except populist reporting of the matter, had passed a motion calling for him to recant.
On the streets effigies of his holiness were burning
The Pope may have some unpleasant, illiberal views, and certainly in his position he should be guarded, but I'm beginning to think reporters shouldn't be allowed in such academic lectures unless they have a proven background in anti-inflamatory writing.
Of course it is the chattering, liberal(ish), democratically elected government (for whom I voted and to whom I can speak) who are responsible for education in this country so I'm not blaming anyone except myself here for the first problem.
The second scares me. Can we talk about it?
One of the difficulties a liberal, chattering society has is chattering with the poorly educated. We have to learn to jettison our assumptions that others will respond to rational argument. Yesterday I was talking to someone about a suggestion made in a meeting of a large Christian organisation. It was a suggestion that everyone thought was great until someone delivered a quality speech against it and then everyone agreed the idea was rubbish. That is fantastic and the way liberal, chattering democracy works. We all listen and are willing to change our minds. Job done.
But how do you change the mind of a Lancashire mother who, complaining that the newly nourishing food in the school canteen is of 'insufficient quality' for her child, smuggles fish and chips through the rails of the boundary between the school and the cemetery, backed up, wouldn't you know, by the local fish and chip shop owner, who is publicly quoted as saying that this argument is about the right of mothers to feed their children? It isn't feeding if done daily, it's assisted suicide. Trust me. I had fish and chips last night and today it's killing me.
Jamie Oliver has won the argument about nourishing food in canteens and demonstrated that, with the right will, minds can be changed. But it took passion, demonstration and hard work. I think he succeeded because his roots aren't liberal chattering class. He knew how to change the minds of the sort of people whose minds needed changing.
How can we make it easier for the poorly educated to change their minds without feeling they have lost?
And how, more complicatedly, do you change the minds of the entire nations, differently educated, who now want to demand an apology from the Pope for daring to quote an ancient, anti-Islamic source in an academic lecture. Before half a day had passed the whole Parliament of Pakistan, most of whom would have been unfamiliar with anything by then except populist reporting of the matter, had passed a motion calling for him to recant.
On the streets effigies of his holiness were burning
The Pope may have some unpleasant, illiberal views, and certainly in his position he should be guarded, but I'm beginning to think reporters shouldn't be allowed in such academic lectures unless they have a proven background in anti-inflamatory writing.
Of course it is the chattering, liberal(ish), democratically elected government (for whom I voted and to whom I can speak) who are responsible for education in this country so I'm not blaming anyone except myself here for the first problem.
The second scares me. Can we talk about it?
Monday, March 06, 2006
Liberals
On Saturday in the Guardian Ming Campbell wrote a piece lambasting those who claim they are liberal but have no idea what being a liberal means. He said, 'I have been a liberal all my adult life, so I know what liberalism means.' Tell us what it means then Ming. Go on.
He listed some things that being a liberal meant to him:
He listed some things that being a liberal meant to him:
- Liberals believe in international law
- Liberals believe in human rights
- Liberals believe in creating a fairer society, in which individuals have the opportunity to make the most of their talents
- Liberals believe that the environment should be at the centre of our thinking
- Liberals believe in localism
Sadly he has confused being a liberal with the policies of the Liberal Democrats, some of which are also the policies of the other major parties. How can you believe, as a philosophy, in localism and international law? How can you allow individual freedom and protect the environment. You can't. You can't have a truly liberal Liberal party. It won't work. Nowhere in his article did he tell us what liberalism meant in terms of political philosophy.
No one political party, even the one that has it as part of its title, is being fully liberal by philosophy at the moment. They are all fighting to be known as the party that will do what most of the people want most of the time. Political philosophy. None of them have one.Thursday, February 09, 2006
Pesky Cartoons
Have been involved in a few discussions elsewhere about freedom of speech and cartoons so won't duplicate matters by posting here. If you want to follow some of them up look at these places:
Andy Bastable
The Cartoon Blog
Life, the Universe and Everything
One of the most interesting places I dropped in during this round of discussion was the Media watch web-site. It specifically exists to make fun of religious people who try to stop freedom of speech. They don't pull any punches in offending religious people on the way so you will find links to many cartoons and articles you may find offensive, or feel others may find offensive. I'd advise you to rope up, step out and jump in if you don't mind a metaphor souffle. If you want to be offended, join in the debate.
I'm going to spend a little more time in future hanging around on the corners of blogs written by people who don't seem to agree with me. But first, to the pub for lunch.
Andy Bastable
The Cartoon Blog
Life, the Universe and Everything
One of the most interesting places I dropped in during this round of discussion was the Media watch web-site. It specifically exists to make fun of religious people who try to stop freedom of speech. They don't pull any punches in offending religious people on the way so you will find links to many cartoons and articles you may find offensive, or feel others may find offensive. I'd advise you to rope up, step out and jump in if you don't mind a metaphor souffle. If you want to be offended, join in the debate.
I'm going to spend a little more time in future hanging around on the corners of blogs written by people who don't seem to agree with me. But first, to the pub for lunch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)