Category Archives: theology

Christianity for sailors

Posted on by

A couple of months ago Scott (Gray) challenged me with a comment: “how might you more effectively (like watts and pirsig) say the right words, paint the right picture, so we get it?” I’ve been pondering about this for a while, and it’s something that I hope will prove to be a goad for me to continue providing images and analogies. It was also on my mind during my recent sailing course, which provoked me to think of ways in which imagery from sailing could be used to describe the nature of Christianity. So here goes…. (click full post for text)

Where are we going?
There are all sorts of destinations that a sailor might wish to aim for – including a simple round trip into the water before returning home – but let us take as our beginning image the desire to find a safe harbour. So we begin on the water, in the middle of things – and our aim is to find a safe place to rest up and gain refreshment. In order to gain this safe harbour we need to know where we are, we need to know information about the environment we are in, and we need to know how to get from where we are to where we want to get to. This is navigation.

This imagery of the safe harbour can be used as a rough proxy for some inter-related Christian terms: heaven, the Kingdom, resurrection. The differences between the Christian terms can be unpicked another time, let us for now take it that the ‘safe harbour’ can correspond to the end-point, the ‘telos’ of the Christian life. Christians also use the word ‘vocation’ – which means both the end point of the journey, but also the path itself, leading to the end-point.

Buoyage
On my course one high point came on the last night, when I navigated at night up the River Orwell to Ipswich (which is when the idea for this post came to me). In order to prepare for the journey properly I used a chart and noted down all the significant features of the journey, the most important of which were the marker buoys, which had coloured lights that flashed in particular sequences, in order to readily identify them. Often these lights marked out the channel through which we had to sail, the limits of safe water. If we went beyond the buoys then were at great risk of running aground.

Jesus summarised the law and the prophets (ie the life of faith) as ‘love God with everything, love your neighbour as yourself’. I think these two elements correspond to the two sides of the channel, that is, when we start to leave these commands to one side, then we start to run the risk of going aground. These two commandments represent the green and red buoys marking out the safe channel. If we keep within those two commands then we stay in the safe water.

North
On the course, the boat that we were using had a great number of advanced technical features, including GPS – the global positioning system using satellite information relayed electronically. However, there were times when this GPS information conflicted with what we could see using our main compass, at which point our instructor said ‘trust the compass!’ It is a remarkable feature of the earth that there is such a thing as ‘true north’ which draws everything magnetic to itself. This allows for a reliable indication of direction, which means that making a journey is much more reliable. Of course, as expertise in sailing develops, there are ways in which this bearing needs to be adjusted in practice, eg the difference between magnetic north and true north, the impact that other metal objects (including the boat itself) might have on the compass and so on. Yet even with these caveats, magnetic north is an essential part of navigation. When sailing at night, and when there is a reasonably cloud-free sky, it is also possible to navigate using the stars. In particular the pole star corresponds to North, and can be used with the compass to confirm the bearing being undertaken.

In Christian terms, North corresponds to Jesus – a fixed bearing against which we can judge our own manoeuvres. One quirk of this extended analogy is that the safe harbour is due North – because that is the bearing which will lead us to Christ – and Christ is, in a very real sense, the harbour master of our destination. As for things which may mislead or distort the message of true north, well, I think that’s quite a good image of pride.

Charts
Charts record the information obtained by people who have sailed in these waters before. They have an immense richness, especially in the detail, and take a long time to master. Different waters require different charts; indeed, some areas have incompatible systems of representation. Robert Pirsig, in his book set on a yacht ‘Lila’, talks about the ‘Cleveland Harbour effect’, when he was so convinced from his chart readings that he was in Cleveland Harbour that he neglected to pay attention to the information available to his own senses, especially his eyes, that would have told him that he was in a different stretch of water entirely. So charts are incredibly useful, but they should never be allowed to obscure the reality of the waters themselves.

For Christians, the relevant Charts are the Bible, our sacred Scriptures. In other areas there are different charts, more or less compatible with ours. The great mistake that many Christians make is to confuse a detailed knowledge of charts with the practice of sailing – to fail to take into account, eg, magnetic variation between chart and compass – and to end up in ‘Cleveland Harbour’. This is a mistake that is called ‘idolatry’ by Christians; idolatry always represents a failure to engage fully with reality.

Disciplines
In order to sail effectively, there are many standard maintenance tasks which need to be carried out on a regular basis – making sure that the lines are clear, attending to the state of the sails, cleaning the boat, learning the knots etc etc. These are basic and routine. They are not the point of sailing, they are what allow the sailing to take place; in other words, where they are neglected then, given enough time, something seriously severe could go wrong.

These correspond in the Christian life to the spiritual disciplines: prayer, reading the Bible, attending church and so on. In the same way, whilst there are satisfactions to be gained in the mastery of the tasks, they are ultimately not ends in themselves. The end is to gain the safe harbour. Travelling to the harbour in a flotilla, and drawing on the friendship and expertise of the other sailors, is both a pleasure and a practical benefit.

Meteorology
Obviously the wind is tremendously important to the sailor and, whilst on my course, I was impressed by the detailed and sophisticated awareness of the weather – and the implications for our sailing – displayed by our instructor. The wind is one of the major factors determining the direction in which sailing can take place; it also determines how the boat should be set up. In very strong winds the sails should be at least reefed, or a special storm sail put up; when sailing against a head wind lots of tacking is needed; with the wind behind then all the sails can be opened up – and more added – to take advantage. A knowledge of the wind is essential for any sailor.

The wind corresponds to the cultural influences that a Christian experiences in their life – it is ‘the world’. The wind may not blow where we want it to, it can be experienced as incredibly hostile to our purposes, yet it is still possible to sail in almost any weather, and to sail towards our destination.

Tides and depths
As well as the wind bearing on the boat, the impact of the movement of the water itself must be taken into consideration. Tidal streams can make a mockery of the best laid navigational plans and, if this leads into the shallows, catastrophes can result.

The water corresponds to the spiritual realm, all that happens beneath the surface. Sailors know that the safest water is not in the shallows but in the deeps, where there is no risk of running aground. They are also aware of how to be blessed by the movements of the Spirit, in order to be carried towards their destination all the more swiftly.

“There is no sea”
There isn’t a real-world correspondence for this, I just wanted to share an image of atheism with you. I see two sorts of atheism – humourless and sophisticated – and I want to pursue the imagery with respect to those two sorts. The humourless sort says ‘there is no sea’. They are on the boat, but they recognise nothing other than the boat itself, and when they hear talk about the sea they want to know which bit of the boat is being referred to (and when there is a general hand-waving in response they start talking about unacceptable vagueness).

Some varieties of humourless atheist don’t engage even in this level of conversation. They are occupied below decks consuming the rum and having a great party. They’re not aware that the rum will soon run out, and they are certainly not prepared for the subsequent hangover.

Sophisticated atheists are a little different in that they recognise the existence of the sea, and therefore have a understanding of what sailing involves – what they fail to recognise, on the whole, is the value of other sailors’ expertise. In particular they take pride in being able to sail without charts and instruments. This is possible for as long as the weather is favourable and there is no concern about the eventual destination. However, the attainment of a safe harbour through this method of sailing is entirely dependent upon the work of grace, ie benign tidal currents.

The balance of the boat
There comes a point when the sailor and their boat find a balance, and real sailing becomes possible. The sailor understands the impact of wind and tide, the nature of their vessel, how to set the sails, how to steer and where to go. At this point the attainment of the destination is no longer the most important factor, for the sailor is safe at sea. In a very real sense the sailor is in a safe harbour wherever they are on the water.

When a Christian has discovered their vocation, has accepted it, pursued it, developed it and is now living it – then they are at peace with themselves and with God. The attainment of any specific aim has become irrelevant, they know their eventual destination and they know that, even though the environment might conspire against them and they may not make it there themselves, the destination is real and they can share in it already. This is called ‘living in the kingdom’, and those who have attained this are called saints. I think Rowan has attained this – he knows that he is not in control of the processes in which he is embedded but he is still sailing, expertly, and he gives every evidence of being in a safe harbour in his soul. Something to which to aspire on my own journey.

~~~

I may continue to work on this post as further elements occur to me.

Some questions for moderate believers

Posted on by

From the Celtic Chimp. My comments in red.

Here are some questions then for moderate believers.

1. Do you think the bible is the inerrant word of God? If not, why not?

No, simply because Jesus Christ is the inerrant word of God. Treating the Bible this way is a Protestant innovation, by and large.

2. If you answered no to question 1, why do you think that a) it is reasonable to believe that a man wielded magical powers and b) rose from the dead and c) was a god and a man at the same time; I am assuming that you do not generally believe in these things. What is it about the Jesus case that is so compelling as to make believing the impossible reasonable?

a) I don’t think Jesus did anything which isn’t (in principle) available to the rest of us to do.
b) I think i) the historical evidence is robust, and ii) science doesn’t have anything to say about it.
c) My understanding of God (and man!) is different to yours.

3. Why does God command and condone evil acts in the bible (genocide, Rape, slavery etc.) if he is good?

i) God is beyond good and evil, so my basic answer is ‘I don’t know’
ii) Some of what is predicated of God is a projection of local culture
iii) Some of what is predicated of God is about obedience or something else (Abraham and Isaac)

4. Why is it not more reasonable to assume that God is evil given his rampage of destruction throughout the O.T?

It’s all in how you read the OT. I read it as the story of a people discovering that YHWH wasn’t the bloodthirsty tribal God that they thought he was.

5. In what way would an evil God have acted differently and can you imagine a way in which God might have acted more morally at any point in the O.T.?

I have no view on the latter part, but on the former part – he would have resembled the Baals and the Molochs.

6. Why is Jesus’ character so different from the God of the O.T. if they are (inexplicably) the same person?

Technically that’s Marcionism. The whole point of Christianity is that Jesus is NOT different to the God of the OT.

8. Is it conceivable to you that Christianity might not actually be true (in the sense that Jesus might just have been an irregular Joe.)?

Yes. It’s perfectly conceivable that the resurrection didn’t happen.

9. When considering the idea that there is no God, is your reaction one of distaste or disagreement and could you be happy living in a universe where there was no God?

More disagreement; specifically a sense that it was an incoherent perspective. I wouldn’t know what to do with various things that I understand about the world (eg how to link together justice, integrity, knowledge and so on).

10. Why do you think (assuming you do) that Mohammed was not in direct contact with God (Allah)? There is a holy book and many witnesses who profess he was. If you are willing to believe such things are possible, why do you not believe this?

Mohammed was a completely different character to Jesus. He was more like Napoleon.

The Purpose of Existence

Posted on by

I have been fairly criticised for not saying enough positive things about what I DO believe, as opposed to pointing out things that I DON’T believe. I think there is a real need for the latter, as so often Christianity is misrepresented or misunderstood, including by (perhaps especially by) Christians themselves, but it can become irritating on its own. So here is, hopefully, a more positive line of thought.

1. Christianity begins with Jesus, and a response to him. It means accepting his vision as determinative, and his authority as absolute. The gospel is: “Jesus is Lord”, the rest is detail.

2. That means, necessarily, taking on board his language and attitudes. It means talking about the Kingdom and the Father and the Spirit and Abundant Life.

3. This language therefore does not begin in abstract speculation, but in an embodied existence.

4. This language is, therefore, vulnerable to historical criticism. There are some historical claims which, if shown to be true, would invalidate Christianity, eg that Jesus was violently abusive, or, that the crucifixion was a sham.

5. This language evolves over time.

6. One of the earliest and most important evolutions was to see Jesus as not just the Messiah, the Christ, but as the ‘Word Made Flesh’, the purpose of existence expressed in human form. This can be seen in John’s gospel – so it is an evolution that took place whilst Jesus was still within living memory.

7. This evolution, that Jesus is the Word Made Flesh, is the heartbeat of my faith, the fixed core around which everything else rotates. I believe that in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the full meaning of human life and purpose is revealed to us. I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

8. I don’t believe that this purpose is something that can be rationally proven. I think that there are irrational criticisms of it, which can be overcome, but I don’t see becoming a Christian as something which can be driven purely be reason. To become a Christian involves falling in love with Jesus, which is no more subject to rational control than any other falling in love.

9. Of course, you can’t fall in love with Jesus unless you know him – hence the importance of the gospels, and historical study of the gospels. To love him is to obey him; it is to love one another as he loved us; it is to become a disciple and to be disciplined in obedience to him.

10. Jesus gathered around himself a group of disciples – both men and women – which later became codified as ‘the twelve’. These disciples, as a result of what happened to them, most especially what happened to them at the resurrection, became infused with a completely different way of understanding the world. These disciples called this infusion ‘the Holy Spirit’ and it enabled them to withstand torture and torments with humility, perseverance, gentleness and grace, such that within a few hundred years this ragtag group of semi-literate peasants had converted all the known world to their faith.

11. At the heart of this faith is relationship – not simply the relationships within the group, or between the group and their God, but the claim that God in himself is relational. This was another evolution of language, this time called ‘The Trinity’.

12. What the Trinity expresses is that our human existence is first of all dependent – that we are creatures. Life does not begin with us; it may flow through us, more or less abundantly, but we are not the origin. Consequently our fundamental attitude to our existence is best expressed as thanksgiving. This element of the Trinity is called ‘the Father’. Secondly, the Trinity expresses that our purpose as creatures has been revealed to us by the one man Jesus of Nazareth (see above), this is ‘the Son’. Thirdly, the Trinity says that the relationship of intimacy between Father and Son, the Holy Spirit, is itself able to be shared in by the faithful. The goal of Christian life is a full and ecstatic absorption into the life of the Trinity.

13. This sharing in the life of the Trinity is a mystery, it is mystical, it is beyond words. Words point to it as fingers pointing to the moon. We cannot capture it in definitions; indeed, the desire to capture it in words is itself a sign of spiritual ill-health, so, one of the comparatively early developments of the language of Christianity was a refinement of the Jewish notion of idolatry, and the application of that notion to the faith journey. This is known as the mystical tradition, which, roughly speaking, runs in its classical form from Denys through to St John of the Cross. This is the via negativa. Everything said about God has to be negated, not in order that nothing is said, but in order that we do not get trapped on a particular rung of the ladder of ascent.

14. The via negativa is theologically mainstream and orthodox. Unfortunately, most especially in Protestant cultures, the insights of the via negativa have been systematically undermined and denied, and aspects of the Western theological cul-de-sac have hardened into dogma. Virtually all atheist criticism of Christianity that I am aware of takes this late-Western-Protestant derivative of orthodoxy to be Christianity as such. Most of their criticisms of it are good ones – it’s just that they don’t touch the historical mainstream of the faith.

15. It’s all about Jesus, and it remains all about Jesus, and it is more relevant than ever.

A thought for the day

Posted on by

Who did Jesus most criticise?

I used to think that it was the people who were sure of their own salvation.

I now see that as misleading.

I think Jesus most criticised those who were sure of somebody else’s damnation.

Those were the people whom Jesus damned.

Reasonable Atheism (24): Justifying language about God

Posted on by

There is a certain creature that English people call a cow. French people call it la vache. Doubtless other languages have other words for the same creature.

Now, does it make sense to ask the Frenchman to justify the use of ‘la vache’ to describe the cow? Imagine asking the question (in French, presumably) ‘why do you call it la vache?’!! There is no exterior logical justification for the derivation of the language. There are cows, and this is the language that we use for interacting with them.

So I want to distinguish between two sorts of justification for God-talk (theology). One sort accepts that there is something there to be discussed, and the debate is therefore about what sort of language does the best job in the discussion. Let’s call this the ‘naming God’ debate.

The second sort denies that there is anything there to be discussed at all. As Richard Dawkins puts it (in ‘God Delusion’), theology is simply ‘fairyology’ – there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, and it’s a waste of time pursuing any conversation involving them. So lets call this the fairy-killing debate.

Now, in a post which will come along soon, I’m going to be talking about conscience, and talking about how God-language interacts with language about conscience, morals and decision making and so on. When this has come up before, eg when discussing my post about ‘what I mean when I talk about God‘ some of the responses have, it seems to me, been akin to asking the Frenchman why he uses the word ‘vache’ to talk about cows. In other words, the reality of what I am describing is not in dispute, simply the merits or demerits of using religious language to describe the phenomena. I have a lot of respect for those perspectives which recognise what is trying to be described using god-language, engages with it, points out its flaws, and then starts being linguistically creative (possibly in atheistic ways) in order to move forward. _Some_ of the discussion around the problem of evil can be like this (but most isn’t).

However, some of the criticisms have ended up obsessing over the question of whether a particular entity exists or not. In other words, the discussion has been about fairy-killing. Now, as I’ve explored elsewhere, I don’t find the fairy-killing discussions all that helpful, not least because it’s part of the logic of faith that God does not ‘exist’ in the relevant way for the discussion to make sense. That is, as the quote from Denys Turner I refer to often puts it, “in the sense in which atheists… say God ‘does not exist’, the atheist has merely arrived at the theological starting point. Theologians of the classical traditions, an Augustine, a Thomas Aquinas or a Meister Eckhart, simply agree about the disposing of idolatries, and then proceed with the proper business of doing theology.”

This distinction corresponds, I think, to the distinction between the sophisticated and the humourless atheists. The sophisticated atheist recognises what is being talked about; the humourless doesn’t.

Anyhow, this was really a ground-clearing post. Consider it a ‘clearing of the throat before speech’.

Reasonable Atheism (23): something about mystery and idolatry

Posted on by

The Chimp takes me to task here for being too vague about God (or, to be more precise, about sometimes being vague when pressed, at other times being quite concrete).

So: an analogy which may help.

Consider a diesel engine (something I’ve been doing a lot of recently) eg in a car or a boat.

Someone can own a car with a diesel engine and know very little about that engine, save that it requires to be supplied with fuel on a regular basis, and that it can be kicked into motion by turning a key.

Another person might know a little more – might know, for example, that diesel engines don’t require a spark plug, because the ignition comes from compression of fuel; they might also know some rudiments about how to maintain the engine, eg to check the oil, know how to bleed it of air, and so on.

Another person – say a mechanic working in the garage – might know even more about a particular engine. He would be familiar with how to diagnose faults, how to fine tune it to run optimally, perhaps some history of previous engines in the line and so on.

Finally, another person might be the chief engineer and designer of the engine itself. Such a person might not only know all the attributes of this engine to astonishing detail, but also why the engine was made in one way or another, so are aware, for example, of the balances and trade-offs between one feature and another. Any conceivably realistic question about this engine can be answered by the engineer – the engineer has total knowledge of the engine.

Now the point about idolatry, with regard to God (useful summary: God is not a member of any set) is really about setting limits to what we can know or say about God. In other words, what Christians can say about God belongs to the first three categories of knowledge described above. We can never get to a point of total and exhaustive knowledge about God. Because we’re not God – we are creatures, he is creator.

Now it is not, to my mind, a legitimate objection, to say of theology that because it cannot provide the fourth form of knowledge, it is epistemologically inadequate. The first three forms of knowledge are still valid, and don’t require the existence of a person with fourth level knowledge to be valid – in just the same way that the first person to develop the knowledge of flint-knapping didn’t require a masters degree in paleontology first.

Which flags up the division which really lurks behind some of these conversations. At the end of the day, theology is reflection around a praxis. When critics of the reflection say ‘there is no such thing’ I feel that they miss the praxis which makes sense of the words. In just the same way that someone driving their diesel engine might say ‘I’ve got no idea how this engine works but it gets me from A to B’. The lack of total knowledge is an insufficient objection.

We are all Dave Walkers now

Posted on by

Dave Walker is the Cartoon blogger, and currently cartoonist in residence at the Lambeth conference. He’s also a really good bloke, who has been, over the last several months, exposing the incompetence and injustice of the people who have taken over the SPCK chain. They have now come down with heavy hobnailed boots upon him, and served a ‘cease and desist’ order against him, with which he has complied.

Several people have written about this – see a list here – (see also my comment on Peter Kirk’s blog here) but it seems to me that there are several serious issues about free speech at stake.

I suggest that those who have sympathy with Dave and wish to show solidarity with him should search the google cache for Dave’s posts about SPCK and re-post samples on their own blogs.

Like this:

SPCK / SSG Bookshop Posts

This page contains Cartoon Blog entries which relate to the former SPCK bookshops now operated by the St Stephen the Great Charitable Trust. See this post for the current status of each of the shops as far as it is known.

Click here to return to the Cartoon Blog main page.

See pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

July 8th, 2008

My silence

I’ve been aware that this has been a sad week for many readers of the Cartoon Blog. Many of those visiting have been mourning the death of Steve Jeynes, the Worcester bookseller, who, judging from the comments posted on this site was loved by many. In the circumstances the usual nonsense that I write on this site has not seemed appropriate, hence my silence.

The memorial service for Steve Jeynes took place yesterday. The Worcester News has a report: Tributes paid to exceptional man. Doug Chaplain was there and has written about it. See also on the SPCK/SSG blog: Steve Jeynes: A Life Remembered.

This will be one of the last former-SPCK-related posts that I expect to do until September as I am away doing one thing and another. I have one more bookshop-related thing that I need to post about which has arisen as a result of a comment (not yet visible) on this site on Sunday morning. I will hopefully do that post today (Tuesday) or tomorrow (Wednesday).

The place to go for former-SPCK-related posts for the next month or two is SPCK/SSG: News, Notes & Info. [Aside to Phil: hopefully you will post Plans Coming Together for New Christian Bookshop in Cardiff on the SSG/SPCK site when the time is right – a post well worth sharing.]

I hope to post a bit more on this blog this week, including an announcement about my new book and plans for Lambeth.

Posted by Dave at 1:06 am on July 8, 2008 and filed under Blogging, Save the SPCK.

5 Comments

July 3rd, 2008

Memorial service for Steve Jeynes

worcester spckThe memorial service for Steve Jeynes is now to be held at Worcester Cathedral at 3.30pm on Monday 7th July, followed by refreshments at Worcestershire County Cricket Club.

There is a news item in the Worcester News today, and another in the Worcester Standard. Update: Also Worcester News: Hundreds expected to bookseller’s memorial

Many tributes have been left in the comments of my previous post and on other sites linked from there.

Image: the former SPCK shop in Worcester

Posted by Dave at 7:57 am on July 3, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK.

No Comments

June 27th, 2008

SPCK / SSG: Tragic news from Worcester

There is some tragic news from the Worcester Diocese. This note was sent out today to clergy within the Diocese by the Communications department:

I am very sorry to tell you that Steve Jeynes, has been found dead, apparently having taken his own life. Many of you will know him from his work at the SSGT (ex-SPCK) shop in Worcester, from where he was made redundant two weeks ago.

Please hold (the) family in your prayers, together with the many friends whose lives have been enriched through Steve’s loving generosity in serving the Lord.

Details of the funeral arrangements will be made available in due course.

Doug Chaplain has posted here: In Worcester the SSG / SPCK saga turns to tragedy

Please remember Steve’s family, friends and all affected in your prayers.

Update: A service of Thanksgiving for Steve’s life will take place on Monday 7 July 2008 at 3:30 pm at All Saints’ Church, Deansway, Worcester. The Thanksgiving Service has been moved from All Saints’ Church to the Cathedral at 3.30pm on Monday 7th July followed by refreshments at Worcestershire County Cricket Club.

Further tributes have been posted here and here.

Posted by Dave at 5:53 pm on June 27, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.

65 Comments

SPCK / SSG bookshop news

A couple of things:

New website
Phil Groom has set up a new group blog on the subject of the former SPCK shops. It is here: SPCK/SSG: News, Notes & Info. If you’re interested in SPCK/ SSG updates please bookmark this site and/or subscribe to the feed. I do intend to continue writing on the subject on this blog, but during July and August in particular I will have very little (if any) time to devote to writing on the topic owing to my preparation for and participation in the Lambeth conference and being away from home for various other reasons.

If there is anyone who would like to contribute to the new site please contact Phil directly.

Staff pay
An update to my last post – some staff have now been paid. I have made an update to my last post to reflect this and will update again if it emerges that all staff have now been paid.

News reports
Bookseller: SSG tribunal claims mount
Chester Chronicle: Union action to support sacked Chester bookshop workers
Lincolnshire Echo: ‘Sacked’ shop staff in court action

Posted by Dave at 9:09 am on June 27, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.

3 Comments

June 25th, 2008

SSG: Bankruptcy papers received, employees not paid

Bankruptcy papers received
Some people in the UK have been receiving papers relating to the SSG ‘bankruptcy’ from the US Bankruptcy Court of the District of Southern District of Texas. There will apparently be a ‘meeting of creditors’ on 22 July in Houston.

Having done a quick search I notice that there was, on 18 June a ’status conference’ for St Stephen the Great LLC in the bankruptcy court (this can be found on a cached Google page saved here). Information on the chapter 11 bankruptcy process can be found via this page: Chapter 11 – Bankruptcy Basics

All of this must be seen in the light of Usdaw’s statement yesterday, now available on the Usdaw website:

Usdaw firmly believes that the bankruptcy proceedings in the US have no effect in the UK, because this is a UK company with entirely UK-based assets and activities.

Also, from John Hannett, the General Secretary of Usdaw:

These loyal staff are being given misleading information about these US bankruptcy proceedings and the effects this may have on their rights to take legal action in the UK. Our fear is that the Brewers’ actions may be an attempt to move assets away from the business and out of the reach of our members with legitimate claims.

“We will carry on as before with the claims against the Brewers who are accumulating wealth whilst riding roughshod over hard working employees. We will continue to assist all our members affected by this messy situation and work to rectify it as soon as possible.”

Employees not paid
On a related note some (all?) of the people who work or worked in the shops have not been paid today (the 25th) as they would usually be. See for instance these blog comments. [Update: some employees have now been paid]

Telegraph blog post
Christopher Howse (who wrote Saturday’s comment piece) has written on his Telegraph blog about the Orthodox church in Poole: Orthodox Exodus. As others have pointed out this isn’t new information, but I thought I’d post the link anyway.

Posted by Dave at 3:05 pm on June 25, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.

13 Comments

June 24th, 2008

Usdaw press release about the former SPCK shops

Usdaw fights for mistreated bookshop workers

Shopworkers’ union, Usdaw, has submitted 15 employment tribunal claims against the Brewers, US-based brothers who have taken over a chain of UK bookshops and were seeking to impose a new contract on staff, drastically reducing their contractual rights. The Union has over 50 members at the bookshops and is expecting that the number of employment tribunal claims will rise.

The Brewer brothers were gifted the St. Stephen the Great Christian bookshops in 2006 by SPCK. The chain includes 23 bookshops, many of which are historic buildings in prime retail positions.

Following the change of ownership, a new contract was drawn up increasing the working week from 37.5 to 40 hours with no additional pay, turning all part-time staff into casual staff with no guaranteed hours every week and taking away all rights to company sick pay.

Now, virtually all Usdaw members have been dismissed with no notice, some by email, and have received little or no information about what this means for their rights and their pay.

The Brewer brothers have now filed St. Stephen the Great for bankruptcy in the US. Usdaw firmly believes that the bankruptcy proceedings in the US have no effect in the UK, because this is a UK company with entirely UK-based assets and activities. Staff have been told that they can apply for jobs with ENC Management Company, which is also owned by the Brewers, but that they no longer have jobs with St. Stephen the Great.

Usdaw is also aware that the Charity Commission has been alerted to these actions because of its role in regulating the activities of the linked charity, St. Stephen the Great Charitable Trust.

John Hannett, Usdaw General Secretary, stated:

“It is clear that staff, many of whom have been long standing loyal workers, have been mistreated and many are understandably very upset and concerned. We are very concerned at a new company (ENC Management Company) being set up in these circumstances, while our members are losing their jobs. These loyal staff are being given misleading information about these US bankruptcy proceedings and the effects this may have on their rights to take legal action in the UK. Our fear is that the Brewers’ actions may be an attempt to move assets away from the business and out of the reach of our members with legitimate claims.

“We will carry on as before with the claims against the Brewers who are accumulating wealth whilst riding roughshod over hard working employees. We will continue to assist all our members affected by this messy situation and work to rectify it as soon as possible.”

Ends

St. Stephen the Great shops at which Usdaw members are affected:

§ Cambridge
§ Carlisle
§ Chester
§ Exeter
§ Lincoln
§ Newcastle
§ Norwich
§ Sheffield
§ Worcester
§ York

Usdaw is the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

Update: This press release is now available via the Usdaw website: Usdaw fights for mistreated bookshop workers

Posted by Dave at 8:13 am on June 24, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.

34 Comments

June 21st, 2008

Former SPCK bookshops in the Telegraph

Christopher Howse: The bare and desolate SPCK bookshops

Posted by Dave at 9:57 am on June 21, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.

5 Comments

June 20th, 2008

Today’s former SPCK bookshop news

From the Chester Chronicle: Christian bookshop sacks staff by e-mail

From the Eastern Daily Press: Christian bookshop stripped of stock

From the comments below:

The article in the Eastern Daily Press concerning the Norwich shop mentions three potential future tenants.
One of the bids is from the Norwich Christian Resource Centre, a new Community Interest Company with six directors from various denominations, all with a wealth of business experience.
They are giving their time and talents free of charge and are all passionate to re-establish the centre that had become such an integral part of the community of Norfolk and beyond, as quoted in the article.
The company would run as a non-profit making business and strive to return the centre to it’s original ethos, offering the widest breadth of stock, knowledgable staff, a high level of customer service and the ‘best capuccino in town’.
Prayers for this venture very welcome.

Also, from the comments yesterday, this by ‘concerned dad’:

My daughter applied for holiday work via an agency in Newcastle and took up a job in the Newcastle shop – we were completely unaware of the situation. She is expected to work completely on her own for 6 hours a day several days a week, somebody else does the other days – both are temps, no permanent staff, no training or guidance. She has creditors and people chasing book orders ringing up but no information to be able to respond to them. She is employed and paid by the agency (that is the theory anyway, will be interesting to find out what happens on payday!) If we had known about the situation we would not have got into this, but the agency were not very forthcoming with details about the shop until it was virtually too late…. So Newcastle is open – after a fashion, but far from satisfactory situation.

Update (lunchtime) Phil Groom has posted: SPCK/SSG News Archives. (I’ll try to say something about the blog idea later or over the weekend.)

Posted by Dave at 8:18 am on June 20, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.

6 Comments

June 19th, 2008

Website updates

salisbury former spck

The SPCKonline website is now the same as the Third Space books website. Details of most shops have been updated. Some, like Salisbury (above – thanks to ezlxq), are on very limited hours and appear to be relying on voluntary labour. I’m aware that I need to keep updating the shop roundup page – updates appreciated.

The entry for the Norwich shop says ‘You are not authorised to view this resource’. That is probably because there is no resource to view – I am informed that a removal firm packed up all the books, fixtures and fittings and was taking them to the Chichester shop today.

Meanwhile the St Stephen the Great LLC website has been updated today “Last Updated ( Thursday, 19 June 2008 )“, but there is still no mention of the ‘bankruptcy’.

I have updated the Church Times blog with a list of news reports and letters about the former SPCK shops.

Melanie, the former manager of the SPCKonline site has written an interesting comment on Phil’s bookshop blog.

Posted by Dave at 5:43 pm on June 19, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.

5 Comments

June 18th, 2008

Norwich / York

Norwich

Network Norwich has the following: Norwich Christian bookshop closes its doors

Meanwhile, from the comments section of this blog:

In 2003 I was taken to a city centre deconsecrated church by Stephen Platten, then Dean of Norwich. We both thought how splendid it would be to relocate the SPCK Bookshop, it’s decrepid premises huddling in a side street, to this magnificent medieval building.
In January of the next year Bishop Graham James officially blessed the vision along with representatives from virtually every denomination.
After many trials and tribulations and delays of several months, the centre opened on 13 July 2004. I had been privileged to help plan the layout and the concept.
Over 180 people attended the rededictation of the church to it’s new use in on a Friday morning in October 2004!
Within 3 years the loyal team had doubled the turnover of the previous shop and provided access to thousands of visitors from the Christian faith or none, to be offered an exceptionally broad range of product, a place to meet and be refreshed in the cafe.
We held events on a monthly basis. Highlights included: a lecture by Bishop Tom Wright attended by 350 plus, an Advent evening with Ronald Blythe during which three Salvation Army bandsmen managed to ascend the spiral staircase complete with trombone and play from the balcony, debates between bishops and humanists; Professor Brian Thorne and Ian Gibson MP and a Fawlty Towers evening!
This morning I visited the centre with my two sons, on the last day of trading. It was in fact open after 11-00.
To describe it as semi-vandalised would not be overstating the sight of half-empty boxes relocated from the London shop several weeks ago still blocking the porch and what is left of the stock lurching across the shelves.
Visiting the church on a regular basis over the past months I have been moved from frustration, to anger, to sadness, to disbelief as to how such a thiving resource could be laid to seed.
Today is a very sad day for the ex-staff, all but one of whom have yet to find new employment and the Christian community, who are voicing that ‘their’ centre has been lost – a high compliment indeed.
I count myself blessed to have been offered an alternative position within the Christian retail environment and have thus stayed in touch with so many of my customers who had become friends.
However, it’s never over until the Canary sings as we say in Narwich, so please keep praying for an unlikely resurrection in the not too distant future.
‘The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it’

York

‘Richard and Gill’ on Flickr have a recent picture of the former SPCK shop in York.

Meanwhile, I found this blog post written in Chinese on June 16. It sounds as if it is by someone working in the York shop. Google translated it as follows:

I should be very fortunate, at least in this area to work, to York the second week, it began a career Part-time job. However, this is not so much a subjective initiative, I found, than to use a blind cat encountered more aptly described as dead mice. At that time, purely in the City Centre Luancuan, Okay, I admit that, in fact, I had lost. The results of the accidents that have been in SPCK work.

This is one in the entire United Kingdom has 28 Chain stores of the Christian Bookshop, a harmonious working atmosphere, have fixed the breakfast 11am and 3pm the afternoon tea time and all the break are paid. However, however, however, but, boom is not long, SPCK be acquired. A U.S. company called SSG took over the bookstore this. British indeed are born of hatred of Americans, the shop all the old staff have left, but Fortunately, the Manager of new people is pretty good. I want to go to the SSG, also by the nature of the work before the development of a simple cashier to accountant, gradually began to contact the bank’s work. Sense of accomplishment that is not an ordinary Youranersheng ah.

Boom is not really long, SSG recently went bankrupt, another bookstore was an American company take over. David and Olga have left, I left the bookstore on the people. Optimistic, I am now boss hey. Pessimistic, I really do not know Bookstore will close on this, I have on unemployment.

SPCK in the UK with my life is inseparable from, I Baijia all have come from the capital where wages. However, it also sacrificed a lot with my family Dear Amanda travel out of time. Switzerland, Rome, Prague, Barcelona, Fuluolunsa I have no time to. My dear SPCK, you can see in my youth to take all the copies to you, will not be so quick to close OK. You, and so I kept enough money to the United States, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, the Arctic Circle, and so I kept enough money to buy Chanel, Dior, Fendi, Prada to the temporary close it, but I travel back and so on, then opened the door for ah

This might or might not mean that the York shop is open.

Posted by Dave at 11:28 am on June 18, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK.

3 Comments

June 13th, 2008

Charity Commission to investigate SSG

News reports


Closures and openings

  • We think that the shops that have closed since the bankruptcy announcement are:
    Birmingham, Canterbury, Chester, Exeter, Newcastle, Norwich (closing on June 14) Worcester, York. These may be temporary or permanent.
  • Salisbury is now open again.
  • I’m still attempting to maintain a complete list here.

New map

  • On the Third Space books site (Is Third Space books bankrupt or not? Not sure.) a new map of the SSG shops appeared on June 7. Bristol, Carlisle, Lincoln and London have been taken off. Cardiff remains. ‘Leichester’ (not on the old map) has been added.

Posted by Dave at 8:20 am on June 13, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.

11 Comments

June 11th, 2008

Former SPCK bookshop closures

Exeter shop

I have been attempting to update my SPCK bookshop roundup page. Please take a look and tell me whether I am being accurate.

In the last few days I have been told that the following shops have been closed, but some of these closures might be temporary:

Posted by Dave at 6:11 pm on June 11, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.

19 Comments

Crackers and Corpus Christi

Posted on by

Stephen Law links to this (amusingly bad) article. This is the comment I left on his blog:

Well…

First off, people might like to read this post and follow the link through to this one.

I want to disagree with one aspect of Myers’ post. He writes: “It’s like Dark Age superstition and malice.” Now I’m not certain of his meaning, but I think he means that the Roman Catholic beliefs lying behind this story are a product of the Dark Ages. If that is his meaning then he is incorrect.

The phrase ‘the Body of Christ’ can refer to three things – 1. the body of Jesus of Nazareth before he was crucified; 2. the community of believers; 3. the bread consecrated during the Eucharist.

In practice we can ignore 1 as it never figures in debates like this. What is significant is the way in which the other two senses have been understood in Christian history.

Let’s call those two senses of ‘the body of Christ’ ‘the church’ and ‘the host’.

In Christian understanding, one form of the body was ‘real’ or ‘true’. In other words it was something that could be touched and handled, and was therefore worthy of reverence and immense – total! – respect. This was called the ‘corpus verum’.

The other form of the body was only perceptible to the eyes of faith, it could only be received and understood mystically, in the context of prayer and worship. This was called the ‘corpus mysticum’.

For the first thousand years or so of Christianity, the ‘corpus verum’, the body that could be touched and handled with reverence, referred to the church, ie the community of the baptised. So, your neighbour in the community was worthy of reverence and respect. Harming your neighbour, eg murder, wasn’t just immoral, it was blasphemy. Correlative with that, the ‘corpus mysticum’ – that which could only be perceived with the eyes of faith – was the host, that which was consumed in the context of Eucharistic worship.

In the course of the twelfth century, in the Western church, these meanings were reversed, with awful consequences.

To begin with the more trivial, the ‘corpus verum’ began to be used to refer to the bread used in the Eucharist. Instead of this bread being something that could only be seen as holy by the faithful (and which didn’t have a particular tangibility as the body) the host became _itself_ the object of worship. This can be seen through the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi in the mid-thirteenth century, and the associated development of eucharistic devotions, eg exposition, seen through the use of the monstrance – the Body of Christ is being _demonstrated_ in this rite.

I happen to see this as a profound distortion of Christianity, but I needn’t detain you with that, for the really malefic consequences of this shift came with the other side, ie that instead of all the baptised being the ‘corpus verum’, now the baptised were the ‘corpus mysticum’ – which had the consequence that church membership was no longer something public, it was something private, and only accessible to those with the eyes of faith. Of course, those ‘eyes of faith’ became identified with the institution, so, whereas harming a baptised believer would once have been utterly unthinkable theologically, with this shift in understanding you end up with the Inquisition – abuse of the body to try and establish the state of the soul. You also lay the seeds for the Reformation, and the whole gamut of western history that sees faith as something ‘private’ and personal, rather than public and visible.

It would be no exaggeration to say that everything that has gone wrong with Western Christianity since the 1200s can be traced to this shift.

And it’s because it is traceable to the 1200s that Myers is incorrect to link this with the ‘Dark Ages’. In the Dark Ages they had a different theology.

Declarations from Jerusalem

Posted on by

Our church is presently being disturbed by two separate but inter-linked arguments, over whether to allow women bishops, and whether to allow gay bishops.

I want to concentrate in this post on the latter question because one of the points made in various discussions is that there is no question that women are, as such, existing in a condition of sin. The argument is that allowing women to become bishops, whatever its justification otherwise, does not amount to giving unrepentant sinners authority in the church community. Whereas, appointing an openly gay and non-celibate man as a bishop (eg Gene Robinson) does do this.

I want to begin from the premise that Scripture and tradition describe homosexual behaviour as sinful. I would note that there are various problems with this (eg ‘homosexuality’ as we understand it is unknown in Scripture) but I don’t think my fundamental point is altered by accepting this as a common starting point. Also, for the avoidance of red herrings, let us take it that ‘homosexual behaviour’ refers to sexual behaviour between two men or two women in the context of a socially accepted monogamous covenant (eg civil partnerships), so there are no questions of promiscuity or adultery and so on.

Those who reject the consecration of Gene Robinson argue that, as Scripture and tradition forbid homosexual behaviour, and condemn it in strong terms, it is impossible to accept such an unrepentant sinner in a position of authority. To do so undermines any sense that those in authority in the church can exercise such authority – for their very status and role undermine whatever else they might do.

I think this argument is logical. However, as with lots of logical arguments, the issue is in whether the premises of the argument are true. That is, is it true that homosexual behaviour is a sin?

Denying that homosexual behaviour is a sin can take various forms.

Firstly, it does seem that some circles within the Anglican Communion have retreated from any sense of ‘sin’ as a viable concept at all. We can call this the Liberal perspective. To my mind it is a form of words that Christianity cannot do without, as it describes essential elements of the faith. Where this doctrine is preached then it seems to me that a substantial argument can be made that classical Anglican Christianity has been abandoned.

However, there are other ways to deny that homosexual behaviour is a sin, and, rather wonderfully, we are shown one such way in Scripture, when there are discussions at Jerusalem about how far to preserve obedience to the dietary laws of Moses (see Acts 10 & 11 for the discussion, and Leviticus 11 & Deuteronomy 14 for the original law). Within the inherited tradition of Judaism obedience to these laws is seen as essential for the members of the community. To not keep these laws demonstrated that you were no longer a member of the community in good standing, you were ‘unclean’ – and consequently there could be no prospect of people in positions of leadership being accepted if they rejected these laws. They simply could not be holy.

However, as a result of Peter’s vision, and the experience of interacting with the Gentile converts, the council in Jerusalem accepted that Gentiles did not need to adhere to the dietary laws in order to be saved, and to be full members of the Christian community. This was an incredibly radical decision. Scripture and tradition were unanimous that the dietary laws had to be observed, yet this church council put Scripture and tradition to one side in order to allow the Spirit to determine the right way forward. “So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?” says Peter.

In other words, we know from Scripture that the church itself is given authority to act according to the Spirit. Undoubtedly the early church was drawing on teaching from Jesus himself. Jesus warns his disciples that there are some implications of his teaching that they cannot yet bear, but that the Spirit will come upon them to lead them into the truth (John 16). He also teaches them, particularly Peter, that they will have authority to determine what is permissible and forgiveable, and what is not (Matthew 16.19 & John 20.22-23).

It therefore seems possible to me that the church can determine that what was once considered to be a sin shall no longer be considered to be a sin – even when Scripture and Tradition say that it is. I think that it is essential to separate this perspective from that of the Liberal one described above, for the reasoning comes from completely separate roots. This latter perspective – let’s call it ‘Catholic’ for the time being – is best characterised as being driven by a very high doctrine of the present reality of the Holy Spirit, ie an expectation that the Spirit is present with us now and able to guide our deliberations and decisions in these matters. It is also, of course, a distinctly non-protestant perspective because, by definition, it allows for a higher authority than Scripture. Which again, is not too problematic, for it follows on from Jesus’ own teaching of the distinction between himself as the Word of God and source of salvation, and the Scriptures’ role as a testimony to him, not a source of eternal life in themselves (John 5.39).

I believe that two things need to be present for this latter position to be defensible. The first is that the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ need to be present amongst those who are, prima facie, unrepentant sinners. This requires prayerful and open hearted observation and listening, as called for by the Lambeth conference in 1998. It also requires an acceptance by the church community, by the consensus fidei.

Which is the real reason why these issues have now come to a head. The Anglican Communion has not yet established any means by which the consensus fidei can be determined. That is what the Windsor process is all about – setting up a mechanism by which the questions can be resolved.

Now it may well be that there is no consensus fidei possible; that there are in fact such differences on this question that there can be no reconciliation between those who see homosexual behaviour as sinful and those who no longer see it in the same way. What I don’t see as helpful is lumping together the ‘Liberal’ perspective with the ‘Catholic’ perspective, and treating them both as heretical.

I think that it is true that what is at stake here is the status of Scripture, whether it is the final authority or not. However, it is possible to reject Scripture as a final authority on Liberal grounds, and also on Catholic (or orthodox!) grounds. In other words, what we may be seeing here is the death throes of Protestantism in England…

More on that last point at another time.