About Elizaphanian (with Index of posts)

Why Elizaphanian? Well…

When I got my first independent e-mail address it was with hotmail (still used) and all the obvious ‘Sam Norton @…’ addresses had been taken. So I got out the good book and opened it at the Old Testament and read this. I thought it sort of fitted me, so I added the ‘ian’ at the end to indicate a likeness.

The real me is the Rector of West Mersea, Essex, England – along with three neighbouring parishes. It’s very close to where I grew up, and I’m very proud of being an Essex boy. I’m married with kids; a bit of an ageing libertarian-conservative-hippy hairy biker but principally an orthodox Christian trying, failing, and trying again to live out the faith. I like beer and wine, sailing, walking the dog on the beach, reading to the kids, all the usual stuff. I am also a bit fanatical about Chelsea FC but try not to mention that too often.

This blog is my penseive, the place where I think out loud about whatever is on my mind at the time. Sometimes I will take an idea, run with it, argue for it and end up rejecting it. Othertimes the idea sticks. Time will tell, so: don’t take any one post too seriously! Please note that my quest for Truth borders on the pathological. Also, please note that articles linked are not necessarily representative of my own views. I link to what makes me think and I am often more stimulated by something that I don’t agree with. If you must know, I believe (beyond the obvious) in human flourishing and human freedom – in that order.

I will often put up TBTMs or TBTEs – these stand for The Beach This Morning/Evening. Highlights can be found on my flickr page.

I also use it to list the films I watch – mostly junk, but I flatter myself with the ability to recognise the occasional diamond when it crosses my path.

An explanation of the subtitle of the blog is here.

This is an index of some of the main themes of my writing on this blog:

Click here for my talks about Christianity and Peak Oil – if I have anything of value to say to the world, it’s contained here.

Autobiographical (what this blog is mainly about)

My Testimony

The colour of my shirt

The Old Testament Heart

Guarding the Holy Fire

Workload, priorities, vocation

Laying George Herbert to rest

Ride out!

I confess

Why I blog

Inertia, theoria, blogging

Dust and Bones

Prayer and grief

Watching the tide come in

Rage and comic book heroes

Socrates or Jesus?

Scripture, Evangelicalism, Liberalism, Fundamentalism

What I think about the Bible

My talks on evangelicalism

Anglican liberalism and the interpretation of Scripture

The Authority of Scripture

A bit more on Scripture

Some thoughts about evangelism

Why I hate fundamentalism

Getting personal with fundamentalism

On the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Not by our own feelings (criticism of ‘conversion’)

Catholicism trumps Liberalism

My posts on atheism

Church-related writings

Reflecting on the Incarnation

Tearing down the curtain

Why liturgy?

Excrement smeared across a church wall

Leaving Satan behind

Music in worship

Obedience

What I’m optimistic about

Theology

What do I mean when I talk about ‘God’?

Orthodoxy

On Intelligent Design

On Miracles

Only love can believe

Why I love Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein and Radical Orthodoxy

Wittgenstein, Plato and Pickstock: The Sense of Relgious Language

Whose wrath?

Peak Oil related

The Great Dislocation

Pledges

Prophecy and Peak Oil

Misplacing the Apocalypse

SUV Spirituality

A Fully Wired Future

What I’m optimistic about

Review of Economist article on Peak Oil

It’s the secondary effects, stupid

The Holiness of Stuart Staniford

Gandalf, Gunpowder and Neil Gaiman’s cats

Scandalous subjects

Scandalous Cartoons

Sin City

On Divorce

On Homosexuality

Why I am a Conservative

My posts on Obama

My posts on Palin

Wrestling with violence

Ante-bellum thoughts on Iraq

Continuing to wrestle with violence

Sam, Sam, pick up thi musket

The non-violent image

Non-violence from a different angle

Metaphysics (including the Metaphysics of Quality)
Introducing the MoQ

A Christian interpretation of the MoQ

The question of character

The Eudaimonic MoQ

The Religion of Metaphysics

The Grammar of Salvation

Wittgenstein’s Mystical Method

Wittgenstein and the Philosophy of Love

On Religious Experience

The Mythology of Science

The apathistic stance

Parfit, Persons and Integrity

Watching the tide come in

I thought I would explain the subtitle to the blog. (Explanation of the title can be found here.)

On one level it is a response to getting Ollie, walking on the beach much more, taking my pictures, and literally watching the tide come in.

On the next level it is a reflection of global warming, and the fact that by the second half of this century Mersea will be much more emphatically an island than it is now. The mean tide level will be the level that the tide reached in the great floods of 1953. The Peldon Rose will become a waterfront property.

On the next level again, it reflects a concern about population movements, and the cultural clashes that will be provoked.

On the final level, however, and rather more optimistically, it refers to the first sermon that I ever preached when I arrived at West Mersea, and this is the most important sense. This is the text of the sermon, which, on re-reading it nearly three years later, I find I am rather pleased with it, as it really does set out the things that I most believe in, which was the intention (the text was Ephesians 3 14-21)

‘What a wonderful text for a new Rector on his first Sunday! “I pray that, according to the riches of his glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being with power through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you are being rooted and grounded in love.” Surely a prayer which a new Rector should share with St Paul. For it does link together some central ideas about what it means to be a Christian, to confess Jesus as our Messiah.

For being Christian is just that being rooted and grounded in love – as the hymn has it, they will know we are Christians by our love; and we are called to love one another as we have been loved by Christ. But what does that actually mean for us, for our Church? I would like to say a few words this morning about this, about what it means to be a church where Christ dwells in our hearts through faith.

In recent weeks there has been rather a lot of publicity about the nomination of Canon Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading, and his subseqent withdrawal of acceptance of that nomination. I don’t intend to talk in any detail about what has happened; I would rather take a step back, and talk about what it means to be the Church, what it means to be members of the Church of England, what it means to be – as the Bishop said on Thursday – part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It seems to me that the overriding impression that non-Christians will have received of the Church from the Canon John affair is of strife and argument, of hostility and rejection – all within a community of people who profess a shared belief in a loving Saviour. There seems to be some distance between the apostolic community and the one in which we now share communion.

Let us consider that early Christian community for a moment. That community was a community of the resurrection, for it was born on Easter morning and it received its life and Spirit from the action of the risen Lord amongst it. This community was a dynamic and astonishing new thing – a community of people who loved each other, who forgave each other, who – most important of all – recognised each other as sinful, where all fell short of the glory of God. From that recognition, and the shared love, came the shared life – a life marked out by Grace.

What is this Grace – this amazing grace, about which we just sang? For it is amazing, the grace that can save a wretch like me – like you – like all of us gathered here. As I understand it, grace is when God reaches to pick us up after we have fallen down. Many of you will have seen my son Barnabas on Thursday evening. He has just got to the stage of learning to run – and as he is still learning, he falls over quite a lot. And he bumps his head. And it is an instinctive reaction when Barnabas falls to reach out and pick him up, to hold him if he is crying, to cheer him up if he is upset. That is how God reacts to us and our sin, our falling downs. He reaches out to us, with arms wide open on the cross, and he takes on and heals our hurt.

This forgiveness offered to us is what the Christian faith means for us who live it out, day by day. For Jesus tells us to love each other as he loves us – to not judge, to bear one another’s burdens, to lay down our lives for our friends – and we are His friends, if we do what he commands us. This is what makes our common life a Christian life – not that we are perfectly holy, or marvellously spiritual, or exceptionally pious and praying several times a day. What makes our common life a Christian life is an acceptance of each other in Christ. An acceptance of each other’s faults and foibles, all those little characteristics which – if we are not careful – we will allow to really rub us up the wrong way, we’ll get irritated, we’ll get angry and cross – and then, our communion in Christ is lost. For Jesus tells us that not everyone who calls him Lord will inherit the Kingdom, but those who do the will of his Father – and that will is clear – it is to love each other, to forgive each other, to place our common life in Christ above all other things, to break bread with our neighbour and to meet Christ in that action. That for me is what Paul is talking about when he talks of Christ dwelling in our hearts through faith – that our hearts are moved to love and accept each other, in just the way that Christ loves and accepts us.

~~~

At my induction service on Thursday, the Bishop said as part of the formal process, that the Church of England is part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. What that claim means is that we share in the inheritance of that original community of the resurrection – we look to them as our foundation, and as our guides back when we fall away. And the Catholic part of that claim is a claim about being inclusive, it is about being all embracing. It is about accepting those whom – let us be honest – accepting those whom you dislike, whom you don’t agree with, whom you would rather cross the street to avoid. Christ’s claim upon us is that we put those things to one side for his sake. For his arms are bigger than we can know, and in him we find our only possible unity. Christ came to save sinners – he went out of his way to seek the lost, those whom polite society had rejected, those whom the religious leaders considered beyond the pale, not worthy of inclusion in the community. And it is from those who were excluded that Christ built his inclusive church – his body as it continues in the world today.

It is one of the wonderful things about the Church of England that it emphasises this inclusive nature. The Church of England invites all Christians to participate in Holy Communion, it does not seek to place barriers in front of those who would wish to come. For who are we to judge who is worthy or unworthy? Who are we to try and say ‘you are not worthy to have communion with us, for we are worthy, and you are not’?

Unfortunately, it has been a recurring feature of Christian history that every so often, a group of Christians will claim “We have the answer! Agree with us!” And when such agreement is not forthcoming, that group sets out on its own – it breaks off communion. It is really saying – we know what Christ is; we have captured Christ in our understandings; and consequently, it is saying that we are the saved – and you are not. It tries to preserve a little bit of purity in the face of all the sinful dangers of the world. It is something that has come to be known as the ‘pure church’ heresy – the idea that by following certain rules we can keep ourselves pure, and thereby earn our way to salvation. Such a community has – I would argue – lost something essential to the life of faith. For what it means to be a part of the Catholic church can be simply stated: one church, one faith, one Lord. It is when we abandon a sense of having all the right answers, and are prepared to put aside our disagreements in the name of the one who asks us to do just that – it is then that we are walking in His way. It is when we say: Lord Jesus, you are deeper than I can understand, you are larger than I can comprehend, let me lay aside all my understandings and trust only in you – it is at that point that we start along the way.

It is, in so many ways, a more difficult path, to leave aside a sense of confidence or certainty in possessing the right answer. In our gospel reading this morning, we heard about those who were fed by Christ, and yet, within hours of seeing such a miracle, the disciples go out upon the water and are terrified when they see Jesus walking towards them. If the disciples, who spent so long in Jesus’ company, become fearful so quickly, what hope have we? Yet let us listen to Jesus: “It is I; do not be afraid.” We are people who walk by faith, not by sight. We are a community centred in mystery – formed by a love that cannot be grasped or contained in our minds, but only acted out and lived through our hearts and hands. At its heart is trust, not certainty. As St Paul says, it is rooted and grounded in our love. If we love and we trust, then the waters will not overwhelm us.

~~~

There is one final point that I would wish to make. It may not have escaped your notice that I believe strongly in the Church of England. Not as deeply or as passionately as I believe in Christ, but it is a strong belief all the same. I think the Church of England, amidst all its controversies and occasional errors is a true vehicle for the gospel; it is a vessel for the sacred mysteries of Christ. But I have been struck, since returning to Essex, by the note of quiet desperation amongst a number of people in the church community – sometimes clearly expressed, sometimes just a note in the background. I guess that it might be related to the drop in church attendance that has taken place in recent decades, which has really been going on for some one hundred and fifty years now, in this country. The poet Matthew Arnold described it in terms which Islanders might find familiar – he described it as the long slow melancholy roar of the sea of faith, withdrawing with the tide.

Yet as all of us gathered here will know, tides go out, and tides come in again. And, while I am conscious that this might sound lacking in humility, but also with a real confidence that it is the truth – I come to you now at the turning of the tide. I have many reasons for believing this to be true – reasons which I am sure I shall be sharing with you in the coming weeks and years, reasons which I have spent the last year exploring in my writing – but I have great confidence in the future of the church. And having been in these communities for just a little while, and seen what tremendous potential there is here, I have great confidence that our work, as we toil together in the vineyard, will be very fruitful.

For my confidence does not lie in our efforts, our knowledge, our abilities. It certainly doesn’t rest in a confidence in my own abilities. My confidence lies in the actions of a God who manifested his glory on that Easter morning nearly two thousand years ago. For we are a people who have been changed by the resurrection – we are the people who have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord – God has already overcome, and what we need to do is to follow in his footsteps. So let us walk together, in faith and in trust, living that life of forgiveness and acceptance, loving one another as he loved us. “Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen”.’

A slave to contentious discourses

This has been on my mind much in recent months (it was stuck to the wall above the kettle by my wife – a guarantee that it would come to my attention!):

“My son, in many things it is thy duty to be ignorant, and to esteem thyself as dead upon earth, and one to whom the whole world is crucified.

Thou must also pass by many things with a deaf ear, and rather think of those which belong unto thy peace.

It is more useful to turn away one’s eyes from unpleasing things, and to leave every one to his own opinion, than to be a slave to contentious discourses.

If all stand well betwixt thee and God, and if thou hast his judgement in thy mind, thou shalt the more easily endure to be overcome.”

(I think it’s Thomas a Kempis, but I’m not certain).

It has been on my mind for two main reasons. The first is that it is why I have left behind MD/MF. Losing my temper was a definite sign that I had taken a spiritual wrong turning, so I have resolved to ‘leave every one to his own opinion’ in that regard. I shall continue to outline my own opinions here. The second though, is about thinking of those things ‘which belong unto thy peace’ – which I’m still working on. I’ve been doing more research about 9/11 recently, reading David Ray Griffin’s books, which are excellent. Yet a friend pointed out that a) I will never be in a position to know the truth here, and b) there are many more spiritually fruitful avenues to explore.

So I shall continue to read as widely as I can, but I shall try to attain a little more humility in the face of the truth. Could be difficult. Time to rely on prayer and grace a little more.

Inertia, theōria, blogging

I’m a very stable and fixed sort of person – you could call it mulish (or if you happened to be interested in astrology, you could say it was because I have a grand cross of major planets in the fixed signs 😉 – but one way of thinking about it, which my wife uses every so often, is to say that I have a lot of inertia. Normally that means that her husband is accumulating too much lard on his backside through being inert, but I actually like the strictly physical definition, whereby a body at rest needs a lot of prompting to move, but also a body which is moving requires a lot of force to change course. For I have been known to move, on occasion.

This sequence of thoughts was prompted by the arrival of Ollie – not an expected arrival, but one which was nevertheless sought out, and is from God – for Ollie is dragging said husband off his backside onto the beach two or three times a day, and the pressure of a wagging tail and a wet nose is a sufficient force to cause the mass to enter into movement. I think this is a very good thing for me – I haven’t been getting enough exercise ever since I got married (and have accumulated nearly an extra three stone in weight) and this exercise is going to persist. So although I find it uncomfortable – my inertia is resisting this outside force – I can see it is a tremendous blessing for me.

Now yesterday I managed to read a review in the Times Literary Supplement which discussed theōria. Theōria is seen by Aristotle as the highest virtue, and it is normally translated as contemplation. My spiritual director once told me that I have a significant contemplative streak, and I think this is true – I like to ponder questions, and weigh them, sifting them for nuggets of truth. Think of Rodin and a part of my self-image is revealed. Yet I have always seen this as a principally sedentary and immobile activity. Now I read this in the review:

“In due course, Aristotle would assert that theōria, meaning philosophical contemplation of the nature of things, is the best, most enjoyable activity there can be; hence it is God’s sole occupation and the central purpose of the best possible human life.

“This is easy to misunderstand, in part because ‘contemplation’, the now conventional translation of Aristotle’s theōria, suggests a single, steady gaze held on a single impressive object, like a telescope focused on the peak of a high mountain… But the original theōros, engaged in “sacralized spectating” at the Olympic Games or watching a tragedy in the theatre at Athens, saw a complex multiplicity of events, which could only be properly understood in relation to one another. (Compare: the spectator’s experience of a modern cricket match is more like following a narrative than viewing a mountain peak.) There is no good reason to think that this complexity dropped away when Plato and Aristotle made the transition to abstract, philosophical theōria. Their theōria is not analagous to a single steady gaze at a single impressive object.”

(MF Burnyeat, reviewing Andrea Wilson Nightingale’s “Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy, TLS February 24 2006)

It seems to me that this sense of theōria has just a little in common with blogging – on going comments on those things which enter into the mental frame of reference of the blogger, which do not have to be fixed and stable like a mountain, but can be an ongoing drama like a greek tragedy, or like the fall of western civilisation as a result of Peak Oil (grin).

So theōria, contemplation, that which I enjoy – this is not a ‘single steady gaze’ – and to undertake contemplation I do not need to be passive, which is the psychosomatic hole in which I have placed myself. My inertia can be mobilised, I can indeed be a body in motion, and still I can pursue that highest, most divine of virtues – “sacralized spectating” – which is, I believe, what my blog should aim to be.

I’m not there yet, but I’ll keep going at it.

The Cluetrain Manifesto

I came across this from reading Chris Locke’s ‘Mystical Bourgeoisie’ blog (which I read whenever it is updated – I’ll do a post about that separately), and it wasn’t at all what I expected. It was good to read something totally surprising, which was also informative about the business world, and personally clarifying for me.

The Cluetrain Manifesto began as a website developed by Locke and some friends, articulating the way in which the internet was changing the viability of standard business models. In sum, the cluetrain manifesto argues that the internet allows a genuine market to re-emerge, the genuine market being a meeting place of individuals, with a high level of human contact, and consequent structures of trust and authenticity shaping the boundaries of trade.

For example, if you are considering purchasing a digital camera, it is now possible to use internet search engines, not simply to find the cheapest model, or the cheapest outlet for any particular model, but also to discuss the qualities of the different models with other users. In this situation where there is a wealth of available information to the purchaser the producer of any particular digital camera can no longer enjoy what economists call ‘informational asymmetry’ – we can’t be brow-beaten or intimidated by the (apparent) possession of superior knowledge on the part of any particular seller. Often (and this has often been my experience in places like Dixons!) the purchaser knows >much
In this context, a viable business model is one that ‘lowers the barriers’ between the company and the purchaser. There is no benefit to a company in enforcing ‘company speak’ or a ‘line to take’ – all that happens is that the purchaser comes to the reasonable conclusion that this particular company ‘doesn’t have a clue’, and therefore disengages. A company which, on the other hand, allows its own workers to speak directly to customers, without insisting on corporate ‘firewalls’ (whether electronic or social) stands to benefit directly from the high quality human interactions (trust) thus generated.

This might seem overblown – surely the internet is, even now, a minority pursuit, and most companies can safely ignore it, at least for some time to come? This ignores what economists call ‘marginal income’. If a company manufactures widgets, the cost of manufacturing widgets is split between the ‘fixed costs’ (establishment of factory, salaries etc) and the ‘variable costs’ (the material used to make a particular widget). So to make any money at all, the company must first cover all of its fixed costs; once that has been done, then the level of profit accruing from the extra sales of widgets increases radically. Let us assume that a company has to sell 100 widgets to cover its fixed costs in any particular year. If the company sells 110 widgets then those extra ten widgets only have ‘variable costs’ associated with them (the raw material from which the widget is made). That raw material cost is generally a much smaller proportion of the total cost of each widget. What this means is that the ‘marginal widget’ – ie the widget that is sold last – provides a much bigger contribution to overall profits than the first widget; and each extra widget sold is crucial. However, if a small proportion of the company’s market is put off from purchasing widgets due to the company ‘not having a clue’ – ie behaving in a bureaucratic and generally inhuman fashion – then the sale of those marginal widgets becomes immensely problematic. Even if the internet only diminishes sales by a few percent – that few percent can make all the difference to a company between profit and loss. This is why the internet hugely magnifies the effect of informational symmetry between buyer and seller – it is the impact that it has on the margins which levers in huge social and cultural changes at the level of the corporation.

The theme in the book which most struck me, however, was the emphasis upon the human voice. That the traditional market was one in which the human voice made the difference between buying and selling, and where all participants become experts at sniffing out the bullshit. The development of Fordism in all its forms minimised this historic aspect of the economy – giving rise to the corporation in all its alienated and alienating glory – and it is this which the cluetrain manifesto argues is coming to an end. The most important thing for any company now is to be a recognisably human institution, with recognisable human beings working within it. One recent example – the Times newspaper is encouraging its writers to start blogging directly, as with Ruth Gledhill or David Aaranovitch. If there is to be a viable economic model for news organisations, it will surely be along those lines.

This is, of course, why it made so much sense to me – for the blog is indeed the best expression of particular human voices on the ’net, and it is why I enjoy blogging so much. Here I can express my own thoughts, in my own voice, and it is liberating.

So: an excellent book, thoroughly recommended. It is available free, on-line, here.

Techie bits

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

The really annoying thing is that all the previous comments seem to have been removed. This was not something they warned me about, and it’s not the sort of thing to make for happy customers. But then you get what you pay for, and this was free. As I still feel I’m at the beginning of this blogging thing, I think I can live with the loss of comments. Just about.

I’ve also added a blogroll and made one or two other minor behind-the-scenes amendments, including removing the Merseacofe yahoo group from automatic receipt of posts (because it led to a confusion of readership in my mind). All this when I should be writing a sermon about a cup of water….

Working out how to use this thing….

Definitely a case of learning as we go. I think I may have to set up members of the congregation (that want one) a ‘team membership’ which will allow initiating a new post. Posting comments should now be straightforward, but starting the new post seems more complicated. Anyone who is able to provide more info please get in touch!

Right. Set up a yahoo list instead: merseacofe@yahoogroups.com
Head to yahoo if you want to pursue the Learning Church agenda.
I’ll put the blog to more personal use.