I want the metaphor too!

(He shouts in a shrill voice, regretting it because of its lack of irony and full-hearted, yet seemingly juvenile ring.)

What are our cucumbers, and lemon juice? What is our human drip?

(He continues.)

Blood? It’s been sucked dry, like another fluid. Dry like vampires spittle.

Sweat, leaves a taste of work versus pleasure, power versus slavery.

Tears. They drench our pages with forgotten love, or some other romantic sadness.

(Oh Gosh!)

Ironic to many. Often scoffed at. Because we would rather not remember.

(Yuch! Another trashy… weakness? A romance novel, loved but not ironically.)

Urine?  Vulgar. Wet though smelly, like a tramps seat left behind in the metro.

The smell lingers there, just like something stale, a little embracing, like last seasons joke, only just now understood. Or a joke understood too well.

It still sticks, that stink. But the thought of the tramp is gone.

All we are left with, it seems to me, is stomach acid.

Covered with dissolved tums, or a glass of milk. Perhaps a sip of water.

The ulcer will survive beyond that fluid though.

We’re just hiding behind our discomfort with our lack of likes and dislikes, cynics that cannot fake the genuine.

There is still laughter. A little spittle! A little trickle, when we laugh so hard we cannot help it. A wet patch, where others cannot see.

There is joy still. But what is its liquid?

What I mean by “reduction” isn’t a re-articulating of the grand-arch which is the story we live in now. John’s gospel does that and doesn’t use 66 books, and his is beautiful. What I am talking about is an excel-spread sheet filled in with words that fit the categories somebody has tried to reduce the story into, in order to provide an overview of God and his relationship to us as seen in the Bible.

So when the Bible (or Gods self revelation to us) is described as the story of “God’s people, in God’s place, under God’s rule” and it becomes a mantra—we don’t think about it, we just apply the logic of it repetitively—dangerous things can happen. The harmless nature of the taste of the burger becomes the narrowed down palate of flavours which are the only ones we can taste. Please note the reduced pallet is not the problem, it’s the lack of engagement with the broader flavours that are of concern here.

The first and most dangerous misappropriation of the word of God through the mantra is that it places the focus of God’s special self revelation on “his people” rather than on the King of the Kingdom. (I am talking of the particular reduction that can be found here, which summarises Vaughn’s otherwise fairly helpful ‘God’s Big picture’)

If the focus is not on God it is not a minor problem and can lead to a myriad of problematic thought patterns and teaching. The Gospel of John starts off: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” As Christians this is where we must put our emphasis. Who God is matters.

In the Big picture reduction we find a helpful tablet-ty, table where we see that the Genesis account of creation is boxed-in to “Adam and Eve—Gods people”, “the Garden—Gods Place”, and “God’s word, perfect relationship—God’s rule and blessing”. Further, out of the 8 stages described under the reduction, this first stage is called “the Pattern of the Kingdom” and is summarised:

“In the Garden of Eden we see the world as God designed it to be.  God’s people, Adam and Eve, live in God’s place, the garden, under his rule as they submit to his word.  And to be under God’s rule in the Bible is always to enjoy his blessing; it is the best way to live.  God’s original creation shows us a model of his kingdom as it was meant to be.”

Already we miss a vital part of the biblical narrative, namely we miss both the crucial beginning of the “anthropology” and more importantly we miss the essential component to have a true anthropology, which is a “theology”. In order to have an appropriate self understanding, we have to understand God. In Genesis we learn God is a creative. He is not monolithic but within him there is community and difference. Jesus is not the father, yet they are God.  As the story goes:

“²⁶Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

²⁷So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
^(R) male and female he created them.

In “our” image he created them, male and female he created them. The use of the plural here is no accident: “for it was not good for man to be alone…” the passage later continued. But Adam was not alone. God was there, so why Eve? Because we are communal beings, that reflect the image of God, and God is communal, and self sufficient.

The pattern of the Kingdom does not start with God’s design of the Garden of Eden, and the right ordering of relationships between his creation and the creator. It starts with God’s character and nature. Without understanding the King, how can we understand his kingdom?

Further, the focus of the reduction leaves little room for God’s self revelation through his creation. This is not to say that we can know God and who he is through nature. Or that we cane be saved outside of Jesus and the knowledge of him, but it is to reaffirm that there is a second book, namely Gods creation, which is bigger than where Gods people are, and the places in which God chooses to interact with his people. And if it is this part of Gods revelation that all human beings have access to, then understanding this revelation must be as important as understanding God’s special revelation to those that have ears to hear.

Of course special revelation is paramount to the Christian and the Church, but we cannot understand the book outside of creation. Nor can we really understand creation without the book. So we have a huge amount to offer the world that goes beyond the salvific story. My wager is also, that without what we have to offer otherwise, the salvific story will not make sense.

Making Gods people, in Gods place, under Gods rule a mantra, will not help us describe his Kingdom to people who only know his creation.  But it is by using categories that all of us understand, which can be used by the Spirit of God to guide someone to acknowledge that their name is written in the book of life.

Placing the focus on God’s people and the places that God chooses to interact with them, takes away from the freedom God has to work outside of those places. It is through the spirit, through Gods very being, that creation, even fallen creation is sustained. By extension, Gods sovereignty must be remembered. The direct workings of the Holy Spirit—in a salvific, or non-salvific way in all of creation, including in both God’s people and those that are either not yet his people and might never be is part of reality. It is too easily forgotten in the self centered ’reduction of the reduction’.

This point comes out in point 7 called The Proclaimed Kingdom. Here God’s place is said to be found in individuals and the church, the Holy Spirit is poured out as a gift from God to the Church and individual. While the importance of Pentecost should be highlighted, we must not forget the efficacy of God through his Spirit in the remainder of creation.

If we go back to the Genesis account, and look at the story before Adam and Eve came about, and before Eden was prepared for them, we understand that Gods Spirit hovered over chaos:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ²The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”

I am told that the word to describe the Spirit here in Hebrew is Ruach, which is something like “the breath” of God. And it is through the Word, through God speaking that creation comes to be.

All of this leaves me questioning whether the nature of the King and the size of his Kingdom has not been lost in the reduction. It is all of creation that is Gods as he created. Even as we become members of Christ’s Kingdom, we participate in shaping the reality around us. While in exile in Babylon, we are told by Jeremiah to pray for the city, for through its blessing we too are blessed. This means that the fruit of the spirit in us, and the work of the spirit in creation, transforms the old creation even though it will not finally be the new creation we await for in Christ’s return.

So to bring these strands together and applying them as a critical prism to the reduction point 7, The Proclaimed Kingdom as articulated below is not quite enough:

“By his death and resurrection Jesus did all that was necessary to put everything right again and completely restore God’s kingdom. But he did not finish the job when he was first on earth. He ascended into heaven and made it clear that there would be a delay before he returned. The delay is to enable more people to hear about the good news of Christ so they can put their trust in him and be ready for him when he comes. We live during this period, which the Bible calls “the last days”. It began on the Day of Pentecost when God sent the Spirit to equip his church to tell the whole world about Christ.”

The above seems to be right, though finally it leaves a painful gap in at least two aspects. The first is that the articulation of the presence of God is only in individual and the church, but not in the agency of the individual and the church in the world, as those who pray for Babylon beyond telling people about Jesus, which is a reduction of a proper anthropology.

Second by insisting that Gods presence is focused in the individual and the church, and by articulating Jesus disappearing trick ‘to return later’, the ruled-over nature of creation in the now and not yet is diminished. Everything that is, was and will be is Gods, and was given to Christ to rule over. His final rule has started and though imperfection still is a reality Christ rules. Everything is his.

This is also a humbling reality, for even as we pray for the blessing on Babylon, we realize that it is only through Christ’s sacrifice that we can call ourselves members of the city of God, even as we find ourselves in Babylon. Moreover, despite the fact that the other creatures made in the image of God are not members of the city of God, they may well be those that Gods spirit uses to bless Babylon, just like he might through giving a secular biochemist the cure to cancer. It is our role to thank Jesus for his work through them, and call what their work is good.

We participate in the Kingdom of God now, inasmuch as we are capable of participating in being ruled by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. What is missing from the reduction, is that God is a triune God, the ruler over all creation and has commanded us to multiply, be creative and above all, not just passively wait for his return but participate in a community that is larger than our own.

Yes we are to tell people about the Good News of Jesus. But the good news is not only that we are forgiven and reconciled to God. That’s just the beginning of the anticipation of the feast now.

I also think he is wrong on some account, in case you where wandering.

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2179/archbishop-rowan-and-frank-skinner-in-conversation

One way of doing jokes is by building tension in your audience, building it, sometimes slowly, deliberately, building, that, tension, and releasing it.

With a punch line. The tension can be build quickly, but need not be. The punchline needs to surprise. But I think God’s humour, while incorporating that sort of punch line, also gives us life giving room to breath after the line is delivered. That is why I think the verses in Acts following 9 belong to the joke, as seen from Gods perspective. The whole passage is as follows:

And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead.

But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, “Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.” And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.

The joke as it would be told by Carr is clear: St. Paul the abominable long winded preacher: look what you’ve done now. But for God the story does not end there. Much like other humourous sections of the Bible (they keep on appearing the more I read it), the more it seems that we find a justice and mercy narrative that is spiked with the delightful possibility that God is laughing at some of the absurdity of what goes on in his creation, through his creatures; even in death.

As friendly Quaerentia points out, in Colossians–in relation to what Gods victory looks like in comparison with the violent domination that earthly victors display–we find a wholly subversive form of victory, which I link to humour as well. The victory is one which rather delights at humility –not for the sake of humility– but for the sake of the right ordering of things. St. Paul’s description of how the victory of that justice and mercy narrative looks like in Colossians, we are met with a quite serious proposition about how God functions and what he has set out for us as Christ followers:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (Colossians 2:13-15)

So God makes a spectacle of the “powers and authorities” that would try and undermine him. But how does he do that? How does he make that spectacle? That act of humiliation, that thing, which makes others look on an laugh (as is Psalm 2)?

The beginning of the quoted passage hints at it but there, over there in the book of Romans, (and Mathew and 1 Peter, paraphrasing the Old Testament), right there, the most original form of Gods humour, appearing in Romans, and it’s not a coincidence, but its Gods act of humiliating, and making a spectacle out of the cruel work of the powers and authorities. Its there in Romans, and its done on purpose.

“Behold, I [God] am laying in Zion [where God reigns] a stone of stumbling… and a rock of offense”

Slapstick.

But the verse continues… “and whoever believes in him [the stumbling block, the source of that humour] will not be put to shame.”

Him? That stumbling block, that Rock of Offense? Jesus, the one who rode into Jerusalem on an ass, and then died on the cross, and much like Eutychus, but quite differently, came back again. The flow of Gods laughter requires (because of his nature) the room to breath, after a death defying gag, has meant we are choking. Its always there, if only your willing to laugh. And laugh at yourself.

What Jonnie Marbles (aka Jonathan May-Bowles, 26, of Edinburgh Gardens, Windsor and founding member of #UKuncut, HA!), what Jonnie did was to assault a man in his 80s, pie or not. Now, what ever you think about Murdoch, Marbles girlfriend got it about right when she decided to publicly dump him via twitter. @pageantmalarkey said: ”Not funny. Not clever. Not your girlfriend.” The religion correspondent from the Telegraph said: “The definition of a loser is someone who throws a pie and ends up with it in their face. A priceless pr coup for the Murdoch’s #hackgate”

Murdoch’s wife’s response was the appropriate one and now we are not laughing at a prank, we are now laughing at Marbles all the way to the docks where we will hopefully get sent down for assault. Meanwhile Wendy is praised for her brave left uppercut and we are admiring Murdoch for the loyalty he must receive from her.

As much as I am a fan of a comic spectacle, there is a time and place and a line. The line can only be overstepped just enough for the joke not to backfire. Marbles, bloody Marbles.

In other news. If you don’t understand what has happened over the last couple of days this info-graph will explain more.

http://imageshack.us/f/11/hackgateflowchart.jpg/

In other news, the now infamous Friday has been remade to spike the mood around the skewering of Murdoch and Brooks et al.

And finally, Jon Stewart needs to play less on the stereotypes. Some of his ignorance in the meaning of British phraseology is embarrassing, though quite funny.

The New Statesman has the link at the end of this article.

If you would like the conservative Anglican explanation about what it is you should read this. The post is coloured in a way that is very much favourable to the formation.

If you would like to read an Evangelical criticism, the Fulcrum statement is worth your time, even though the website is as ugly as a turd. That’s the background.

This post is a look at AMiE seen through the lens of a sympathetic conservative who understands why it was created but who is distressed at the development for a number of reasons: It undermines the larger churches witness and the witness of the conservative wing particularly. In my view it actually goes against Gods word in that it undermines the authority we have been commanded to adhere to. Finally, because of the first and second, it undermines the authority and the strength of the leaders and preachers (and their witness) who lead congregations within FCA in the UK.

Unusually insightful comedienne

The Guardians religious affairs correspondent offered a provocative, witty and above all satirical view of the AMiE issue in her divine dispatches this week. It’s a rather spunky Britney Spears video entitled: If you seek Amy. Do watch it as it’s the best illustration about how this all looks to an outsider. (Edit: Note minute 2:43 and onward is key)

The creation of Amie follows the creation of FoCA, but all the similar sounding joviality jokes aside, I think Riazat, through the video, offers a poignant criticism of the formation of AMiE. Sadly it also shows how she views the people who are involved in actions which tend toward disobeying what they themselves hold up to be the most important thing to guide our lives and conduct, namely the teachings of the Bible.

I say sadly not because Riazat misunderstands what Amie means to the conservative leaning churches desire in asking for alternative oversight, (I think she doesn’t really care about them), but it is sad because it reflects back to the conservatives what they have done, namely: sully the witness of the church through seeming holier than thou, rather than pointing to Jesus. They think they are pointing to Jesus by doing exactly what they did, but obviously somebody didn’t get the message. That’s the fault of the communicator.

But it does bare saying that the accusation of pharisaic “better than yours” nature of AMiE is accurate in at least the sense that the conservatives have decided to disrespect the authority structure which we are commanded to adhere to.

Obey those who have been put in authority over you 

Disobedience comes into this—or at least perceived disobedience—not only to the Archbishop and through him to the Queen, but also through that disobedience, to the word of God. Ok strong words. But let me work this argument out before you go all ape, (or cheer if you’re that way inclined).

Though it is said among proponents that the Archbishop knew about the formation of AMiE, nothing is thus far on public record as to say whether he agrees with it or not and whether it received his blessing. I rather doubt that it did. But silence means a degree of toleration. What we do know, is that after three men where sent to Africa to be ordained (irregular ordination) under cloak and dagger circumstances, a press release was sent out announcing the creation of AMiE. These things went hand in hand.

Why having an established church cuts both ways

Consistency is important. Romans 13 talks about the requirement Christians have to respect authority and while most people would then say that Romans 13 talks about obedience to the state and Government, we must recognize that through having C of E Bishops in the House of Lords, and because the Monarch is, de jure, the Supreme Governor of both the state and the church through divine appointment, those desiring to stay loyal and within the Church of England must at least attempt to read Romans 13 in that light and apply those principles.

Many leaders within FCA would also want to affirm the Christian heritage that our country has prospered through. They would want to affirm the position of the Bishops in the House of Lords and further require that in some way the Christian faith an interpretation of Biblical principles are applied to the state legislature. They would claim there is a precedent to do so, precisely because of the Church of England’s relationship to the state. If they wish to do so, they cannot have it both ways.

Other passages on authority

Furthermore, passages such as 1 Timothy 6, while talking about the slave/master relationship, are worth taking into consideration here, because the principle of employment, but not payment (and I have heard sermons preached on this subject in FCA churches), tell us to respect those who have been put into authority over us (whether political or otherwise), so that we can be a witness to them of Gods love. While I would not want to say that FCA leadership should be like slaves to their masters within the C of E, the respect they preach should be modelled to those of us in action.

The Archbishops have to be respected. York and Canterbury have, in their wisdom (like it or not) decided that the current C of E authority and parish structures should be adhered to and that irregular ordinations and as far as I understand, should not occur. The Archbishop has appointed flying bishops for the Anglo-Catholics. I don’t see why application for such an opportunity should not have been made for the Conservative Evangelicals, unless this is actually about power.

On the subject of homosexuality (which is why some churches in South London are in impaired communion with their overseeing Bishop), both Archbishops have affirmed what the Lambeth Conference agreed in 1998, neither of them has dissented from the Windsor Report, and we wait to hear what they say about the forthcoming House of Bishops forthcoming reviews of policy in light of the developments around civil partnerships.

While FCO leaders would say that the Archbishop has done too little to chastise those that have caused the problems in the first place, he has set in motion a move for reconciliation, and has made it clear privately that he will resist the Governments move to allow homosexual marriage. He is taking the long view and the FCO is impatient and for my money does not see the problematic context in which the Archbishop finds himself. Does that mean the Archbishop is weak or unfit to serve? That’s not for me to decide. However, respect is due to him as well as to his wishes as well as to the House of Bishops.

As far as we can tell York and Canterbury fit very well into the class of an overseer as described in 1 Timothy 3, particularly where it says: “not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome” and “he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace…” So while it is in line with obedience to be in “impaired communion” with Bishops and those in authority in the C of E who are not willing to preach and teach what the Bible says, or indeed what the Lambeth Conference affirms, it is disrespectful to those who are in authority to avoid their authority for the sake of causing trouble for those who are, or are perceived to be, false teachers.

Modelling proper authority through showing obedience

On the last point about modelling authority, I find it is good to turn around the effect Amie might be having on those in the authority structure of the C of E, who have been disrespected. [Edit: I have removed a section here as I found it was unhelpful, and added the following up to the end of the paragraph] Are we to understand that church politics in the local congregation should follow a similar pattern if we find the direction of the local church in relation to other issues, where we find the church is lacking {lets say in relation to engaging with issues of public justice, or about church diversity}? I don’t think we should, but it begs the question and relates to issues that are far clearer in the bible than that of homosexuality or the ordination of women.

Currently I find that the language around FCO and Amie, tends towards doublespeak from those who have decided the way forward is to undermine the Archbishop, the House of Bishops and their affiliates. I also find that the way this has been talked about within the congregations I have been to, has been very lop-sided, to the point where the implications of what has happened have been obscured. [Edit: no doubt for the sake of simplicity and church unity and stability. Nevertheless, if we are being take into a right royal battle, I for one want more clarity about what is going on, why its happening now, and what this means for the future of the congregation, including whether this is about pastors being put away because of their unwillingness to marry gays.]

Show me the funniest of men

Hypocrisy serves Riazat the comedienne in two ways in that it is at once the gun powder and the target of the cannon ball. Any comedian worth her keep will acknowledge that we are all hypocrites, but she is not required to do so, nor to offer a solution to the problem. However any theologian worth the salt he dishes out, will always have to point us back to the Christ-act, and ask for forgiveness for we know not what we do.

If you feel this is unfair theologically badly analysed, please let me know. I am open to correction and clarification.

Of course he is right on one level. Stand-up comedy in this country tends to be fairly lazy about making religion the mark of its haha-darts. The opportunity to open up the moral imagination of the audience, by challenging presuppositions, getting under the skin of prejudice and allowing a glimpse of illustrative honesty to erode the antagonism many atheists feel towards religion is often farted away. But let them get on with it. People, honest people, will get bored of the shallow offering. Creative comedians will come along and deliver. As one comment said: “Write some jokes then.”

But I also think that Mr. McKearney’s view has two problems which are worth raising. Organised religion has power. When power is abused, or when the powerful act in a hypocritical way, they deserve to be corrected through mockery. The Pope, dear Patrick, has his own country. Don’t forget that. Moreover, as a Christian I am told to expect to be the object of mockery since what I believe is so offensive to the more refined sensibilities of the sure-smart anti-theists.

But I think Christian teaching is so offensive because Christianity offers one of the greatest stories of subversive laughter. The claim that the creator of the universe visited his creation by being born as a vulnerable baby in a manger, escaping a murderous king, then proclaiming his divinity as an adult before the most religious—and as the story goes—most ruthless, power-hungry political schemers of Israel; then dying on the cross and subsequently rising from the dead so that his followers could be reconciled to his way of life and participate in a new creation order – that, Patrick, is laughable. But the humour takes on two forms: The laughter of joy and the laughter of mockery.

The laughter of the soldiers who made a crown of thorns and placed it on his head, and stuck a notice above him saying: “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews” – that’s the laughter of the powerful mocking the seemingly weak. But the statement is entirely consistent with the nature of the power that Jesus sought to show his disciples, the chuckles of which we hear of in his entrance into Jerusalem: Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews, riding into Jerusalem on an ass. Not a horse, an ass. Born into a manger, the target of infanticide by a murderous faux half-king, riding an ass into Jerusalem, now that is what I call subversive. An ass Patrick, an ass. The nature of Christianity, a King riding into triumph on an ass, and the good news that it brings, a message for the humble who are laughing with joy because they can’t believe their luck. That’s subversive and powerful.

“To be is to do”-Socrates

“To do is to be”-Sartre

“Do Be Do Be Do”-Sinatra

Kurt Vonnegut channeled via Twitter

Right. So this is a biggie theologically. Many of us seem to struggle with the difference between justification and sanctification (all of which might be included in the term salvation), or with answering the question of are we saved, really are we?

Kevin DeYoung of The Gospel Coalition, has blogged about why Christians need to put effort into our sanctification (the process by which we become more saintly). Salvation is by faith alone, but the process by which we become who we are really meant to be, DeYoung maintains, is hard work in response to Jesus’s hard work on the cross. You can read what he has to say on his blog Kevin DeYoung: Deyoung, Restless and Reformed (what a naff name). His advice is pretty good overall. Not just theoretical, but as practical as you can be on a blog post meant to get people thinking about things.

Tullian Tchivichian’s response (also on TGC) is great though. His blog, Tullian Tchivichian: on earth as it is in heaven (seeking the city that is to come)–now that’s not a naff name–gets it right when he reminds us that justification and sanctification cannot be separated, and that justification is not the first step to sanctification. Its not a sequence.

Sanctification is a grueling process. But it’s NOT the process of moving beyond the reality of our justification but rather moving deeper into the reality of our justification. If sanctification could be likened to our responsibility to swim, justification is the pool we swim in. Sanctification is the hard work of going back to the certainty of our already secured pardon in Christ and hitting the refresh button over and over.

Great words those. So what does all that have to do with the Socrates, Sartre and Sinatra?

Tullian goes on to say: “This is why when Jesus was asked in John 6:28, “What must we do to be doing the works of God?” he answered, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him who he sent.”

Interesting. That’s the work of God? And here is why:

Actively, our work is to daily battle the root of all sin: unbelief (Calvin said that Christians are in perpetual conflict with their own unbelief). Passively, our work is to receive and rest in his work for us which is a terribly painful thing because we are all seasoned “do-it-yourselfers.” As it was with Martha in Luke 10:38-42, so it is with us: we just have to be doing something. We can’t sit still. Achieving, not receiving, has become the mark of spiritual maturity. It is much harder to rest in his promise of grace than it is to make a list and try to live by it. With this in mind, Martin Luther wrote, “To be convinced in our hearts that we have forgiveness of sins and peace with God by grace alone is the hardest thing.”

Do, be. Do, be. Do, be. Catching on yet? Justified, sanctified.

DeYoung then decides that the response needs a response and blogs about Gospel-Driven Effort.

But all of DeYoung’s and a lot of Tullian’s points are utterly, almost blindly individualistic in their outlook. Yes DeYoung talks about encouraging each other, exhorting and challenging each other and all that… but it’s all about you and me and not about us. So its good advice but it misses a bit of a trick.

Now if you have the time and inclination, watch the video below. It’s from the great RSA speech illustration series. It’s about late capitalism and why in reality, we are pacified, numbed and lulled into a false sense of choice and freedom. I agree with a lot of it, but I think the problems that are in the video are not caused by capitalism per-se, but radical individualism coupled with an over-obsession with self, which can sometimes be typified in Christian subculture by thinking and talking and wondering about my individual state of salvation and my individual state of sanctification. I’m not saying those are wholly bad things. But bearing in mind that the New Testament was written for a people who had much more of a collective identity I am wondering if the emphasis that DeYoung and others take on these things is blind to an overarching societal evil which is not helped by their expounding on these subjects in individualistic terms.

Here’s the video. While watching try and superimpose your concept of self, your ideals of the church and how we relate to each other in relation to sin. I know it’s not a perfect analogy but my aim is to get us to think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bqMY82xzWo&feature=player_embedded

What did you think of that last statement? What is our malaise and why is it there?

And I say that he will not kill himself because Pratchett has a moral imagination that goes beyond the self and self determination. That is, he has a truer moral imagination. It’s not your responsibility to die Terry. You have people around you that care for you and their voice will resonate in the dome which houses your moral imagination. It is true, most main characters in his book are quite individualistic, but all of his stories include the relationship between at least two characters, very often unlikely allies, are stronger than one persons choice to die. Listen to your wife Terry, you always do in your books.

But I am wondering why, if he is wavering, he insists on campaigning for the legalization of assisted suicide in the UK. He recently narrated and appeared in a documentary on the BBC entitled Choosing to Die, in which the producers chose to show the death of Peter Smedley was well produced, fairly unbalanced (but to be honest, that is fine with me as long as they do another program highlighting the problems with legalizing assisted suicide). I guess my only critique is that at times the documentary seemed lacking in thought-rigor. It was Terry and Rob, watching and discussing other peoples death, with lots of emotions and far too many references to the beauty of things.

Mr. Pratchett obviously has a high view of beauty and I commend him for it. One of his complaints about the dignitas clinic in Switzerland was that the house they provide was based on an industrial estate. The snow seemed beautiful to him, and quite appropriate in relation to the death of Mr. Smeadly, though Terry wants to die outside in the sunshine. The thrust of the documentary was really about beauty, wanting to control ones environment (and the environment in which one dies), as if that in itself makes the terrible reality of death manageable. How profoundly childish and narcissistic. Death is never beautiful, however you dress it up. Deaths says: “I WILL TAKE YOU AWAY.” There is a reason the personified Deaths voice appears in all caps in the Discworld novels: death is that deep, even when personified.

But Mr. Pratchett is dying (as all of us are), Alzheimers is horrible, but Terry also suffers of a more particular problem, which is “the will to control,” a most immense disorder, suffered by most authors who love and savor, and quite rightly so, the beauty of telling stories. Terry is the master of his written universe and there is nothing wrong with that, but the reality is that in life outside the Discworld he is not that master, but rather like Rincewind is looked after by something bigger than his magic chest, though the chest is bigger than he is. God bless you Terry Pratchett. Lets enjoy some Snuff, but not the verb. Keep up the challenge Rob.