open source theology

I have to say that I think that this is not quite as presented. I won’t deny that there is a lot of prejudice towards religion (and I use that term, rather than Christianity, advisedly). However there is a lot wrong with this:

“Ms Ozanne feared that a time would be coming when Christians were “ridiculed for their faith and pressurised into making it a purely private matter”. She may have been guilty of hyperbole when she used the language of “persecution” but the retreat of Christianity from the public square is certainly increasingly apparent. And perhaps nowhere more so than in the failure of Britain’s church leaders to raise their voces against real, and terrible, persecution of Christians across the globe.”

Christians already are ridiculed for their faith and pressurised into making a a purely private matter. What may be different is that the public expectations of the Church of England and its own response to those expectations may be changing and becoming more hostile. (And as a matter of fact Church leaders do regularly raise their voices about persecution of Christians elsewhere - journalists should know that since they do report it and they should also do their homework to remind themselves; of course there is no media storm about such voice-raisings, which is the problem, really).

As to the future; from where I sit it looks to me like more religion is going to be in public spaces not less. Islam will not cede to the public/private divide that Christians have largely acquiesced in (and let’s remember we have done so partly because it means that people of different opinions can work together more easily…). On the back of that Christins may well find that they are being asked to ‘balance’ Muslim opinion. The European human rights legislation as it affects religious adherance gives a greater necessity for religious matters to be part of the public domain and I suspect that - given the way that it is phrased - it will also enable us to challenge the assumption that somehow ‘secular’ = ‘neutral’.

Why do I think all this: I’ve seen the future made present in British Universities where matters of religion are becoming high profile public matters …

I wonder whether the exhibit at the wax museum is cultural hostility, or whether it is an example of the art of the postmodern culture with which we are grappling. Postmodernism involves the mixing of divergent elements which may appear to clash with each other. True, the sensibilities of some may be offended, but when offence is taken it may be pointed out that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” - and thus the extreme relativism of postmodernism is brought to light.

In the news media, various interviews were conducted, and opinions were expressed to the effect that many viewers did not consider the exhibit to be sacrilegious. It is quite possible that they were sincere in this because they were looking at the art through postmodern eyes. Am I offended by it? I certainly am, but then I am not postmodern even though I have shown an interest in our attempt to do postmodern outreach and theology.

I find it interesting that I was offended years ago during the era of the “rock gospel” portrayals of Jesus’ life, and yet there were those who found these not offensive at all. I was offended at certain attempts to fictitiously portray Jesus as a modern man with modern counterparts to the gospel story. But I wasn’t aware of the shift that is taking place of people’s consciousness - a shift in which I do not participate.

I find it interesting to see which celebrities were chosen to play the three wise men in the exhibit under discussion. The original wise men are supposed to have been astrologers, and if I were to pick modern counterparts I would have chosen scientists - perhaps Newton, Einstein and David Hawkings. But these men are respected. The personalities actually chosen are viewed as wise by some, but not by all. Would the astrologers visiting the land of Israel have been greeted with respect? Is this a way of saying that God’s wisdom is inscrutable?

I do find it amazing in this forum that we do not seem to recognize postmodernity when it hits us in the face. The extreme relativism and lack of truth claims must be acknowledged. But we proceed as if we can know the truth. We can start with the historical Jesus - know for sure what he was like - and proceed from there in linear fashion to construct a theology. It’s as though ideas are presented for evangelicals who haven’t learned the lessons of modernity, let alone postmodernity. Either it is possible to do theology on a postmodern basis, or else we can’t abide it. We need to disover whether or not we can have a postmodern theology, or simply attempt to appeal to postmoderns while retaining our modern foundations.