Another Church is Necessary! (or: Manifesto of a Disenchanted Christian)

  People are always asking what’s wrong with the Church. Why do so many young people leave? Why is it that (in the West), so few people seem to be interested in it any more? Why does the rest of the world see it as irrelevant, if not wrong? Although it isn't the whole story, I feel that part of the problem is that we who try to proclaim Jesus' message fail so utterly to follow in his footsteps ourselves. To me, congregations and worship services seem to be more hype than substance, and so leave people feeling empty. People are told they are going to have an exciting life following the revolutionary Jesus, but all that ends up meaning in practice is raising a few pounds for some people you never get to see or, if you're lucky, giving out food on a breadline once a month. Surely the gospel Jesus died for must mean more than this? It seems so lukewarm in the face of the grinding poverty, the relentless wars being waged all around us. Even worse, some churches deny that people should follow Jesus in practise at all - insisting that God is only interested in what goes on in the pulpit (public 'worship', and preaching), and in the bedroom (sex and prayer life) - the two places where those outside of the congregation are least likely to visit! All this, when the scriptures clearly state that the most important kind of worship is standing up for and with oppressed people, and caring for them. A life of loving God, man and creation should surely seem more fulfilling, more alive than the standard 'Christian life' currently does. At the end of the day, living as a Christian seems to often end up meaning living like everyone else when it comes to public life - where you work, where you live, and what you do politically. The 'church' promises spiritual riches, but really at the end of the day feels spiritually poor (to me, and probably a lot of the people who leave it).

  What Revelation says about spiritual poverty is this: 'To the angel of the Church of Laodicea write: "These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God's creation: I know what you are doing; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were either cold or hot! Because you are neither one nor the other, but just lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'How rich I am! What a fortune I have made! I have everything I want.' In fact, though you do not realise it you are a pitiful wretch, poor, blind, and naked. I advise you to buy gold refined in the fire to make you truly rich, and white robes to put on to hide the shame of your nakedness, and ointment for your eyes so that you may see..."

  Too many times I have heard during prayers 'Thankyou Lord for blessing us with wealth, with plenty to eat and drink, and with a government that does not persecute us'. Just like the church in Laodicea. In reality, our wealth and abundance comes from the exploitation of the poor by big companies, by The Market, and by our government. Just as Laodicea's wealth came from the Roman Empire who exploited the poor in much the same way. The way to end spiritual poverty is surely not the way the world tries to make itself happy - with bigger buildings, more awe-inspiring lights and media equipment, and hip advertising slogans. No, Jesus told us that spiritual wealth - 'treasures in heaven' - are found by rejecting all that: 'Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide for yourselves purses that do not wear out and never-failing treasure in heaven, where no thief can get near it, no moth destroy it. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also' (Luke 12). Is it any wonder that, when our money is in banks and buildings, that our spirits are dull as bank-vaults, and our hearts as cold as stone buildings?

  Our buildings have vaulted ceilings and impressive modern music. Yet, if people like vaulted ceilings, there are better ones in the houses of parliament. If they like modern music and hype, there is better music (sorry, it's true!) in the clubs and stadiums. If ‘christians’ want to invite people into the kingdom of God, then they need to show an alternative to this. At the moment, we just seem to be offering an imitation, and a bad imitation, of the world when thousands are yearning for something different. Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers, but the 'church' these days has sat down and joined them, by investing their money in banks and shares. (The Church of England has decided that it is actually illegal for them to have an ethical investment policy!). Jesus refused to bear the sword, and disarmed Peter, yet the 'church' today stands silent as it's children march off to war. Or even worse, blesses the weapons that kill the poor and helpless! Jesus must surely regret saying 'Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me'. In the last two thousand years, 'christians' have cut, burned, pillaged, raped, bombed and shot Jesus, have crucified him a thousand timed as he cries 'My Church, My Church, why have you forsaken me?'.

This reminds me of a story about St Thomas Aquinas:
'The story is told of an occasion where St. Thomas Aquinas was walking with a prelate through one of the grand cathedrals of his day. Referring to a coffer filled with precious coins, the prelate remarked, "Behold, Master Thomas, the church can no longer say, as St. Peter, 'Silver and gold have I none!'" St. Thomas was apparently quick with his retort, "Alas, neither can we say what follows, 'In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk.’

  If Christians want to see people coming to know God through them, they must first repent (turn their lives around), and believe the gospel of Jesus, rather than the gospel of Caesar (this is probably on of the things the opening lines of the book of Mark refer to - ‘gospel’ was an announcement made on behalf of the emperor - Caesar in Jesus’ time). They must come out of the empire and culture that has co-opted them. Here’s a few of my suggestions:
- Living Jesus' call to love enemies, by not joining the army (and finding alternative careers for those who usually would), and opposing taxes that go to war and nuclear weapons
- Participating in and supporting non-violent resistance to oppression, and active peacemaking
- Committing to live simply, and to feed the poor at personal sacrifice. That means selling off our over-sized buildings with their astronomical heating bills. (And if church leaders aren't seen knee-deep in skips looking for building materials and food, it shouldn't be called living simply!) :-)
- Confessing the role of the ‘church’ in spreading hate and violence, and making amends (i.e. giving some of the funds from selling our buildings to the local mosque, and to people who've suffered abuse)
- Instead of creating hierarchies that mirror the hierarchies of this world, creating structures whereby church groups are organised and learn from the bottom up
- Listening to the voices of those on the margins (who may not be Christian) who are trying to do these things already - think liberation theology in South America, the Catholic worker movement, anarchists in Bristol, the Zapatistas in Mexico, etc
- Asking difficult questions about how our spirituality mirrors the spirituality of consumerism, and re-discovering beautiful traditions that christians have lived by now and in the past (monastic contemplation/meditation/prayer, celtic spirituality/mission)
- Creating ways of life contrary to the environmental destruction, globalised economy and individualism in our world today, for instance in the form of intentional community, urban farming, social centers/squats, and cooperative industries (i.e. workers owning the means of production).
- Visibly and clearly denouncing the powers-that-be, including militarism, state-control, capitalism, racism, homophobia, sexism, the arms trade, national borders, and obedience to unjust laws. (and also possibly 'civilisation'/'progress' - still need to do some thinking on that)
- Supporting and showing solidarity with those fighting these struggles (i.e. visiting prisoners), whether or not we agree completely with everything they do.
- Teaching non-violent means of resisting oppression inspired by Jesus, to those who want to learn.

There does need to be a warning attached to these suggestions: there is a tendency in 'christian' circles to call a stone a mountain - for instance, changing a lightbulb is 'ending global warming', and going on one protest march makes you 'an experienced activist'. It is really important to affirm people's small steps (each of which is a grand spiritual battle), but doing it this way is actually disempowering, and doesn't help to make strong committed followers of Jesus. (He didn't seem to be into making things seem easier than they were - 'whoever puts his hand to the plough and looks back is not fit to be my disciple')

  I’m sorry if anyone reading this feels judged or hurt by what I feel about the western church. I’m not trying to say I’m better than anyone else, I’m just trying to be sincere about how I think things really are. I’m worried that by writing this down, people will read it and feel disempowered: if they see ideals they want to live up to, but can’t. Changing the way you live comes from the grace of God, and the help of a loving community, not just personal striving - so don’t be disheartened if you feel you can’t do this alone. None of us can. Equally, I offer my apologies to anyone for whom this critique is not radical enough. It is woefully incomplete. The church and the world are very messed up, and I’m only just beginning to learn by how much.

 Needless to say, what’s written here is just an attempt to gather my thoughts and feelings, with the hope of starting discussion - I’m not certain of any of it. Comments and criticism will be gladly received!

Much love,
Tim

P.S - I’d like to draw your attention to a few articles about property and the Church - very much worth reading, and they’ve personally inspired me a lot:
http://www.jesusradicals.com/early-christian-ecclesiology-and-the-property-question-part-1/
http://www.jesusradicals.com/early-christian-ecclesiology-and-%E2%80%9Cthe-property-question%E2%80%9D-part-2/
http://www.jesusradicals.com/early-christian-ecclesiology-and-the-property-question-part-3/

Emma Goldman’s Challenge to Christianity

‘I believe... that Christianity is most admirably adapted to the training of slaves, to the perpetuation of a slave society; in short, to the very conditions confronting us to-day. Indeed, never could society have degenerated to its present appalling stage, if not for the assistance of Christianity. The rulers of the earth have realized long ago what potent poison inheres in the Christian religion. That is the reason they foster it; that is why they leave nothing undone to instil it into the blood of the people. They know only too well that the subtleness of the Christian teachings is a more powerful protection against rebellion and discontent than the club or the gun’ - Emma Goldman

 Emma Goldman, an Eastern European migrant to the USA and fierce critic of patriarchy and the state offers Christian anarchists an important pause for thought in her challenge to their religion.

 Although for centuries Christians have worked hand-in-hand with oppressors - this often brushed off as “Christianity after it became the official religion of the roman empire” (Constantinian Christianity), and so nothing to do with us. Arguments about the metaphysical beliefs of Christians - in God, or in miracles for instance - seem to miss the point of what Christianity is really about. So we stay comfortably distant from the usual Atheism vs Christianity debates.

 Yet the arguments against Christianity expressed by Emma Goldman in her essay ‘The Failure of Christianity’ take their ammunition neither from the actions of the modern church, nor from the niceties of Christian theology. Rather, she critiques the very teachings of Jesus himself, believing that just as oppressive governments cannot be reformed into benefactors of the people, oppressive religion cannot be reformed into something free and life-giving. Her criticisms are shocking, and we need to attend to them - stopping every now and again to question our beliefs and the way we live them is crucial to direct our future actions.

 Emma Goldman spent her life organising, speaking and writing for the poor and the oppressed, and against power and militarism. She was sent to jail multiple times; first for ‘inciting a riot’ - by publicly telling unemployed workers “Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, take bread” - later for distributing birth control literature and finally for persuading people to resist the draft during the first world war, before she was deported from the US. She is widely considered to be one of the founders of anarcha-feminism, and in her writings both her love of individual freedom and her anger at economic injustice and violent authority are evident throughout.This is the basis of her dislike of Jesus’ teachings - she argues that they lead to the acceptance of injustice and to the denial of the good and the beautiful in people.

 Jesus’ blessing of the meek, and his command to ‘resist not the evildoer’, she claims, have been part of the reason that people have accepted slavery and terrible conditions - because they believed that meekness was a virtue, and that they must not resist or stand up for themselves. God would give them rest and reward in heaven anyway. Jesus’ blessing of the poor in spirit is taken to be praising of weakness, of un-creativity. How can this possibly create justice and equality, she asks? Isn't poverty the very thing we are trying to end? "What is [the sermon on the mount] but a eulogy on submission to fate, to the inevitability of things?"

She believed Jesus promise of reward in heaven for the poor, such as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, make the poor accept oppression, and may even make the oppressors worse too. She also criticised apparent concessions in Jesus' teaching. For instance, although he said ‘Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled’, how could this ever happen when ‘the poor shall always be with you’? The worst of these is ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's’ - she says "this single compromise was sufficient to prove, down to this very day, a most ruthless weapon in the hands of the oppressor, a fearful lash and relentless tax-gatherer, to the impoverishment, the enslavement, and degradation of the very people for whom Christ is supposed to have died".

 It is tempting to simply argue with her interpretation of scripture - of course, one can say, 'resist not the evildoer' should be translated as 'do not resist the evildoer with violence'. One can say ‘once you give God what’s God’s, there is not much left for Caesar’. However, it is impossible to deny that, for centuries, Emma Goldman's understanding is what Christ's teachings have meant to the poor and the oppressed, and what has been preached to them. Even among 'radical' Christians, there is a tendency to romanticise poverty. If we dwell too much on meekness, then I believe that we will change nothing, and only serve to propagate the things we are fighting against.

 The way Jesus' teachings are understood by most people will not be determined by scholars, or by what we say between ourselves in reading groups and discussions, but by how we interpret them with our lives. If the Church, which is the body of Christ, stands meek and bumbling against evil, compromising with state power at every turn, then that is what the world will think Jesus was about. If however, like Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego[1], the Church refuses to back down against oppressors and injustice, if it refuses to bow before the idol of political conformity, then perhaps the world will see a Jesus they haven't seen before.

 Emma Goldman's criticism, should be seen as a call to Christian radicals to love more fiercely, to stand firm in their convictions, and not compromise with the powers that be. To name and fight the capitalism, sexism and militarism that we see in our world, and even in our churches, with all the force we can muster.

[1] Three people in the Hebrew Scriptures who were thrown into a furnace for refusing to bow to the king of Babylon

[note - this article was originally published in 'A Pinch of Salt', a zine looking at the connections between Christianity and Anarchism]

"Love Your Enemies" - Jesus Said What?

"Jesus didn't say to love your enemies", said young Catholic I met at the army showroom in Dalston, "he only said to love your neighbour, didn't he?". That was his response, after I quoted Matthew 5:44 as the reason for my reservations about joining the army. But the teachings of Jesus aren't the only thing new recruits are ill-informed about. A recent independent report found that career information provided to potential recruits and their parents is "selective and often misleading", and that recruitment literature obscures, or even neglects to mention "...[the] ethical issues involved with killing, risks to physical and mental health, the legal obligations of enlistment, the state's legal and moral obligations to its armed force personnel and the right to conscientious objection". Given that the army targets teenagers, especially those who have done badly at school, I have no doubt that these practises are deceitful and wrong.


Of course, you may be wondering why I was at an army showroom in the first place. This summer, I'm spending a month with the 'London Catholic Worker', a group committed to non-violent resistance, to living in community, and to doing the 'works of mercy' (i.e. feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc - see Matthew 25) - as well as being committed to pacifism. Though I abhor the fact that it sounds so much like 'being passive (rather than actively risking even your life for peace), I am a pacifist. I believe that the command to 'love your enemy' cannot be obeyed without rejecting war, and all other forms of violent homicide. I also believe that, using non-violence, as taught by Jesus, we can not only resist evil, but overcome it forever (see Romans 12).

It hurts every time I meet another kind, honest young person thinking of joining up, to be taught how to kill. Their youth and vigour could do so much to heal the broken world in which we live, but instead they will be sent to a foreign country, to fight in another unjust war, from which they may come back limbless, even lifeless. So, I joined the Catholic Workers vigil-ing in Dalston - to oppose the recruitment of teenagers to the army, to oppose the wars this country is currently fighting, and to bear witness to the fact that another world is possible. A world where no-one's children are sent to fight and die in other countries, and where "Nation will not take up sword against nation, they will never again be trained for war" (Micah 4:3). This is a world we could have, if only we had the courage to seek it.



Websites worth checking out:
Forces Watch
Informed choice? Armed forces recruitment practises in the UK
London Catholic Worker
Article on Indymedia

More poems

Coercion - flight or flight, takes our freedom
the oppressor screams, the one recourse - submit or be submerged!
Care-filled creativity, in my heart the spirit kindles
third way thrown open before my eyes.
Why wait for liberation when in Christ's cross I am free -
     here, now

-------

Why should I not want to follow Christ,
   my joy
what could I possess that would not diminish it?

-------

Vivid memory becomes a dream,
where once walked I
a dream also

How are you voting on FRIDAY?

We vote every day, though we often do not realise it. Whenever we buy food or watch a film, we are supporting the people who made and sold it. Whenever I talk to people about the effects of their lifestyle and mention changing it, I always get the same responses: 'it won't make any difference' or 'one action won't change anything'. Yet, if I mention not voting, people get really cross: 'why aren't you taking responsibility?', and 'people fought and died for this right!'. I'd like to suggest that this attitude is a little hypocritical, and outline a few other means of achieving social change that, if we care about changing the world we live in, we should also participate in (although of course, this is by no means an exhaustive list!).

First, there's the boycott. Boycotting a shop, company, or even a country is arguably more effective at changing them than the way you vote, as you don't need a majority. For instance, if a company looks set to loose even 10% of its customers because they are unhappy with the way it is acting, that company will likely sort out its ethics pretty quickly! For instance the Stop the Traffik campaign, supported by people refusing to buy chocolate produced unfairly, has convinced big companies (including nestlé and cadbury), to start making some of their products Fair Trade. Just not buying stuff can make a difference!

Next, there's non-violent direct action. Although politicians may make beautiful promises, your vote means nothing if you don't hold them to account after polling day. There's a lot of people who are cynical about the more extreme forms of this, or even who consider it not worth protesting at all. However, consider this: 50% of the people reading this only have the vote at all because of people who were willing to demonstrate, to chain themselves to things, or even jump in front of horses! Non-violent action not only shows the state that people feel strongly about what they are demonstrating for, but raises consciousness among the people who see and hear it (prompting them to consider whether they themselves should be taking action). It's also a massive encouragement to the other members of a movement to see their brothers and sisters taking a stand against injustice! Come to think of it, some of the things we most value about our western democracies (such as votes for women, no racial discrimination), came about not because of political debates or 'X's on polling cards, but because people took to the streets!

Finally, there's the old idea of 'being the change we want to see in the world'. This can be really satisfying because, even if you don't effect the world as a whole, the few individuals you do help may have their lives changed considerably. A society is just the sum of it's parts - and we are the parts. Therefore, when our leaders are not working for justice, or are not doing it quickly enough, it's time for us to step in. This can be as simple as being loving in everything we do (after all, our problems come from hate - from un-love - in the first place). However, it can be much bigger than this. For instance, there are groups in the US that agree to support each other's health bills, and hence short-circuit expensive insurance companies, and beat the state to providing health care. One of the most beautiful examples though, comes from the 1930s and Gandhi's resistance of the british empire in India, where Indians were not allowed to make salt - Gandhi and his followers simply marched to the sea, and did precisely what the law forbade [1]. "It was illegal for Indians to make their own salt yet they were taxed heavily on the salt they brought from the state. The result was more hardship for the poorest to the benefit of the wealthy [...] Perhaps Gandhi was advised by friends on how to tackle this injustice. 'Go to Delhi and dump a sack of rice outside Lord Irwin's house', 'Find a way to put salt into his water supply', 'send bags of salt to London with a petition for tax relief'. But Gandhi did none of these things nor in any way petitioned the government or even protested the injustice. He could see that in this case the power for change lay in the hands of the people through making their own salt, thus rendering the state law impotent [...] Power isn't scared of megaphones and placards; he's scared we may turn our backs on him altogether."

During the last few weeks, I've spent many hours talking, reading and thinking about the current election. However, if I fail have even that dedication afterwards in seeking justice, am I any less apathetic than those who are insulted for not voting at all? Perhaps it is apt to finish with a quote (also paraphrased from Keith Hebden) "Fascists and racists gain power not because of what we do on election day, but because of what we fail to do on every other day". Whatever you do on election day, please remember: politics is so much more than a tick in a box.

[1] This is a (rough) quote from an article by Keith Hebden in the (free) magazine 'A pinch of salt', that looks at Christianity and Anarchism

Poems...

Here's one which I think is kinda cool:
Writing:
   I come to sit at my page,
   my pen, an olive branch

   As I pour myself out,
   letter by letter

   The paper a mirror,
   I am reconciled, to me.

I really like this one as well, which I found scrawled on a peice of paper, and have now rescued :-)
Smile:
   Eyes doth glint and gleam,
     as stars
   That smile, that bright beam,
     outshines the sun
   Intense, overwhelming as a wave,
     that hits me back,
     yet draws me in
   Like a fire, so hot my cheeks burn red,
     my whole being shall be engulfed,
     yet my very soul strong force pulls in,
     helpless, amid the blazing heat

Why Christians Should Think About Anarchy

It is time we began to consider anarchy seriously. Our vocation is to love the people of this world, to stand in defiance of injustice, suffering and oppression. The thing is, much of the injustice in the world, today and in the past, has been sanctioned, if not propagated by, one state or another. Should we not, therefore, at least consider whether there is something wrong with statehood itself?

The bible-writers did. Kind David was more commited & intimate in his relationship with God than I and many I know, yet he was so corrupted by power as to break almost all of the commandments during his reign as king. A little before King David's time, the Hebrew tribes didn't have a king at all, or any real kind of state. And this is how God intended for them to be. When they asked for a king, the prophet Samuel told them that a king would 'lord it over them' and unjustly take their possesions. When in the end the decide to 'become like other nations' (the opposite of their vocation), God says 'It is not you but me they have rejected'. Does this this mean executive power of an individual is a form of idolatry? Like I said, we've a right to ask...