Distinctly Welcoming

Zizek and the Revolution/Insurrection: recommending suspicion

Some time ago I wrote a piece about "piracy" which caused a bit of a stir and much against my original intentions I want to follow that up. Pete Rollins and Kester Brewin (who inspired the earlier discussion) have been reading a lot of the Slovenian philosopher Zizek's work and, in the absence of any other dissenting voices, I'd like to weigh in with my reasons for being suspicious. I do this hesitantly because a big drawback to the original debate was its exclusivity: there are some powerful and complex ideas swirling around and a language that is quite intimidating. One one level, this is what is urging me to write because there is a danger that one-sided complexity gives the aura of unchallenged authority...So that's by way of excuse/apology.

To give a brief intro to Zizek: first of all, he is wonderfully entertaining and fascinating. An appearance on last week's BBC Culture Show was brilliant and engaging. He's a man immersed in Hegal and Lacan but equally conversant in Star Wars and Kung-Fu Panda. One anecdote which epitomises him is that, growing up in communist Slovenia, his favourite film was The Sound of Music. The excised and edited version of the film that they were permitted to watch omitted the scene where Maria is encouraged to leave the convent by the sisters because she is clearly in love. For communist Slovenia, that demonstrated the life-affirming nature of the Catholic Church: and that was an unacceptable truth. In a post-Berlin wall world, Marx has lost his sheen and totems that reroot the world order and invert the status quo are being searched for. So far, so good. In Zizek's mischievous perversity, Jesus is the answer, Paul a radical revolutionary. If the twentieth century's moral scandal was Auschwitz, this century's symbol of crisis is Guantanemo Bay: the place that admits that the law fails... and thus the language of law, the cross, kenosis comes into play with post-Marxist cultural criticism.

It's all great stuff to engage with: big questions, wonderful shared allusions to the Christian story and faith. It's philosophy wrestling with theology...but it's still philosophy in dominance. What i mean by that is that it is a philosophy devoid of God because in this reading kenosis is not any more special when exhibited by Jesus than when it is demanded of a Western capitalist (this piece by Kester is indicative of the casual relativising of kenosis. This by pete argues that it is the laying down of distinctions that is paramount: so Jesus' distinction from us as Son of God is less important to us than his going to the cross. Thus, any number of self-sacrificing "martyrs" are redemptive for creation!). It's a reading of the Christian faith that writes out the redemptive purposes of the creator. If there is a revolution "out there", an insurrection only made possible when we give up the pretensions of our belief systems, authorities, churches, legal systems...we are actually colluding in armchair practice. It's great philosophy: but it's not the revolution of the people of God.

Here's what Rowan Williams says:

"definition matters, ultimately, so that resistance is possible to the idolatrous claims of total power that may be made from time to time in the world. Definition matters so that the Christian is free to say with conviction that the truth of the world and of humanity is not at the disposal of this or that system of political management."

Rowan's words are very similar to Zizek's. The difference (and this is my challenge to Pete and Kester) is in the very political and spiritual import of our definition: our story and the absolute and unequivocal place of Christ as the decisive point of history that frames our story. This loss of definition merely fuels armchair radicalism and iconoclism.

When in Rome.....

 
  
It's a real treat to be doing my research at a Catholic institution, learning from the huge wealth of theological tradition and spirituality from this sister church. There is so much I admire in the weight of history that has deepened my own desire to draw from resources beyond my own evangelicalism. The latest developments with regard to invites from Rome to Anglicans unhappy with the prospect of women bishops seems very perplexing though. Maggi Dawn gives a useful summary of the situation here. I couldn't help chuckling when i was told by a Catholic woman recently, full of anxiety and exasperation, "The last thing our church needs is a bunch of reactionary misogynists."

The trouble is, I think our churches have gone about this the wrong way round. I was reading some Thomas Merton today and this is what he was saying in the midst of Vatican II reforms in the 1960's: "conservatives and progressives in the Church are so concerned with total victory over each other that they are more and more closed to each other." For Merton, there was a clear sense that when the church lost sight of its love and compassion for the stranger it would lose love and compassion for herself. He goes on to say, "If we cannot see [God] in the stranger and the alien, we will not understand him even in the Church. We must find him in our enemy, or we may lose him even in our friend...How can we reveal to others what we cannot discover in them ourselves?" I think of controversies over Islam, homosexuality, women bishops and wherever we place ourselves in these arguments, I suspect that we will find faultlines in the church at the points where we have been unable to see the grace of God beyond the place we stand in.

On a more positive note of mission and evangelism with grace and humility, Steve Taylor has written a brief reflection on my earlier post of the "Ten Commandments of Mission" published by the Christian-Muslim Forum. For me, these exemplify something of the ability to be confidently oneself in the very process of giving the other genuine space.

Pioneer Ministry - a few years down the line

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the CofE book "Mission-Shaped Church" was published....Well, it was 2004 and peaking into the next decade, it seems worthwhile to take stock and review where mission and church planting is at, particularly for the Church of England. Ben Edson, who has been one of the key leaders of Sanctus 1, a church community sponsored by the Diocese of Manchester, is moving on to new things and is helpfully posting some important reflections on what he has learned. Ben, for me, is a significant voice in connecting inherited church with radical forms of mission and community, and consistently brings critical reflection both ways so these reflections are invaluable. This specific milestone of reflection is mirrored by a number of "Pioneer" initiatives I know around the country, many because of the time-limits on funding. 18 months ago, the first wave of formal Pioneer ministers was ordained. Fresh Expressions, as a hub of resourcing and encouragement, has been collating stories and endorsing new engagements for some years now. Here area  number of questions that seem to me to be worth considering at this important juncture:

1. are Pioneer ministers being appropriately trained for the mission they are encountering and engaging with or are they essentially still being equipped for inherited church ministry with a certain degree of freedom that "traditional" ministers do not have? If it is the latter, how does the church endorse and affirm the pioneering (with a small "p") outside current structures?

2. to what extent has the setting up of a Pioneer stream created a gap between them and mainstream clergy so that the latter are deemed not to have a responsibility for mission?

3. there have been some legitimate critiques of Mission-Shaped Church that have highlighted the emphasis on church rescue as opposed to genuine mission into our unchurched cultures; to what extent is the Pioneer and Fresh Expressions movement focussing on "church" as opposed to kingdom?

4. what commitment is there to long term sustainability of pioneering church plants or is there a simple formula being applied that drops financial support after several years?

5. Mission-shaped Church and Fresh Expressions are releasing great permission to innovation and creativity...some of these things are not necessarily "new" but we have to rejoice in the opening up of boundaries that have often been so prohibitive...But is there a clear sense of the relative gulfs between church and various communities in contemporary culture and respective missional engagements? Or are people content to see anything "new" (cafe church, prayer on the streets etc etc) as sufficient to the demands of contextualisation today?

6. what is the normative profile of the Pioneer minister's context and Fresh Expressions initiative? Is there sufficient attention to the inner cities, other faiths, rural poverty, young adults....or is this another exercise in retrieving the lost middle classes to the church?

7. In the permission for pioneers, what is the inherited church and its leadership learning from them or is there a two-tier ecclesiology being birthed?

8. for Pioneer church plants with a very specific demographic, to what extent are principles of broad church being applied so that relationships are being forged across the spectrum of the Christian family?

I could probably add to these questions, and I betray some of my own agendas with these prods. But i do believe these are important questions to be asked about a process that i see as generally liberative and vital. What do you think?

Pioneer Ministry - a few years down the line

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the CofE book "Mission-Shaped Church" was published....Well, it was 2004 and peaking into the next decade, it seems worthwhile to take stock and review where mission and church planting is at, particularly for the Church of England. Ben Edson, who has been one of the key leaders of Sanctus 1, a church community sponsored by the Diocese of Manchester, is moving on to new things and is helpfully posting some important reflections on what he has learned. Ben, for me, is a significant voice in connecting inherited church with radical forms of mission and community, and consistently brings critical reflection both ways so these reflections are invaluable. This specific milestone of reflection is mirrored by a number of "Pioneer" initiatives I know around the country, many because of the time-limits on funding. 18 months ago, the first wave of formal Pioneer ministers was ordained. Fresh Expressions, as a hub of resourcing and encouragement, has been collating stories and endorsing new engagements for some years now. Here area  number of questions that seem to me to be worth considering at this important juncture:

1. are Pioneer ministers being appropriately trained for the mission they are encountering and engaging with or are they essentially still being equipped for inherited church ministry with a certain degree of freedom that "traditional" ministers do not have? If it is the latter, how does the church endorse and affirm the pioneering (with a small "p") outside current structures?

2. to what extent has the setting up of a Pioneer stream created a gap between them and mainstream clergy so that the latter are deemed not to have a responsibility for mission?

3. there have been some legitimate critiques of Mission-Shaped Church that have highlighted the emphasis on church rescue as opposed to genuine mission into our unchurched cultures; to what extent is the Pioneer and Fresh Expressions movement focussing on "church" as opposed to kingdom?

4. what commitment is there to long term sustainability of pioneering church plants or is there a simple formula being applied that drops financial support after several years?

5. Mission-shaped Church and Fresh Expressions are releasing great permission to innovation and creativity...some of these things are not necessarily "new" but we have to rejoice in the opening up of boundaries that have often been so prohibitive...But is there a clear sense of the relative gulfs between church and various communities in contemporary culture and respective missional engagements? Or are people content to see anything "new" (cafe church, prayer on the streets etc etc) as sufficient to the demands of contextualisation today?

6. what is the normative profile of the Pioneer minister's context and Fresh Expressions initiative? Is there sufficient attention to the inner cities, other faiths, rural poverty, young adults....or is this another exercise in retrieving the lost middle classes to the church?

7. In the permission for pioneers, what is the inherited church and its leadership learning from them or is there a two-tier ecclesiology being birthed?

8. for Pioneer church plants with a very specific demographic, to what extent are principles of broad church being applied so that relationships are being forged across the spectrum of the Christian family?

I could probably add to these questions, and I betray some of my own agendas with these prods. But i do believe these are important questions to be asked about a process that i see as generally liberative and vital. What do you think?

'BNP Has Nothing to Do with Christianity'

I was trying to work out an appropriate image to head this posting and settled on the union jack...and then was troubled! Does it make my blog look jingoistic and right wing?! Oh dear...I've gone along with the image basically to make a point about our confusion and doubts over loyalties to the state and national pride. It's a confusion and doubt for good reason because our (for British readers!) national story is a mixed tale (as I guess everyone's is). As Christians, more particularly, our loyalties should be quite split (well, not even split: our ultimate loyalty is to another country entirely). So, there is the union jack in all its glory/shame. Oh, and if we needed reminding at the moment, the Houses of Parliament, seat of our very human and fallen government. But God uses and works with and in nations and government. Our task as Christians is not withdrawal, not to rubbish all this, though we should hold some critical distance.

I say all this because I think we live in a quite precarious time as regards nationalist tendencies. My own city's church leaders have just written a public condemnation of the British National Party ("BNP"); a statement that can be read here and that I would echo. It's an important marker in the sand; a public statement that demonstrates an involvement and posits a real critical distance. I'm concerned in the area of my interfaith work because the BNP, and other extremist groups, are mobilising religious language, and seeking to jump on a bandwagon of Christian heritage as counter to the "foreign" threat that is Islam. We have a responsibility to present the counter truth; and part of that truth is making clear the "foreign threat" that is the Christian faith, hospitable to all, regardless of race and colour! It's worth drawing attention to Paul's sermon in Athens in Acts 17: Paul acknowledges the God-given diversity of the city and nations and affirms the gospel, with its higher loyalties, within all the cultural mix of an Athens or a Birmingham.

As regards the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, appearing on BBC's Question Time: I hope you'll join me in expressing dismay that a programme dedicated to honourable  and reasonable debate across difference is in danger of providing a veneer of honour and reasonableness to policies that are far from so. So, when we reflect on some of the crises of our age, the lack of "moral compass" and the like, recalling our Christian tradition, let's own what was good, be utterly repentant about what was bad (lest you need reminding...tawdriness of colonialism, sexism, pillage of the earth's resources to name a few things done in the name of British Christianity), and engage the good news of Jesus with the Britain we live in today, in all its richness.

What price labels?

Jonny Baker made a point some weeks ago about his discomfort with church labels: evangelical, liberal, catholic etc. I understand completely where he is coming from. For many Christians now, we are recognising the gift and complexity of our various traditions and drawing lessons and insights across a wide range of spiritualities and theologies that would have been unthinkable even 20 years ago. I talk to liberals urging their churches to get serious about mission and be more passionate about their engagement with scripture. Evangelicals are asking searching questions of textual criticism and reading the Bible with a political lens. Catholics are promoting ecumenism and fostering the charismatic. Does this mean all these labels and descriptions are now history?

"Labelling" already suggests a bias to the question because the problem of any category of identity is its inadequacy. No one wants to be defined in advance; for their life to be reduced and preempted. If you are from an evangelical tradition, you've got the added problem that such a closure assumes ignorance, reactionary attitudes and fundamentalism. Media coverage of "evangelicals", especially under the previous President of the USA seemed to make evangelicalism into a swear word. So is it time to move on? Is Jonny right to stick with "Christian" as the baseline?

I'd want to say yes and no, I think. I'm not sure any of us should be hiding under labels; and there is a great temptation to do so out of fear: to seek the comfort blanket of the group mentality. But there is something about owning what is still a real part of my history. In interfaith circles and Church of England stuff, I get to mix with a broad range of folk. Doing PhD studies at a Jesuit college has given me a turbo-charged experience of the breadth of church tradition, too. My evangelical roots have given me an inescapable love for scripture and an unavoidable appreciation of the personal claims of Jesus. Now you don't have to be evangelical to have these, and my understanding of scripture and the nature of Jesus' claims have changed over the years. But they are part and parcel of my evangelical heritage. I actually find that in ecumenical groups, that heritage is being looked for (yes, Roman Catholics and liberationists to name two examples). Should i disown not just the gift of the other to me, but withhold the gift of myself to the other?

So can evangelicalism be redeemed? I'm not sure; and I'm with Jonny in not being overly concerned by the word itself as a rallying point. But, for the time-being, if someone wants to label me "evangelical"; I'll run with it as part of the richness of the church i'm pleased to contribute towards. Just expect me to confound any preconceptions.

Why Study the Past?

"More tea Archbishop?" (in best Dick Emery voice). I love this photo! It was taken when Archbishop Rowan visited our local church and community project last November. I've been reading his book "Why Study the Past?" and it's a gem. A few things have put me in mind of the recent debate on Christian piracy/orthodox heresy. Here are some quotes that seem pertinent:

"To be clear about the Church's boundaries can become an obsessive concern with knowing exactly who is outside, who can be trusted to reflect orthodoxy as I have learned it. But definition matters, ultimately, so that resistance is possible to the idolatrous claims of total power that may be made from time to time in the world. Definition matters so that the Christian is free to say with conviction that the truth of the world and of humanity is not at the disposal of this or that system of political management.

To worship in words shared with non-Christians is to suggest that worship is an activity WE are somehow in charge of; it happens when and how we decide.... I think that, ultimately, the separation of two elements here, an inner relatedness to Christ and an outer flexibility about words and forms, takes away something vital from the idea that God calls into being a tangible human community, whose common language is the carrier of its common relatedness to Christ's invitation. Move away from this, and the visible reality of the Church becomes something almost optional, in a way that makes more abstract the interdependence of believers on one another - their interdependence precisely as visible, material, historical and language-using subjects."

Should Britain be a Christian Country?

No more blogging about pirates for me! Back to a topic intertwined deeply with my local church context and research studies... Global Connections are organising a day conference entitled "Should Britain be a Christian Country?" The worrying growth of far-right groups, scape-goating the Muslim community in particular, suggests that the church needs to get its head around culture, diversity and values. It is troubling for me that some of the extremist groups that have hit the headlines in recent weeks are using language that i hear all too frequently in church circles,  (I'm getting to the stage that when someone invokes Winston Churchill and Chamberlain as the two choices available to British responses to Islam then major alarm bells are set off!). Global Connections have Dr Philip Lewis and Dr Stuart Murray-Williams speaking on the topic. I can highly recommend them both. Philip is a lecturer at the Peace Studies Centre at Bradford University, adviser on interfaith matters to the Bishop of Bradford and writer of the recently published, "Young, British and Muslim" (a superb analysis of the challenges facing young British Muslims today). Stuart is a great thinker but also committed practitioner of urban mission, coming from the Anabaptist tradition.

Monday October 5th 10.30am-3.30pm, CMS Head Office, Watlington Road, OXFORD OX4 6BZ
Cost: £20 Members and concessions, £30 Non-Members
Please bring your own lunch or purchase at the CMS cafe

If you went some substantial reflections on what it might mean to be faithfully Christian in a multifaith Britain, book now here.

Pirates Part II - Land Ahoy?

Following my last post on Piracy and Heresy, Pete Rollins has posted a substantive response here. It's worth stating before I engage with the counter-critique that the blogworld can very easily alienate people and create more distance between people than there might otherwise be. If Pete, Kester and I lived nearby, I'd certainly appreciate a long friendly chat over malt whisky with mutually searching and enriching questions (you're always welcome to repeat your stay in Birmingham Pete!). So for readers of these blogs, from my point of view, let's try and hold the conversation together rather than default to camps.

I embarked on my critique of some of Kester and Pete's writings with some diffidence because when the "unorthodox", "heretical", "piratical" are espoused as virtues against an errant church, it's exceedingly difficult to avoid disagreeing without being cast in the role of the "orthodox", "established" and "reactionary". Pete senses me wanting to "rein him in" that i feel he has gone "too far". Well, I'm sure he doesn't believe writings such as "the orthodox heretic" brook no discussion or objection, (one of the problems with the motifs proferred by Kester and Pete is in fact that they foreclose any exchange that avoids playing into caricature!). Anyway, I'll try and respond to the main points as I see Pete presenting them:

1. "it seems we are being relegated to that horrible place of domestication" - I'm not convinced that any of us should mind being put in that place so long as we don't domesticate God. Again, setting oneself up as the prophetic/lone/contrary/heretical voice of hope is a dangerous thing to arrogate.
2. "the Law itself is a transgression" - I recognise the "Hegelian move" but refuse it for philosophical and theological reasons. I'll leave the unpacking of that for a late evening and a Macallan, Pete. But I'd want to assert that seeing law (.....moral imperatives, social constraints, law of the land, international justice etc etc) is God-given and necessary and need not negate the structural critique of our complicity in sin that you outline.
3. "Sudworth's apolitical" response - I have to admit I bristled at this! The point i was making was not that the West does not bear some responsibility for the actions of Somali pirates because of unjust trade. My point was to focus attention on the most vulnerable party to the scenario: "the widow and the orphan" in Somalia itself (and knowing folk working in Somalia I do understand that glamorising the Somali pirates and warlords is more than a tad offensive to those widows and orphans). The essence of my objection is a thoroughly political one: that when the grammar of the debate is framed around a dialectic with church, our language loses any coherent moral significance and becomes atomised and individualistic. The sense that ideas are used "magpie-like" is that there is, on the one hand, a philosophical critique of the use of language (of knowledge and belief) coupled with a structural reflection (who holds power? where are we complicit in justice?). The place (the "situatedness" that i'm essentially wanting to uncover) with which you and Kester are asking these questions is not alongside the orphan and the widow. Putting myself in the Christian story, that would seem to be an imperative for assessing the "faithfulness" of God's people (a la Micah). My impression of confusion is because the motif of heretic/pirate/trickster is situated in relation to church ie. "we are the voice that will revitalise church". Those motifs are not situated to stand alongside the poor and the marginalised...the poor and the marginalised are only co-opted as pawns to make a point about "our" marginalisation. It's a line of argument that some might argue is offensive in the light of the massive social capital of the Western (!) emerging church movement. So, i'll critique the structures of global capitalism quite gladly...but I'll not do that in the service of espousing my position in relation to the inherited church.
4.  "again, "when Kester mentions the shift from ‘pirate radio to BBC’ and ‘Napster to Spotify’", this is not a mere individual ‘romance of the new’ as Sudworth claims, but a properly philosophical insight that pirate radio and Napster, in different ways, did not merely transgress the law but showed how the legal system itself was exploitive." I think you make your point well Pete and I concede that my critique that Kester "romances the new" in his argument does not correspond to what he is saying. Kester: apologies that I made that point without sufficient foundation.
5. I can't apologise for stating that i believe that "there is a coherent moral vision to be applied, inescapably, and we practice that moral vision in community and in our tradition’. I know it can sound ever so reactionary (does this make me a heretic in the emerging church movement now? if so, am i perhaps a voice from the margins challenging the decadent mainstream?). It intrigues me that as I talk to Christians from a liberal tradition, so many are wanting to recover a more tradition-centred, communitarian and moral-ethical vision. For so many academic liberal theologians as well as those in pastoral ministry, the "religionless Christianity" that was popularised in the 1960's by John Robinson is just redundant, vacuous and didn't work. Particularly for the sake of the widow and orphan, it means nothing. So the work of MacIntyre and the like is not part of a wave of conservative evangelicals getting all doctrinaire on us. As someone working in a poor borough of the inner city, in a multicultural church, involved in dialogue and community action with Muslims, (and as a dad trying to bring children up!): if my discourse cannot talk about good and evil, right and wrong, belief and unbelief... i will actually not be listened to and have (in their view) nothing to offer.

So, my persistent question remains, "where" is the unorthodox heretic/pirate located? It still seems to be located contra church. I wonder whether there is a sectarian DNA that betrays the evangelical-charismatic roots of the "project" that is genuinely helpful for evangelicals bruised by ecclesial certainties and authoritarianism (evangelicals coming late in the day to an exhausted and fruitless line of argument long since vacated by liberal sections of the church?). Many other people, and certainly the poor and the marginalised of this world, are looking for something rather more substantial from the church.

The Betrayal of Betrayal (or why being faithful honours the tradition)

I've been reading Kester Brewin's pieces on "piracy" as a motif of Christian innovation and faithfulness. I feel compelled to write my own little critique of some ideas and approaches that are gaining considerable currency amongst many of us concerned to see the church engaging in creative mission. Kester explores the image of the "pirate" as a fruitful archetype of someone who bucks the system, kicks against empire, and releases "goods for all". His argument is that the church is in a block (as Judaism was blocked prior to the coming of Christ; which raises questions in itself) and needs "spiritual" pirates who undermine the exclusive and dominating character of church. These spiritual pirates are the "new heretics", in the pattern of Christ, (the archetypal heretic?), for which the emerging church is an example of. It's not clear what the emerging church's particular heresies are, but St.Paul's stuffy purity is contrasted with the bawdy self-aggrandisement of pirates with relish.

Kester is a very eloquent and stimulating writer, offering a huge amount of creativity to the contemporary church scene but I do want to take issue or at the very least push for some more considered theological reflection. The espousal of "heresy" as a motif reminds me of Pete Rollins' work, also, in particular his books "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" and "The Orthodox Heretic" which explore similar themes. Again, Pete is a very engaging and creative voice but raises issues for me that we ignore at our peril.

I'll attempt to throw out some points and questions perhaps to begin a conversation that touches on complex philosophical grounds. What I sense in Kester's piece on piracy, and indeed in Pete Rollins' publications, is a de-centred viewpoint. Both are keen to articulate a place from the periphery that is "unorthodox", "heretical" or "piratical", in their terms. I'm reminded of Alasdair MacIntyre's assessment of contemporary society which has lost any sense of objective morality or authority; one that is working with the "fragments" of moral traditions. The arguments are pieced together, magpie-like, from sociology, philosophy, contemporary culture, with the occasional leitmotif of scripture (I won't even begin a critique of the cod-populist vision of Jesus the de-bunker of Jewish tradition, the anti-authoritarian on a mission that is all about correcting the wrong road of Judaism that Kester offers!). But this de-centred moral perspective forgets the one essential lesson of postmodernity: that all our standpoints are situated; there is no "view from nowhere".

What I feel I am left with if I'm to take seriously "the fidelity of betrayal" and a "plea for Christian piracy", is a moral vision centred on the individual and thus a "theology" that is yet another rotten fruit of modernity, (there are times when I wonder whether I should read this material acknowledging a wink and tongue-in-cheek at the hyperbole, but the gravitas afforded published books, my experience of their persuasiveness amongst Christians and the earnest hopes of the project (?) suggest I should be treating them seriously!). Kester and Pete are in danger of articulating something that is always and intrinsically "over and against" (the "empire" of the church). So where is it? Kester poses the question "what should we think of the Somali pirates", suggesting the global geopolitics of western oppression might give an alternative vision of who the real baddies are. Well, if you ask a poor Somali woman whose children have been killed by the Somali warlords growing rich on the piracy (for that is yet another side of the story), the answer would be a no-brainer. The point is that there is a coherent moral vision to be applied, inescapably, and we practice that moral vision in community and in our tradition. What i would describe as "an ecclesiology of iconoclism" is in fact licence for the individualism and self-referencing that i know Pete and Kester would otherwise disdain. The example of the shift from "pirate radio to BBC" and "Napster to Spotify" betray more than a whiff of the romance of the new, the trendy and the latest: a vision of consumerist heaven confirming my suspicions?

The perennial appeal of the "over-against" vision of Christian life plays into a necessary sectarianism, too. It is only in the obscure and the local that God's vision is played out, it seems. So we clearly should step aware from the public square of political engagement, international ecology and partnership with other groups because "establishment" is the real enemy!

Who in our churches are the outsiders, indeed? A question that brings to the fore the need to own our situated viewpoints. If you are a faithful old lady, comforted by Prayer Book communion in a rural parish church that no longer has any paid pastoral support from the diocese: you're entitled to feel on the margins. If you are a black Pentecostal in an inner city treated as an ignorant, rabid fundamentalist by the white, church establishment and the media you would justifiably feel on the margins. And if you're involved in a pioneering home group of Christians bringing creative, multimedia savvy worship in a non-heirarchical team leadership you might rightly feel that you're on the margins. Each of these would also have good reasons to be challenged about their self-perception. And that self-perception can be challenged when we own our part in the wider church body, hearing each other and being responsible to our tradition.

Being faithful is not about betraying, being unorthodox  or romanticising ourselves as latter-day pirates, Robin Hoods, Al Capones or whoever. What story are we a part of? If we own the Christian story, we have a responsibility to bless and be blessed by the whole church; to challenge and be challenged by the whole church. There is truth and there is authority; we just don't have the complete take on what that truth and authority is. My discomfort with Kester and Pete is in the illusion that their denial of truth and authority disguises the inevitably alternative truth and authority they project. Truth and authority that comes from I know not where.