Great deals on titles in the field of aesthetics, let alone theological aesthetics, don’t come along often (unless I’m looking in all the wrong places!). So I’m very pleased to mention that the Canterbury Press sale is currently offering great deals on the three titles above:

Stephen Pattison’s Gifford Lectures, Seeing Things: Deepening Relations with Visual Artefacts, £6.00

George Pattison’s, Crucifixions and Resurrections of the Image: Reflections on Art and Modernity, £11.00

and the real corker of a deal is Gesa Elsbeth Thiessen’s, Theological Aesthetics: A Reader, £4.00

ITIA is a great place, with lots of very creative works emerging from it. A couple of years ago, to complement my own research at LST, I completed the ‘Theology, Art and Politics’ module from their distance learning MLitt. Spending time up there for the residential gave me the valuable experience of spending time with peers on the course, and with Trevor Hart, Gavin Hopps and David Brown. I’m juggling non-residential research, employment in a small office and many hours of commuting time, so connecting over the internet with others interested in this area is much appreciated. Check it out and enjoy!

I had the pleasure of talking with Prof. Brown at the recent SST conference in Manchester. He is a very charming man who was kind enough not only to listen generously to my ramblings about art and aesthetics, and encourage me in my work, but also to buy me a drink. He also happens to be very accomplished in his field and has published a five-volume series of works with OUP which will be the focus of the conference:

The ‘fundamental thesis’ underlying all five volumes is that ‘both natural and revealed theology are in crisis, and that the only way out is to give proper attention to the cultural embeddedness of both.’ Responding to the richness of the Christian tradition and undeniable presence of ‘divine generosity’ within more recent art and culture, Professor Brown explores various artistic contributions both within the Christian tradition and outside the Church.

Together, these five volumes offer a prescient account of divine revelation and an experience of God through culture and the arts. This conference will delve into the cumulative significance of Brown’s thesis as developed in these five volumes for a wider and richer theological conversation.

For this conference, each participant has been selected due to their expertise in the themes of the book to which they have been asked to respond and their interest in Brown’s fundamental thesis— ‘the fate of natural and revealed theology.’ Participants represent various Christian confessions, from diverse disciplines, and from across the theological spectrum. The conference will involve chaired sessions of two speakers per text with a summary response from Professor Brown to conclude the event.

There’s an impressive line-up of speakers for what looks like another great conference for theology and the arts this year: Margaret R. Miles, William J. Abraham, Richard Bauckham, Tina Beattie, Gordon Graham, Charles Taliaferro, Graham Ward, Jeremy Begbie, Gavin Hopps, Clive Marsh, Ben Quash and Trevor Hart will all take to the lectern in addition to David Brown.

You can go to the booking pages via St. Andrews School of Divinity site, or here. Unfortunately there’s no student discount, or part-time wage discount.

The call for short papers is now open. Hopefully see you there.

The second post is more suggestive. The official website says it uses data from TheyWorkForYou.com and The Christian Institute. The former covers many more voting issues than the latter. However, the Blog states that,

We make our assessments on the basis of past voting records on conscience issues, public statements and email responses

This statement is hyperlinked solely to The Christian Institute data, and TheyWorkForYou.com is not mentioned or linked to anywhere in this explanatory post. This could be an oversight, or it could be the clearest indication of what votes are being fed into the voting advisor. The official WD Blog is closed to comments unless you’re a member. I tried becoming one but I still couldn’t comment so I can’t seek clarification on this point.

Either way, I still can’t find any attempt, let alone a theological one, to define what constitutes acting according to ‘Christian conscience’. This is a crucial definition for the whole campaign, yet it appears to be simply assumed that people know, and agree on, what it means. An MP may feel that in no instance have they voted in such a way that would potentially require a Christian to to act against a ‘Christian conscience’, and yet they could be poorly graded by WD HQ.  Consequently, I still can’t in all Christian conscience sign this declaration.

Simply put, I don’t think the declaration is a very Christian piece of writing, either in it’s content or in how the website links from it to a non-transparently rigged up voting advisory system (more on that later). Firstly, I have no doubt that the acts of ‘Christian conscience’ the key signatories wish the state to ‘protect’ and ‘uphold’ are not extreme acts. However, the declaration lacks any definition on this point and so is too vague to be of any practical use (see for example some of the scenarios raised in the Ekklesia article).

Secondly, this vagueness is open to misinterpretation and, in my view, almost invites it. Thus it works against the mission of the Church. To the watching world I fear it further reinforces an image of the Church as self-interested, moralistic and wedded to a Christendom conception of church-state relations. I think it may also suggest that in the formation of public policy the church hasn’t got the intellectual wherewithal to think robustly, despite what is the case in certain quarters. Sadly, articles in the Times and Guardian (and the online comments following) all demonstrate that this is exactly the message people are hearing, even if it is not one the key signatories intended to put across. Ekklesia, in their detailed critique, put it another way: “The Declaration risks triggering public resentment against the churches if these are seen as demanding special privileges, and polarising opinion over a certain set of policies mainly focused on control over people’s bodies.”

Thirdly, I share many of the ‘conscience’ and ‘expression’ concerns the Westminster Declaration seeks to address, such as freedom to wear a cross at work or for a nurse to offer to pray for a patient. However, there is genuine debate amongst Christians as to what constitutes a ‘Christian’ act of conscience and/or expression. For example, it is perfectly possible to argue that given Jesus’ practice of sharing table fellowship (of all things!) with sinners it would in fact be a rather un-Christ-like thing to deny lodgings to a homosexual when running a home-based B&B. The level of relational intimacy implied in the latter hardly touches that of the former. So I find the Declaration, in light of the legal cases provoking its drafting, presenting itself as not being biblical enough in its reasoning.

Fourthly, the Declaration website is not simply presenting a declaration for us to sign, and a pledge for party political candidates to agree to. It is actually offering tactical voting advice based on who is likely to be most supportive of the following pledge:

We call upon all those in UK positions of leadership, responsibility and influence to pledge to respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold these beliefs and to act according to Christian conscience

Candidates have been graded according to seven categories:

1. Has made the pledge
2. Past record suggests supportive
3. Will not make the pledge
4. Past record suggests unsupportive
5. Position unclear or unknown
6. Preferred candidate in best position to win
7. Tactical option in best position to win

We’ve already seen the problems with what the pledge promises regarding acts of ‘Christian conscience’. Now, on top of this, we are being asked to vote based on the recommendations of their mysterious in-house search engine. We’re told that candidates are judged ‘sympathetic’ or not and categorized according to their past voting record, public statements and email responses (presumably sent to the WD team) written by ‘other candidates’. There are several problems here:

1. One candidate could write to WD against their opponent and that ‘data’ would be fed into their vote advisor.
2. Even if a candidate has signed the pledge but it is deemed ‘strongly at variance with a candidate’s past voting record or public statements it may be disregarded.’ Under this system a one-term MP who has not previously voted according to the WD checklist, but makes the pledge, is ranked below a candidate with no voting record who also makes the pledge. Thus the system inherently favours the untested candidate. It also presumes, rather than proves, deceit on the part of some pledge-makers.
3. It’s not even clear what the WD checklist is. We’re told candidates’ past voting data comes from two other websites, and links are provided. But we’re not told which votes are considered relevant to the WD scoring system and which are not, so we have no idea what the WD grading system actually represents. Are their votes included on going to war in Iraq, slowing climate change, the smoking ban, anti-terrorism laws, or any other of the host of issues Parliament addresses? One suspects not, but we are at best guessing as to what the WD categorization actually means.

The shadiness of this system can lead to bizarre results. For example, in my former constituency of Sutton & Cheam the current MP is a committed Christian and Liberal Democrat. He has not made the pledge and has been categorized ,‘Past record suggest unsupportive’. The Conservative candidate is also a committed Christian and has also not made the pledge. Yet she has been categorised , ‘Preferred candidate in best position to win.’ No explanation is available as to precisely how WD HQ have reached this decision. By contrast, there is a legitimate, if somewhat teasing, question about who a vote for Philippa Stroud is really for, yet one suspects it unlikely that this has been fed into the WD super computer.

In conclusion, I can’t in all ‘Christian conscience’ sign the Westminster 2010 Declaration. It just isn’t Christian enough for me. Its content lacks substance and its voting advisor won’t aid the average viewer in forming a Christian mind on political matters. Rather, it stifles reflective Christian engagement in politics through its lack of transparency. That is the sad irony of it all.

There’s a great line up of keynote speakers, including Richard Bauckham, David Brown, Eamon Duffy, Anne-Marie Korte, Andrew Lovett and Jacqueline Osherow.

I plan to go. See you there!

Imagine my surprise, then, when upon following this incoming link I learn that my blog has been listed as one of the Top 50 Philosophy Blogs! Barely even crawling, in blogging terms, I am naturally astounded to have risen to such stratospheric heights. The list claims to represent ‘the top 50 philosophy blogs on the web today.’ I rifled back through my voluminous output of 7 posts to see what I had written that might be worthy of the particular praise, ‘fascinating insight’. Modesty prevents me suggesting more than one post but I think the way I hyperlinked to the BBC story was executed particularly beautifully.

Whatever the reason for such recognition, it comes courtesy of the ‘WebPreneur’. The WebPreneur ‘is a 20-something, female’. No doubt it is modesty that prevents her revealing her true credentials. One can only hope that she is secretly a philosopher herself and thus able to credibly judge the profundity of my philosophical cutting and pasting. Whoever she is, I’m a fan. After all, she’s jolted me into realising I better get some actual content up on this site. I think I’ll start by completing my ‘About’ and ‘What is theological aesthetics?’ pages…

This FREE Webinar with Jeremy Begbie, Ph.D. explores the powerful role of the arts in expressing theology in a postmodern world. The Webinar will emphasize the role of the arts in renewing our Easter spirituality.

Jeremy Begbie, Ph.D. is one of today’s most respected scholars on the role of the arts in expressing theology. He is the Thomas A. Langford Research Professor of Theology and Director of the Duke Initiatives for Theology and the Arts Program at Duke Divinity School as well as Senior Member at Wolfson College, Cambridge.

He is an Affiliated Lecturer in the Faculties of Divinity and Music at the University of Cambridge, is an accomplished musician, and has written numerous books on theology and the arts.

You can download the .mp3 later, but only if you register now.

After the call we’ll send you an email inviting you to receive the Institute e-newsletter (unless you already receive it) with free Webinars, resources and information on future training opportunities.

Thanks to Dan Wilt for the link.

Sometimes, being seen to do the right thing can actually lead to right things being done. It’s a matter of the heart, and if the KJV translation were accurate I would read it (as I expect most do) as an exhortation akin to that elsewhere from Paul to be ‘beyond reproach’. Yet I take this, I suspect unfashionably, to denote a commitment to being sensitive to the perception of others. It springs not from a desire to appear morally superior, but from a desire for relationship with others when between you there are barriers. Too little, I suspect, do we modern Christians care enough – with reconciliation and genuine human flourishing in view – about what others think of us. It is easier to settle for the relative safety of relatively homogenous fellowship. The inevitable mental and emotional effort of caring about what others think is, well, not worth the effort. Much pop-counselling would no doubt tell us it is bad for our mental health. The problem is that this ‘effort’, as far as I can tell, is part of what Paul understands to be the ministry of reconciliation. And having that ministry is, uncomfortably, part of his public criteria for true apostleship (see Moberly’s excellent chapter on Paul in his recent Prophecy and Discernment in the Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine series).

Being seen to do the right thing can, potentially, create a gap in the fence that enables parties to move closer together. Of course, one can often sense in multiple ways whether or not the spirit of reconciliation is really there; whether the aesthetic of openness has living roots or is but a facade. We learn to look beyond the appearance of things to what really constitutes the nature of what we see. If the roots aren’t there then the trust is eroded and our aesthetic sensibilities are affected. The words we hear become rhetoric; the sermons, propaganda; the songs, an opiate. Yet when we detect action to avoid the appearance of evil it does still create a window of opportunity. This brings me to the news that this week the Church of England’s Ministry Council (a kind of Ofsted/QAA equivalent, I think) has published its report on Wycliffe Hall.

I’ve no affiliation to Wycliffe Hall but have taken occasional interest in the publicity it has received in recent years. This is partly because of having good friends who are former students of the college. It’s also because during period when Wycliffe Hall was getting quite a bit of press attention I was aware of similarly unhappy situations at other Christian organisations in Oxfordshire (which happens to be where I live). Only the former had any public attention and I expect this imbalance may be quite normal in the Church more generally. Christians don’t like airing their dirty washing in public and indeed the instinct to keep disagreements behind closed doors finds some justification in 1 Corinthians 6 (Sadly, the growing literature on spiritual abuse indicates just one way this passage is being twisted by some Christians to assure themselves of immunity this side of Judgment Day). It is this that makes the availability of an inspection report a rare and curious thing in the Church.

I’m not in a position to pass judgment on the happenings at Wycliffe Hall. What is clear is that this report is mixed. On the one hand much of what it has to say is positive and the overall outcome is that ‘the inspection team has confidence with qualifications in Wycliffe Hall for preparing candidates for ordained ministry.’ On the other hand, the inspection team expressed concerns in terms of what was being ‘modelled’ in the areas of management and governance (para. 40). The report raises a number of questions in para. 41:

The deeper questions therefore are about the character of the new management structures and relationships on the one hand, and their success in terms of ‘teambuilding’ for leadership in the Church of God on the other. This has been the subject of the Inspection Team’s careful investigation. Our conclusion is that more remains to be done, not least in terms of theological reflection. What kind of ecclesiology are the structures supporting? What kind of leadership is appropriate for organisations serving the Church of God? What relationships are appropriate for the building up of the Body of Christ and for the advance of the kingdom of God? We therefore recommend that… The Senior Management Team should initiate and follow up a staff-wide process of consultation on the nature of ‘leadership’ and ‘delegation’ appropriate for a theological college that trains men and women for church leadership with
• the help of a suitably qualified practical theologian as consultant,
• reference to its practical outworking in both the current and future management of Wycliffe Hall.

The report then goes on to make another recommendation: ‘To continue the healing of the wounds and bruised reputation of Wycliffe Hall, left in the wake of the restructuring and its implementation, the Senior Management Team should pursue opportunities for reconciliation.’

To my mind what is worth commenting on is simply the fact that this information is in the public domain. In my experience as a Christian I have never heard of such transparency from a Christian organisation. Of course it is always possible that the leadership of Wycliffe Hall resist such transparency, but that is not for me to judge and in a way it doesn’t matter for the point I’d like to make: The fact is that whatever has been going on at Wycliffe Hall in the past it is now being dealt with in a relatively open manner in the present. This is a good thing.

In an ideal world, leaders embrace an appropriate commitment to transparency. In a fallen world accountability structures exist to ensure transparency, eventually. With the publication of this report we all now know that Wycliffe Hall is expected to follow through on the recommendations of the report. We know that they are going to be reassessed. We know that consultants are going to be involved. In short, there’s a degree of monitoring that is going to take place with a view to positive changes taking place in the life of the institution. If all goes to plan the inspectors will be able to get concrete answers as to how the recommendations have been addressed (or not).

I don’t think it is much of an overstatement (if it is one at all) to suggest that most ‘Christian’ leaders would baulk at the idea of their leadership being subjected to such scrutiny, and the results then being made public. This is definitely the case in the ‘free’ church tradition which I was a part of until about three years ago. Certainly, one could argue that such openness and accountability is more appropriate to theological training centres because of their special role in training future leaders. Yet isn’t there something fundamentally appropriate about these qualities being characteristic of all ‘Christian’ organisations, including local congregations?

An inspection process such as Wycliffe’s ensures that there is room for the really searching questions to be asked; the kind of questions that organisations often stop asking from the inside when enthralled by their own agenda; questions like those above: ‘what kind of ecclesiology are the structures supporting? What kind of leadership is appropriate for organisations serving the Church of God?’ When Christians work together often the answers to these questions are presupposed. Problems encountered between colleagues further down the road may frequently be symptomatic of significantly different approaches to answering these questions.

Of course, one may think one knows their colleagues’ fundamental commitments but then find that when the rubber hits the road a different set of commitments emerge. The practice of theological reflection is supposed to help us avoid being duplicitous in this way. Theological reflection is, as I understand it, thinking – often very long and hard and in an ongoing manner – about the ‘so what?’ of my theology. How do my doctrinal commitments play out? If I believe this about God how will it affect that which I do? Hence the significance of the inspectors’ recommendation that at Wycliffe Hall there be a staff consultation on the nature of leadership.

It is interesting to note that this issue of theological reflection was also highlighted as needing attention amongst the student body (as addressed in the only section of the report where the inspectors do ‘not have confidence’ in Wycliffe Hall: the ‘area of practical and pastoral theology’). Here (para. 114) it was noted that teaching ‘in the area of Ministry and Leadership… tended to focus on the practicalities of ministry at the expense of linking the practice of ministry to fundamental theological and biblical principles.’ It was also noted that there was ‘an identifiable gap in enabling students to address the relationship between theology and practice through any systematic or academically-grounded introduction to theological reflection.’ Hence, ‘the need to make theological reflection an integral part of the Hall’s understanding of Christian leadership.’

This is all very encouraging. Not because it will give fodder to those who like to gloat, but because there is such a thing as corporate sanctification as well as individual sanctification. Any good Christian wants to be challenged to grow in Christ-likeness, and so too should any organisation that professes to be ‘Christian’. Whatever has been going on, Wycliffe Hall has been urged to reflect deeply and pursue reconciliation. Again, one need not gloat but simply point out that this kind of reflection should be a part of all Christian organisations. Why? Because it fosters a deep aesthetic of openness, encouraging the links between what is proclaimed and what is practised to be strong and organic. Here, as with all incarnations of God’s love, our sense data can be trusted.

I became a member of the Anglican Church a couple of years ago. For all its foibles and the inevitable downside of carrying out so many arguments in public I nonetheless find it refreshing that no one here seems particularly concerned to hide our wounds. It certainly helps me believe that we might be a church with a better chance of attending to issues of orthopraxis as well those of orthodoxy, and that can only be a good thing.

One of the most profound musical compositions of all time is the Quartet for the End of Time written by French composer Olivier Messiaen in 1940. Messiaen was 31 years old when France entered the war against Nazi Germany. He was captured by the Germans in June of 1940, sent across Germany in a cattle car and imprisoned in a concentration camp.

He was fortunate to find a sympathetic prison guard who gave him paper and a place to compose. There were three other musicians in the camp, a cellist, a violinist, and a clarinetist, and Messiaen wrote his quartet with these specific players in mind. It was performed in January 1941 for four thousand prisoners and guards in the prison camp. Today it is one of the most famous masterworks in the repertoire.

Given what we have since learned about life in the concentration camps, why would anyone in his right mind waste time and energy writing or playing music? There was barely enough energy on a good day to find food and water, to avoid a beating, to stay warm, to escape torture—why would anyone bother with music? And yet—from the camps, we have poetry, we have music, we have visual art; it wasn’t just this one fanatic Messiaen; many, many people created art. Why? Well, in a place where people are only focused on survival, on the bare necessities, the obvious conclusion is that art must be, somehow, essential for life.

- Karl Paulnack, Boston Conservatory

Thanks to Andy Crouch at Culture Making for the link.