Mark Clavier Well-Tempered Who Carries the Cross?
Sally Hope Women and the Church Why Christian men and Christian women need to do all we can to stop domestic abuse
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Co-founder of Living Out engaged in an inappropriate relationship with an adult man
Thank you, Mark Clavier.
Unadulterated love.
MC: “Those who believe LGBTQ Christians must shoulder a distinctive cost for their fidelity have to ask why comparable costly demands aren’t pressed in other domains of Christian life. And those who support the rites might sit with a harder possibility: that even where they don’t discern such a cost, it isn’t beyond God to ask it.” Indeed.
Very thought-provoking piece by Mark Clavier. Jesus assumed there would be a cost to discipleship. What is my discipleship costing me?
A lot of ink?
In reading Mark Clavier’s piece, I had a sudden visual image of Banksy’s new sculpture remodelled with a person blindly carrying a large cross off the edge instead of a flag. Is it possible the same manipulating forces sweeping nationalistic political parties into power are also deeply embedded in our faith communities centred around an ostentatious parading of the cross? A theology of austerity and discomfort is so easily hijacked as a method of control, misdirection and suppression by those in power. Is it time for Christians to replace the cross as a badge of belonging with the Celtic symbol… Read more »
This is absolutely spot on. Thank you Anglican in Exile for articulating this so clearly.
‘An ostentatious parading of the cross’ is the last thing Mark Clavier is talking about!
What does Jesus mean when he tells his disciple community to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow him? Why did he think this an important symbol of discipleship? See also John’s language about a grain of wheat falling into the ground and dying, and Paul’s ‘dead to sin and alive to God in Jesus Christ’ (which embraces cross and resurrection)?
Wouldn’t that have the effect of letting those of questionable views have free rein with the most recognisable Christian symbol?
Cultural context matters. ” We are not Americana…’English-cana’, “on the border between England and Wales” . Cool music…ancient, Celtic with its similarities to North Africa. , (with a blue grass feel). Culture is not ‘normative’.
https://youtu.be/gHL5ApOqMQc?si=1Ka7_2nIrPVBwvz6
Clumsy of me, my response was actually prompted by the comment of Anglican in Exile further up stream. I rather like the Celtic trinity knot. We have one adorning our home. I like as well the Celtic knot cross. On the other hand, I’m not an enthusiast of the crucifix. As a child I thought The big Latin crucifix that hung in the transept of our church somewhat disturbing.
What exactly is ”the Celtic symbol of the Trinity”? ”Love, commitment and unbreakable interrelatedness within community” sounds rather too much like a certain prominent politician trying to convince us after the recent election results that he does have a vision for the country. The Cross certainly symbolises love, but love as infinite self-sacrifice, a love that demands a total response on the part of each one of us. Isaac Watts puts it much better than I could ever do – in a hymn that I don’t need to quote – although Watts belonged to the Reformed tradition that totally rejected… Read more »
Indeed.
I enjoy reading Mark Clavier’s pieces. I do think there is a fine line between carrying the cross and denying our humanity. I think when people start denying who they really are as persons then that is different to carrying the cross. It’s why the whole ACNA experiment is so doomed to failure, as so sadly noted by Colin. It’s why Living Out is so wrong. I have a suspicion that Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholic Christians find the line much less problematic. They seem more naturally to be themselves while carrying the cross. Protestants have a greater tendency to… Read more »
I suspect that Catholic and Orthodox Christians are more able to live with ambiguity, something we all have to live with as we recognise the reality that what we shall be has not yet been revealed.
They can live with what you call “ambiguity” because they do not consider themselves a denomination like the reformed breakaways, which includes the Church of England. They are “the church” and can use the first-person plural and refer to the church as themselves down the ages. East and West. “Ambiguity” takes the form of religious orders, eg, with different charisms: Cassianites, Benedictines, Cistercians, mendicant orders, Sisters Religious and on its goes. But to try to superimpose this on the 16th century CofE and the churches in its wake, now riven in their own ranks, and then call it healthy ambiguity,… Read more »
Mark Clavier’s piece is a well written nod to Bonhoeffer; but his argument has the whiff of the straw man about it. Re: his fourth para that underneath it all is the assumption that the church should be a ” nice place”. Well that is something of an assumption about assumptions. My assumption has long been that the church should be, not a nice place but a place where justice is lived and modeled, In keeping with the scriptural perspectives justice is not simply ‘tell me’ it is ‘show me’. The provision of rites for the blessing of same sex… Read more »
Which could be seen as a neat link to Sally Hope’s as yet unmentioned piece and her suggestion that ‘good men’ are turning a blind eye when it comes to stopping violence against women.
Like others, I have appreciated MC’s reflections thus far. I’ve long taken the call to walk the way of the cross as the central definition of Christianity- more than a substitutionary understanding of the cross. I wonder if his equivocating on the LLF issue is part of his pitch to be a bishop?
I am sorry to contradict you, Ruairidh, but I for one have not read Bonhoeffer. I don’t doubt it is to my loss, but I strongly suspect I am not alone.
Thanks Ian, it was a rhetorical turn of phrase; but point taken. I wanted to separate out Mr. Clavier’s allusion to Bonhoeffer from my critical ( but appreciative) reading of his piece.
Interesting that the word ‘nod’ appears in a statement about Bonhoeffer. Donald Coggan in one of his books said that people sometimes used the expression ‘religionless Christianity’ with a ‘nod of recognition of Bonhoeffer’ whilst possibly not understanding what he meant.
There is another expression: “In for a penny in for pound”. lol. I assume, to use the word of the day, that given Mark Clavier’s skill set, he well knows what Bonhoeffer meant. My critique of this particular article is Clavier’s application of Bonhoeffer’s notion of the cost of the discipleship to what he terms “assumptions”. I was introduced to the work of Bonhoeffer many years ago in a graduate seminar taught by Bonhoeffer scholar the late Dr. Martin Rumscheidt (link). Martin and his first late wife Barbara were also strong and early supporters of the Queer community here in… Read more »
My reading of Bonhoeffer has been limited to ‘The Cost of Discipleship’ which I try to re-read about once a decade. The call of grace is the call to Peter to step out of the boat. It’s not grace if Jesus lets him off the call. Brilliant. The difference between grace as a slogan and grace as an experience of invitation.
Right on Tim. One of the things I do like about Clavier’s piece is the suggestion one should put the question about the cost of discipleship to one’s self (perhaps first and foremost?). To quote John Donne, “Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.”
That’s exactly what I was taking from the piece, Rod.
I agree that taking up the cross can be costly. But in the context of Mark Clavier’s piece, he seems to suggest to many lesbian, gay and bisexual readers that we should (or should have) abandon(ed) the hope of a faithful lifelong partnership or walk(ed) out on a life-partner who loved and trusted us. I see this as being conformed to the world, not death to self (and sometimes physical suffering and death) of the kind to which Christ calls followers. In my experience, for heterosexual married couples as well as those in same-sex relationships, long-term relationships are not merely… Read more »
“long-term relationships are not merely a form of self-indulgence”
Thankyou. Quite right.
Grace as ‘an experience of invitation’ sounds like a slogan to me!
I’m sorry to hear that.
We are called in our lives to pilgrimage That implies change in whatever area of our lives that are a battleground We all want the fruits of the Spirit Love, Joy Peace but are we prepared for Faithfulness and Self control wherever that might impact our lives? Personally I am grateful to the church for being “nice” to me in spite of the areas of failure in my life. I have been a lifelong collector of things. I Corinthians 6 vs 9+10 includes greed amongst the things listed. That is my battleground. What is yours? I believe the Spirit is… Read more »
I have my doubts about Bonhoeffer. He seems to me to praying to be led into temptation or peirasmos in some form, which he shouldn’t have. The scriptural passages of ‘taking up the Cross’ form need to be balanced, as always with scripture, by others talking of an easy yoke and a light burden – and should, I think, be interpreted in terms of readiness to accept what God sends, even when it’s pretty nasty, rather than as some sort of transvaluation of bad things. And grace isn’t costly, it’s free. And niceness, really, is rather nice
People who were taking up a cross in the time of Jesus were about to be executed as rebels by the state. They were experiencing what humans send, not what God sends. In other words, Jesus was calling his disciples to be willing to pay the ultimate price for their loyalty to him, just as he paid the ultimate price for his loyalty to God.
I think that that interpretation makes it obligatory for Christians to denounce the Roman Empire, which I don’t think is sustainable. These days I don’t think Christians are supposed to seek violent political antagonism. If they encounter it that is certainly human agency but still the workings of the providence of God
This won’t really wash will it? It makes God responsible for evil and suffering rather than seeing them as the effect of the fall (for example). Are we not called to resist evil and work for the kingdom to come?
We walk through a life beset by problems, some quite bad and caused by wicked people. We nevertheless hope, surely, to walk at God’s direction and under his providence
Agreed. Maybe the tension between carrying a cross and Jesus’ easy yoke is lessened by reflecting that we choose to carry a cross in order to follow Jesus, He does not drive us to do it. But if I want to know Him better, it will often be in the difficult places in this world where I find Him. Perhaps Mark Clavier’s piece is flagging up a category error. The equal marriage question is not fundamentally about making church welcoming to more people, but about what is right and good. If equal marriage is good then it should be open… Read more »
To do what is right is sometimes costly, sometimes as costly as getting crucified. Jesus challenged the political authorities of his day. Alexei Navalny said that if he returned to Russia (to continue to challenge Putin) he might well get killed- and he was right, he was killed. Bonhoeffer similarly. A few Republican members of Congress could dare to do the right think and join the Democrats to get Trump impeached for innumerable crimes and removed from office tomorrow- but they fear Trump, and for their jobs, or retribution from his cult followers (remember Jan 6th). These are a few… Read more »
There Is no promise of happiness for everyone but the promise of a light burden must mean that antagonism and suffering, even noble suffering, isn’t the lot of every Christian, though they share the normal hazards of life. Normal, not intensified
“The promise of a light burden must mean…”
There’s no must about it. I already suggested one alternative way to interpret those words.
More generally, if being a Christian involves imitating Christ in some way (“Let the same mind be in you as was in Christ, who…”) then isn’t your emphasis on the ‘light burden’ verse a tempting way to avoid the challenge?
I don’t see that your reading has any connection to the words used. No reference to simple living. It plainly says, in as many words, you will not be subject to stringent demands, not at least as a result of ‘coming to Jesus’. The wider processes of life are not prevented from troubling you, of course, or in causing your cross to become heavy, but in those matters we trust in God’s wider providence. The offer of an easy burden is nothing short of dishonest if heavy burdens and sharp toil turn out to be demanded in direct consequence. You… Read more »
‘25% of Christians report experiencing abusive behaviours in their current relationship. The majority of these victims of domestic abuse are women, the majority of the perpetrators, Christian men. [https://www.restored-uk.org/about/our-research/2964-2/] 25% of all women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. So Christians are experiencing and perpetrating domestic abuse at the same rates as the general population. The majority of Christian men are not perpetrating violence against women, but they’re not stopping it either. They’re not defending and empowering women like Jesus did. The “good men” are looking the other way and turning a blind eye when a quarter of the… Read more »
I haven’t commented on Sally Hope’s piece, Janet, but I have been watching the ITV drama Believe Me. It concerns the Black Cab Rapist and is a very tough watch – not least in that it caused me to ask how I would have reacted if I had been a police officer.
Has there ever been a sermon in your church on domestic violence, or are victims of domestic violence mentioned in the intercessions? Do your noticeboard or website display details of local refuges or helplines?
Yes and yes and yes again. It may help that my parish church is a cathedral, but on the basis of visits to other cathedrals, I think we are lucky to have such a keen sense of the importance of safeguarding. Victims of abuse (female and male). as well as other vulnerable groups (children, vulnerable adults, etc) are made aware of numbers to ring for help on noticeboards and on posters with tearoff numbers in the toilets etc.
That’s great.
In the interests of objectivity, we preach on the day’s lections – where texts featuring domestic violence barely feature. 1 Peter 3 and Colossians 3.18-19 (Wives, be subject to your husbands… Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly.) haven’t made it into the principal eucharistic lectionary – mercifully I would say. But we do mention victims in the intercessions and we do have details of helplines on our website.
And that is a major issue with the lectionary, as I pointed out when it first came in. If we never hear in church about what people experience and worry about during the week, we can’t wonder when the find Christianity irrelevant.
If churches regularly used the Hebrew scriptures in their reading cycle there would be plenty of opportunity to comment on stories of abusive behaviour, but sadly many churches rarely include those readings.
Agreed. But if they follow the lectionary, many of those stories are omitted.
Janet, I owe you more than the claim to objectivity as a reason for staying with the lectionary and avoiding themed Sundays. Good causes abound, but the Parish Eucharist is not there to promote them but to celebrate the Resurrection. Eucharist is theme enough, and that theme is social justice.
one does not need a themed Sunday as a tick a box exercise to provide coverage of contemporary issues be it DV Safeguarding racism or spiritual abuse when preaching. Modern liturgy and sermons can be wide ranging. For those not of a High Church persuasion the understanding of the Lords supper/Eucharist/High Mass as its own rite is lost on a broader population. The standard you walk past (or not refer too) can be the standard you accept. This seems to be a pattern where important issues are not addressed or silenced. Allan this is not a comment on you or… Read more »
Richie, I welcomed the CW lectionary, based on the Revised Common/Roman lectionary, not only because it meant English Anglicans were hearing the same readings as the wider church, but also because it did away with the ASB themes that could turn worship into relentless pedagogy. Janet Fife rightly alerts us to the importance of “what people experience and worry about during the week”, but my argument would be that themed worship, rather than helping, risks sacrificing our concerns to the tyranny of the theme. We have different stories, different wounds, different hopes, and trying to spatchcock these into a theme… Read more »
The ASB themes were meant to be advisory but became dominant. CW lectionary works differently and the readings on any given Sunday are not meant to link to each other, except on Holy Days etc. Then there is the CW provision for departing from the lectionary for a period and constructing your own (‘the open season’) – a provision which some will greet with horror but which was intended to bring the advantages of the (usually evangelical) sermon series into Church of England official provision. Liturgy / General Synod trivia: the ‘open season’ provision was championed in Synod by Michael… Read more »
As if it was a moral choice Michael was free to make. Kyrie eleison.
I wasn’t referring to themed Sundays, but to preaching from the lectionary – including the OT. The CW lectionary omits many of the more violent episodes and readings from the OT, apparently under the presumption that church people are too sensitive or too ‘nice’ to cope with them. But those are precisely the readings which would allow us to preach on topics which deeply concern many people. And then we wonder why people think we are irrelevant and out of touch, a ‘holy huddle’.
Of course the CW lectionary is a slight variant of the ecumenically-agreed Revised Common Lectionary, whose first version, the Common Lectionary, was itself based on the Vatican II Roman Catholic lectionary, the Ordo Lectionum Missae, the Order of Readings for the Mass. So this is a 1960s compilation, and I wonder who it was who did the grunt work — perhaps the bishops at the Council aided by their theological and liturgical advisers. And I wonder how many of them were women, how many of them were from various under-represented groups. (I don’t know the answers, these are genuine questions.)
There’s also an unquestioned assumption that you are required to preach on the lectionary texts. You aren’t – you’re just required to read them.
My memory of the days when the old BCP lectionaries were used is that people felt less obliged to always preach on the set texts, perhaps because the lectionary provision was less comprehensive. I remember Advent series’ on the Four Last Things, series’ on the Apostles’ Creed etc. etc.
The RCL built on its RC predecessor by adding more OT passages. In turn, CW omitted from the Sunday lections some OT texts deemed to be ‘in need of careful pastoral framing’ and ‘unsuitable without context or safeguarding considerations’. 2 Samuel 13, the rape of Tamar, being one.
I don’t doubt, Janet, that you have the necessary skills to do this. But I don’t – not within a 15 minute max sermon at a Parish Eucharist.
3 comments: i) Abuse is not the same as violence. ii) Church going women out number men by around 2 to 1, thus abuse by a church going male partner is likely to be significantly less than reported. By how much no one knows. iii) Men are also significantly less likely to report domestic abuse. But we can all agree that abuse in all its forms is wrong and needs to be addressed by everyone. No woke deconstructionism required.
Not sure what ‘woke deconstuctionism’ is, let alone what it has to do with accepting that domestic abuse is a problem that needs to be confronted. The point has been made that men need to make their voices heard in exposing & condemning such abuse, and I endorse that. Such activities thrive in secrecy & cover up, and bullies are all cowards so an open environment which is supported by their fellow males is one that they would really fear.
I equally didn’t know the meaning of ‘woke deconstructionism’ (possibly an age thing?) but my iPad ‘look up’ facility provided an instant answer and I understood exactly what Adrian Clarke was saying. Of course it’s entirely a matter of opinion and, arguably, a sense of proportion.
This is partly true Francis, abuse thrives in secrecy. But it is also true that in conservative cultures, including conservative church cultures, abuse that is known about is allowed to continue, because of a culture of female subservience to the male, and the importance attached to keeping a marriage going, even an abusive marriage.
The church attaches a very high value to marriage, which makes it difficult theologically when, sadly, many marriages are abusive.
I would like the term ‘domestic violence’ to be archived, I find it offensive that the word violence is prefaced with the word domestic. Let’s call it what it is – physical violence, emotional abuse, coercive control, financial abuse, sexual abuse, sexual violence. It’s striking that a hearty discussion is had about removing pews, with little to no comment on the equality of women in church and violence and abuse of women and girls. It is without argument that men are subject to violence and abuse in intimate relationships but we must be clear that domestic violence is a gendered… Read more »
There is no mention of ‘men looking the other way and turning a blind’ in the 2018 case study. It was a local-level study restricted to Cumbria and with a demographic not representative of the UK christian church population.
I’m not sure what you mean by your first point. Violence is one form of abuse; of course it isn’t the only form. Your second point: in the statistics cited by Sally Hope, 25% of the perpetrators are Christian men. That is appalling. I have no idea what you mean by ‘woke deconstructionism’, nor how it applies to anything Sally or I have said.
Gender politics! If you look at the summary statistics it shows no such thing. You should read them before commenting on it. The title of the piece ‘Why Christian men and Christian women need to do all we can to stop domestic abuse’ is valid and really needs no further comment.
Actually the subject needs a lot more comment, and sharply dismissing the comment made by a woman on this forum underlines that fact.
Rather than stats the key point that I took away from the article was this:
“The “good men” are looking the other way and turning a blind eye when a quarter of the women in their pews are being abused.”
And I still have not the slightest idea what is meant by ‘woke deconstructionism’. It smacks too much of the sort of glib phrase used to shut down discussion.
There is a danger of getting stuck into details – how was the survey done, how were the respondents chosen, what do we mean by abuse. There are bigger issues – what is the role of the church in the sinfulness of its congregations, what should be done in society at large on abuse, what factors contribute to abuse. are church congregations more or less sinful than similar demographics outside the church, are we surprised Christians are sinful, what do we learn from the general confession and Lord’s prayer, what preaching is done about sin (and by sin I do… Read more »
Adrian, your sneer about ‘gender politics’ and the patronising tone of your comment illustrate that you are part of the problem. If you agree that ‘Christian men and Christian women need to do all we can to stop domestic abuse’, what exactly are you doing about it?
That would be a more useful discussion but the article falls way short of that, choosing to target Christian men. To be honest at the moment I am concerned about a church going woman abusing her vulnerable husband, the answer being to support him in moving into a care home where he appears to be much happier.
I was wondering when male victim card would be played…….
Just curious, if men are abused, in fact, would it be right to speak of this as playing “a male victim card.”
Perhaps it depends on whether the issue at stake is truly the addressing of the ills of our fallen world. Or instead the establishment of an hierarchy of victimhood as a lens through which to analyse (and allocate shame within) all human interactions.
You have stated it well. The “establishment of an hierarchy of victimhood” would be a very trenchant title for a book on this theme. Absent shared space at the Foot of The Cross, truly shared, where Christ isn’t a generic Victim, but a Victor, willing and obedient. On a chosen path to defeat death. Without this. I suspect “the establishment of an hierarchy of victimhood” will arrive to create a different narrative. He is a victim of evil people, not their victor by defeating the evil they bring. God raised him from the dead, alleluia. Or: He is a victim.… Read more »
The entrenchment of hierarchies of victimhood, fundamental to intersectional critical theory, cements into the world a structure of indelible original sin (borne above all by white able-bodied straight men).
Only Christus Victor can save us from this. Our own efforts at effecting redress, reparation and restitution through our own efforts can only lead to cycles of conflict, inescapable division, and frustration.
Despondent with respect and compassion.
Really?
Is this theology you place into the conversationas applied to safeguarding,bullying ,spiritual abuse, racism and other “sins” or criminal behavior workable as a rational argument?
Sounds like a defensive cloak of piety to me?
As a proud woke deconstructionist I would rather we struggle for justice compassion and kindness within our own earthly system than let a misinterpreted definition of God blind us to the inequalities.
The comment on cis gendered males is just possibly a standard meme amongst the “manosphere” and “Theo bros”.
Perhaps we can do better than this zero sum game.
We can in Christ in whom there is no male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. Graced unity in love, not eternal indentitarian definition, division and conflict, can alone set us free. Peace be with you.
Identitarian is a new word for me. I also had to check ‘Christus Victor’. But I feel we are on similar wavelengths, even though your reference to white able-bodied straight men may have been misplaced. I don’t know why Richie puts “sins” in inverted commas. I think this tendency is what provoked my comment above. If Christians do not acknowledge the sinfulness of all humans, including you and I, what is the point? Just this morning, I was listening to discussions on how to explain the behaviours of certain politicians, in this country and in Israel. There is no explanation.… Read more »
Hi Nigel, I placed“sins” in inverted commas next to criminal behavior to try to make a subtle point. Historically abusive clergy were often “forgiven” either formally via Confession or informally. In secular law, this can be criminal behavior . ‘Misprision of a felony”, or “ pervert the course of justice”. In some jurisdictions secular law now makes admissions of “sin” in formal or informal confessions reportable conduct. Sadly it seems the breaking of the seal of confession has not meant that those who heard historical confessions from known offenders are reporting this through to the secular authorities relying on Canon… Read more »
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/the-church-of-england-and-mandatory-reporting/
This thread from TA in 2023 is enlightening.
I get the impression that you might be writing from the United States? Being purely pedantic, ‘misprision of a felony’ was abolished in the law of England and Wales as long ago as 1967. Indeed, felony is equally an obsolete term here, replaced by ‘arrestable offence’. Misprision has not been replaced: the offence of ‘assisting an offender’ arises if the offence carries a potential term of five years’ imprisonment or more. Perverting the course of justice is still very much with us and there are current cases. The question of the seal of the confessional is unresolved legally, although under… Read more »
Hi Rowland In most states in Australia we have the following Criminal Law., the common law offence of misprision of a felony has been abolished. Instead, the modern statutory equivalent is “Concealing a Serious Indictable Offence” under Section 316 of The Criminal Code Act 1913. [1] The Modern Equivalent (Section 316) Under Section 316, it is a criminal offence if you: Know a serious indictable offence has been committed. Have information that might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of the offender. Conceal or fail to disclose that information to a member of the Police… Read more »
thank you. i don’t understand all you are saying – but worry that ‘sin’ and ‘unlawful’ are being conflated, and ‘sin’ is being restricted to heinous crimes? I was taught many years ago, at a weekend conference of young lawyers at various Inns, that law and morality are two different things and should not be confused. I also rail against the view that ‘I have never done anything wrong, I have never robbed or harmed or been unfaithful, I am not sinful’. Or even ‘I have not sinned, why should i go to confession?’. I am not a supporter, nor… Read more »
Thanks Nigel,
We are so lucky to have really great Lawyers and Judicial Officers who work to help many survivors and our families gain justice.
Working through the complexities of Canon Law and secular law is hugely complex.
That people like yourself and Rowland can provide a legal mindset to the complexities of Canon Law is one of the reasons that TA provides a most often positive supportive and caring comment thread in some difficult circumstances.
I agree with all you said in response.
A ‘ church going woman abusing her vulnerable husband’. This is stated as a position of affirmed knowledge. Has the church (attended by the woman) been made aware i.e. has the safeguarding officer been informed? Has the care home where the man now presumably resides been made aware i.e. has their safeguarding officer been informed? Has the relevant local safeguarding authority been informed? What actions have been taken to investigate this matter? Have appropriate safeguards been introduced for a man you describe as vulnerable? Has the safeguarding of the wider community been risk assessed? It will be inappropriate for you… Read more »
It’s entirely a matter for Adrian Clarke, but I gently venture to suggest that TA, on the worldwide web, isn’t a place to conduct an unofficial and unauthorised adult services case conference about anyone.
Thank you.
Interesting book review by John Root on Psephizo today about a study of church life on estates, in poorer communities and rural areas. It’s at: https://www.psephizo.com/reviews/how-can-we-minister-in-deprived-areas/
The challenge of Faith in the City (1985) is greater than ever.
I must travel in different circles than Mark Clavier does. I don’t know any Christian, of any theological persuasion, who thinks “that ordinary membership of the Church ought, broadly speaking, to be free of serious demands on our lives”.
Guess a conversation around what we mean by ‘Christian ‘ and what a ‘serious demand’ on life might look like would help unpack here. There are self-identifying Christians who come once a year to worship in my church. What demands their Christianity places on their everyday living I cannot say. But an hour a year, and a small donation in the plate (or not) – is that a ‘serious demand ‘? Or are they not (really) ‘Christian’?
Indeed that view would be unusual, to say the least.
Re Mark Clavier’s piece, I agree that many Christians today do not pay enough attention to the costliness of following Christ. But I disagree that the frequent call to be ‘welcoming’ is necessarily about being ‘nice’ and not making too many demands. To start with, dominant groups may have to confront exclusionary tendencies in themselves and others, e.g. if white people in violently racist neighbourhoods where many churchgoers support discrimination, which can be emotionally draining and sometimes physically dangerous. And if in an often-excluded group, putting one’s head above the parapet, so to speak, often has negative consequences. But I… Read more »
Savi, you have captured my own response to Mark Clavier’s piece, so thank you for articulating what I had been grappling with. The demands of the cross are frequently used in an attempt to shame and manipulate gay Christians, something I have experienced personally, yet few people ever stop to think about the heavy demands that such gay Christians already place upon themselves, or have had placed upon them from a young age.
A thoughtful poignant comment on The Clavier piece. Thanks!