Not giving things up, simply giving to and having a good time

Last week I attended two interfaith events. It was wonderful to come together with people from different traditions all working with the same heart and spirit. We may not think or believe alike, but we certainly loved alike. The first event was an entertainment evening. We enjoyed offerings from different traditions; a variety of songs, storytelling, poetry and dance. It was wonderful. We all reflected on the troubles in our world and we all shared joy, blessing and gifts for all to share. I shared songs of Rogers and Hammerstein while telling the story of Hammerstein and how his Universalism had shaped his song writing and his life.

On Sunday afternoon I attended the Mayor of Trafford’s multi-faith Civic Service, organised by Jane Brophy. It was held at Altrincham Baptist Church, where Jane is a member. Several folk from Dunham Road were in attendance. Gwyneth Roper played a huge role in making sure the event ran smoothly and Peter Flower and myself participated. Peter stepped in to play the keyboard at the last minute. Again, this was a wonderful occasion, full of spirit and culture. Wonderful to see mostly community cohesion in these divisive times. Jane insisted that I led the singing which I dutifully did. I do not need much encouragement. Towards the end of the service Jane mentioned that she wanted to share a secret about me to the people gathered. I wondered what on earth she would say, I was a little worried. She teased at it a couple of times and then publicly thanked me for something I had done over 10 years ago. Her son Edwin was very poorly at the time and she said that I had visited him in in the Moorside Unit at Trafford General every week. Edwin had grown up in the Sunday school at Dunham Road and ever since I have been minister there we have always got on well. This has not always been easy has he has one or two challenges. I have to say it brought some emotion in me, which I manged to contain. It is not something I have thought of much since. I was simply doing what I could do and what I thought was right at the time. As I left a woman approached me to talk of a friend of hers named Sheila, who had died in recent times. Sheila would attend both congregations, both services and other activities. She got a lot from her time with us, although the woman said her priest discouraged this. The woman wanted me to know how much she thought of me and welcome she received from both congregations. What a lovely gift to freely offer and in keeping with the spirit of the occasion.

Later that evening I noticed that the video promoting the “OYEZ” share option had been released. “OYEZ” is an art collective that has taken over the running of the town hall in Altrincham. They are doing amazing creative and community work there. The choir I sing with rehearses there. We had recorded a song for the launch of the share option and appeared in the video, as do other local figures, including Barbara Thackray. The whole project is another wonderful example of people giving what they have, from their heart for good of not only themselves, but their community. It gave me marvelous sense of well being. It is also hilariously funny. While I may well be a singer, I am not a dancer.

Here is the video 

Last week I saw another example of people giving what they have from their hearts. I have mentioned my two writer friends in the past. Well one of them has just written his first one person play. It is about to be performed in London. Last week it was being rehearsed in the schoolrooms at Dunham Road and by the weekend it will be performed. It is the first new thing he has written and produced in some time and my other friend, who owns Ronnie the dog who Molly loves to play with is directing it. It is oh so wonderful to see him getting back into what his heart desires, giving what his has from what he has been given.

A week last Saturday Molly, myself and a few friends who are singletons went for a walk together to Dunham Massey, on what was Valentines Day. During the walk a couple of my friends began to talk about the things they are planning to give up for Lent. They were talking of luxury items such as sugary drinks and chocolate. Things they will struggle with no doubt. I did wonder though if this is really what Lent is about. Is it really just about giving up luxury items, or is there more too it? Maybe it is better to think about what we can give to life, from our capacity and perhaps giving up things that get in the way of doing so. What that might be is probably different for each of us.

So, I’ve made a decision. This Lenten season I’m going to attempt to let a different spirit live through me. To see what I can give from my heart and soul and attempt to let go of the things that get in the way of that. To not give up things, but to give what I can and give up what blocks me from doing so. It is so easy to live in cynicism and say well what’s the point, but who does that serve, certainly not my soul. I’m going to live by the examples around me and do what I can. I’m going to live in what I consider the solution is as opposed to what I see as the problem. I am going to give love, even if it’s in small ways. I am going to do so while recognising how difficult that is, even to my nearest and dearest. That said I do know that by doing so my outer world is bound to improve and my inner world will become healed, even if it is just small ways.

I will invoking the spirit of Derek Brown in my activities, whose funeral I conducted this week. To live by his example with people. His warmth, his care, his welcome and his good humour too. These were the natural gifts that he had lived by, in so doing he touched so many lives. He was a man dedicated to his community in Urmston. This was proved by the outpouring of love this Thursday.

Last Sunday Peter spoke of the many forms of love, not just the romantic kind that is celebrated on Valentines Day. The day before on the walk with my friends we were practising friendship or “philia” love. Now the kind of love I want to talk about giving and giving up whatever gets in it’s way is Agape Love. Some call this “Spiritual” Love. It is the kind of love that the faith traditions speak of, although sadly too often fail to practice. It is what everyone was invoking at the interfaith events I participating in; it is was fuelled the songs of Rogers and Hammerstein and it is what I witnessed in Derek’s life. This is a kind of love that is none exclusive, it is open to all, it is supposed to have no boundaries; instead it builds bridges between the walls we create around ourselves.

Agape is the love that Jesus spoke of in the Gospels. He commanded his followers to “Love one another as I have loved you.” He is not talking about something soft and mushy here though, please do not be fooled. When he preaches that we should love our enemies he is commenting on the commandment in Leviticus “You must love your neighbour as yourself.” When Jesus spoke of love he was talking about an action that put someone or something else at the centre of their life, rather than themselves; he is talking about yielding for the good of all, instead of self-interest.

This message is of course not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the essence of all the “Great Faiths”. It would appear that selfishness and self-centredness has been the root of so many of humanities troubles throughout our history, therefore it is hardly surprising that the idea of yielding for the good of all is at the core of the great faiths; that putting something other than our selfish needs at the centre of what we do is vital to human survival. The great Chinese guide to statecraft “The Daodejing”, authored by Laozi made similar claims. “The only person who is fit to rule is the man who has overcome the habit of selfishness.”

To quote the Dao itself

“The reason there is great affliction is that I have a self.
If I had no self, what affliction would I have?
Therefore to one who honours the world as his self
The world may be entrusted,
And to one who loves the world as one’s self
The world may be consigned.”

Agape was the foundation of Rev Dr Martin Luther King’s ministry, the great champion of civil rights in 1950’s and 60’s America. He saw it as an abundant overflowing love that seeks nothing in return, that is open to all and rejects self interest. It is not sentimental and has nothing to do with whether we like a person or not. It is the kind of love that recognises our common humanity and reveres the other as our self; it recognises the sacred mystery in everyone. It is this that forms the beloved community that he spoke of. You could call it the Kingdom of God, the commonwealth of love, the kin-dom of Love, or simply “Fellowship”.

Although Agape is not soft, mushy or sentimental it is still a condition of the heart, it is a way of being that encompasses all aspects of our humanity; head and heart as well as mind, body and spirit. It is about how we are and how we act. In his sermon titled “Love in action” Dr King preached that “one day we will learn that the heart can never be totally right if the head is totally wrong...only through bringing together head and heart, intelligence and goodness – shall man rise to a fulfilment of his human nature.”

It is wrong to believe that Dr King ministry focused purely on the injustices of society external to him. He also talked of healing our inner violence. None violent action, motivated by love, that he adapted from the teachings of Gandhi was about committing not only to non-violent resistance externally but also internally. Both he and Gandhi knew how vital it was that we transformed our inner lives first before we looked to the world. Gandhi named this Satyagraha (soul-force). They both knew that in order to transform society for the better, they first had to develop themselves spiritually.

Why was this? Well they knew that if a person did not heal the violence within themselves that when they did overcome the injustice they were experiencing they may well end up replacing it with something just as destructive. Just look at the revolutions of the past two hundred years. They began as a protest against tyranny and yet in many cases they replaced the former tyranny with something worse. We must all be wary of the “dark side of the force”, of how corrupting power and self-righteousness can be. Human history is littered with examples of this.

Love is a way of being and this can be tough at times; it is not sentimental and or mushy and it is something I will be focusing on this Lenten season. It always amazes me how something like Lent, which in my view is about self-sacrifice, about giving of self for others, has somehow become so self-centred. As I was reminded by my conversation with my friends, too often people give up things for Lent, but they seemingly do so for their own good. People often given up certain food stuffs, for their own vanity, they do it for themselves. Is this what Lent is about? Well, it doesn’t seem to be the right focus to me. Surely, it’s actually about Agape, about self-giving love, about loving all without prejudice, about recognising the “inherent worth and dignity of all” Isn’t this the example that Jesus gave to humanity, in the same way that Gandhi and Dr King did, they gave themselves wholeheartedly for others. And they were murdered for it. That said their message survived their physical deaths, it lives on today. This loving spirit is timeless, it is immortal, but it needs a body, it needs to be embodied.

So, I’ve made a decision. This Lenten season I’m going to attempt to let this spirit live through my body; this Lent I’m going to focus on giving, instead of giving things up. I’m also going to see if I can give up what gets in the way of me doing so. This Lenten season I’m going to see what I can give to life instead of what I can give up; this Lenten season I’m going to live in what I consider the solution is as opposed to what I see as the problem. I am going to give love, even if it’s in small ways. I am going to do so while recognising how difficult that is, even to my nearest and dearest. That said I do know that by doing so my outer world is bound to improve and my inner world will begin to heal.

I’m also going to have a good time doing so. I’m going to sing more, dance more run and scream and shout more. I’m also going to encourage others to do the same. To live as much as I can from the heart. I’m going to follow the example of those who sang the joy of living in all its mystery. I will invoke the example of Derek Brown and let his spirit live on.

My question to you is what are you going to give to the world from yourself this season? What are going to let go of, that gets in the way of you doing so.

I will leave you with that one.

Please find below a devotion based on the material in this "blogspot"

Gandhi's Seven Social Sins

There are many things that trouble us, all of us, in different ways. If I was to sit and spend all my life focusing on what I see as unhelpful, as wrong in life, no doubt I would never leave the house and even there I wouldn’t feel safe. In so doing I would be committing what I have heard described as the greatest sin of all, to fail to exist, to live and unlived life. I have wasted enough years doing that and I refuse to do so ever again.

Despite its very real troubles I have faith in life, a love for life. I believe in life. To quote William James. 'These, then, are my last words to you: Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help create the fact.' " I have found this to be 100% true.

I was recently chatting with someone I love dearly, it was not an easy conversation, but it was essential. I have had this conversation with them before. The first time I found it almost unbearable it was too painful to hear. Thankfully I love them enough to listen to their pain. What was clear was that they had been ruled by fear all their life; for all their life they had been dominated by fear. Gosh how I wish I could relieve them of it, but alas I cannot. No one can.

Fear is a deeply powerful emotion, it can be crippling in its power, which is why so many of the dark forces of life employ it to control and dominate. In many ways this is perhaps the root of human sin if you like, this use and or instilling of fear to dominate others, it seems to be the root of so many of our human troubles.

No area of life is exempt from using fear in their attempts to get what they believe is right. It has been one of the great evils of religion of course. How often have people been subjugated by fear in so many ways. Modern advertising does it too, in their attempts to sell us a lifestyle that will take all our troubles away and you see it very clearly in politics, particularly around election time. I never saw this more clearly than during last year’s EU referendum and we have seen it again in recent weeks as we have approached last Thursday’s General Election. As each one passes I see the seeds of division being sown and it troubles me deeply, we also see scapegoating too on the increase. This bothers me greatly too and I know I am not immune from this either. I have blamed others for my troubles.

Now of course the temptation is to withdraw, to crawl under some kind of fear based spiritual rock and refuse to engage. This is fear of the highest order, it is selfish and a rejection of life. The spiritual life can only be lived in reality. Its purpose is to bring healing and not to sow seeds of division. We are all in this together regardless of our views about how life ought to be. The spiritual life has to be an ethical life.

If the spiritual life has to be ethical, then how do we live such a life without causing harm and sowing those seeds of division. Well I believe it begins by first of all recognising our one shared humanity. Recognising that we are all formed by the same substance and have the same spirit flowing through us, that not one of us is perfect we all fall short of our attempted ideals, we are all sinners in that sense, we are all driven at times by fear and we are all open to the transformative power of love, no one is beyond redemption. We are all more human than otherwise.

Throughout human history many have attempted to show us ways to live a more ethical life. In recent years Karen Armstrong wrote her “12 steps to a Compassionate Life”, it inspired my early ministry. I spoke of it constantly and I led groups exploring her ideas. It was her attempt to return compassion back to the centre of the social, economic, political and spiritual life. There have been others who have spoken of what has blocked us from living the ethical life. Towards the end of the sixth century Pope Gregory came up with “The Seven Deadly Sins”, which were based on Greek philosophy. The seven were Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride. Unlike the “Ten Commandments” they contained no “Thou Shalt Not’s”, instead they were designed to aid the individual to examine the state of their being.

Now the main problem with the list is that they were still an examination of our inner life and not an examination of how we live our lives.

During the 20th century Mohatma Gandhi published another list. It was named “The Seven Social Sins” and was published in his newspaper “Young India” on October 22nd 1925. The list is as follows:

Wealth without Work.
Pleasure without Conscience.
Knowledge without Character.
Commerce without Morality.
Science without Humanity.
Worship without Sacrifice.
Politics without Principles.

The list had sprung from a correspondence that Gandhi had with someone who he only identified as a “fair friend.” It is understood that the list comes from sermon first delivered at West Minster Abbey. He published the list without commentary. All Gandhi said was : “Naturally, the friend does not want the readers to know these things merely through the intellect but to know them through the heart so as to avoid them.”

Is that possible? Can these seven been known by the heart, so that we can avoid them in our daily living. The focus of the list is on our conduct in society. It is salvation by not only faith but also works, how we live our lives in our daily interactions. They seem firmly in keeping with his own spiritual ethics of non-violence and interdependence and each one is an example of selfishness overcoming the common good. As he himself said "A person cannot do right in one department whilst attempting to do wrong in another department. Life is one indivisible whole. " It is said that Gandhi believed that these social sins were a greater threat to society than the personal sins listed by Pope Gregory.

Many years later in 1947 Gandhi gave the very same list, this time under title “the seven blunders that human society commits, and that cause all the violence”, to his fifth grandson Arun. Sadly within three months Gandhi had been murdered by a Hindu extremist who obviously had fallen into the trap, that so many do. and made Gandhi the scapegoat for so many of the countries troubles. So often the great and the good are destroyed by the violence that is given birth to by fear, by seeing others as something other than human. Sadly things have not changed in the last seventy years.

What do you think of Gandhi’s list? I like them. I think they are a great model for the spiritual life, for living a life of ethical principle and dignity, by attempting to overcome them. In so doing we can begin to bring to life the loving compassion that Karen Armstrong is promoting, a love that is the essence of all the great traditions. We see this love expressed in the teachings of Jesus, it is worth noting that Gandhi, although a Hindu, read the Gospels every day, believed that the Sermon on the Mount was the model of the good life and saw Jesus as the embodiment of Satyagraha. That his life was an example of how to live the spiritual and ethical life. If we were to adopt the principles that would ensure that we avoid living by these sins or blunders then we would begin to create the society that at its core would be justice, equity and compassion. 

Is this possible can we live the spiritual and ethical life can we live in such a way as to avoid these seven sins or blunders as Gandhi named them? I wonder what do these seven statements bring to your heart, mind and soul? I wonder if you can think of examples, in today’s world, of any or even each of them? What about your own life, where do you fall short? How could you begin to live a more connected life?

We all fall short of the mark, every single one of us. None of us is perfect, perhaps it is this as much as anything that makes us more human than otherwise. It is important to understand that to sin originally meant to fall short of the mark, the word "sinare" was an archery term that literally meant this. By the way when I write of sin here I am not writing of original sin, I do not believe that anyone is born this way, it's just that none of us hit the mark every time. In what ways can we aim higher and therefore raise the targets we reach when we all fall short? By the way it’s worth remembering this when we look at the specks in the eyes of others and fail to see the log in our own.

I firmly believe that to live the ethical life requires us to grow spiritually to take care of our inner life, certainly this was Gandhi’s view too. This leads me to ask you who read this "blogsot" to do me a favour. I'd like you to think of ways that this can be achieved, how can we improve our inner lives so that we can be more effective in our own homes and communities and therefore live more ethically. How do we improve our inner lives so as to see where we fall short and therefore live more ethically?

It is easy to look at others and point out where they fall short of the mark, to scapegoat, to blame; it is perhaps less easy to look at ourselves and to see how we fail to live up to the ideals of justice, equity and compassion. The truth is we all fall short of the mark, we are all far more human than otherwise and that perhaps when we criticise others for their very human shortcomings what we are really doing is deflecting from where we ourselves fall short. The truth is we can do something about ourselves, if we take care of our own spiritual needs, where as we can’t change others. We can inspire them by the way we live, but we cannot change them

We can aim way above these “Seven Social Sins”

Wealth without work.
Pleasure without conscience.
Knowledge without character.
Commerce without morality.
Science without humanity.
Worship without sacrifice.
Politics without principles.

Lent: A time for giving not giving things up

Towards the end of  “12 Steps to a Compassionate Life” Karen Armstrong writes

"...the attempt to become a compassionate human being is a lifelong project. It is not achieved in an hour or a day - or even in 12 steps. It is a struggle that will last until our dying hour. Nearly every day we will fail; but we cannot give up... We must pick ourselves up and start again. If you have followed the steps carefully you have come a long way. But the process is not over. You will have to work at all twelve steps continuously for the rest of your life: learning more about compassion, surveying your world anew, and struggling with self-hatred and discouragement. Never mind loving your enemies - sometimes loving your nearest and dearest selflessly and patiently will be a struggle!"

Been thinking about the following sentence for the last few weeks...

“Never mind loving your enemies – sometimes loving your nearest and dearest selflessly and patiently will be a struggle”

Love is not as easy as those cards and adverts make it out to be. This is because love is not some sentimental or mushy feeling. Love is tough and love is disciplined and it can really hurt sometimes, too much sometimes...

Love is one of those easy to say words, that are so hard to truly live by. How often do we say each day I love this or I love that? By the way how often do we say I hate this or I hate that? These are very strong sentiments but do we really mean what we say when we say I “love” or “hate” something? Think about it?

Last Thursday 14^th February was Valentines Day, the great love fest. Now this festival is about the celebration of romantic love, but this is not the only form of love there is. When the ancient Greeks spoke of love, they were not necessarily talking of romance. They used four different words for love: eros, romantic love; philia, friendship love; storge, a familial love; agape, spiritual love. This final type of love is the form that the great religious traditions talk of. This is a different kind of love as it is meant to be none exclusive, it is open to all, it is suppose to have no boundaries. It is meant to build bridges between the walls we create around ourselves. Whereas the other types of love suggest partiality in one sense or another.

Agape is the love that Jesus spoke of in the Gospels. He commanded his followers to “Love one another as I have loved you.”  He is not talking about something soft and mushy here though, please do not be fooled. 

When Jesus preaches that we should love our enemies he is commenting on the commandment in Leviticus “You must love your neighbour as yourself.” As Karen Armstrong has stated “Leviticus is a legal text and any talk of emotion would be out of place as it would be in a Supreme Court ruling. In the ancient Middle East, ‘love’ was a legal term used in international treaties: when two kings promised to ‘love’ each other, they pledged to be loyal and to give each other practical help and support – even if this went against their short term interests”. When Jesus spoke of love he was talking about an action that put someone or something else at the centre of their life, rather than ourselves; he is talking about yielding for the good of all, instead of self interest.

This message is of course not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the essence of all the “Great Faiths”. It would appear that selfishness and self-centredness has been the root of so many of humanities troubles, throughout our history, therefore it is hardly surprising that the idea of yielding for the good of all is at the core of the great faiths; that putting something other than our selfish needs at the centre of what we do is vital to human survival. The great Chinese guide to statecraft “The Daodejing”, authored by Lao Tzu made similar claims. As Armstrong highlights, the Dao states that “The only person who is fit to rule is the man who has overcome the habit of selfishness.”

The Dao further states that...

“The reason there is great affliction is that I have a self.

If I had no self, what affliction would I have?

Therefore to one who honours the world as his self

The world may be entrusted,

And to one who loves the world as one’s self

The world may be consigned.”

Ah The Golden Rule of Compassion...the rule of love...the essence of true religion...the essence of the spiritual life... 

Agape requires love for all, without conditions and without borders. This is the love expressed in 1 Corinthians 13 which perfectly describes the qualities of such love. It states “Agape is patient. Agape is kind and is not jealous. Agape does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice with unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth, bears all wrongs, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, agape never fails.”

Agape was the foundation of Rev Dr Martin Luther King’s ministry, the great champion of civil rights in 1950’s and 60’s America. He saw it as an abundant overflowing love that seeks nothing in return, that is open to all and rejects self interest. It is not sentimental and has nothing to do with whether we like a person or not. It is the kind of love that recognises our common humanity and reveres the other as our self; it recognises the sacred mystery in everyone. It is this that forms the beloved community that he spoke of. You may call it the Kingdom of God, or the Commonwealth of Love, or simply “Fellowship”.

Although Agape is not soft, mushy or sentimental it is still a condition of the heart, it is a way of being that encompasses all aspects of our humanity; head and heart as well as mind, body and spirit. It is about how we are and how we act. In his sermon titled “Love in action” Dr King preached that “one day we will learn that the heart can never be totally right if the head is totally wrong...only through bringing together head and heart, intelligence and goodness – shall man rise to a fulfilment of his human nature.”

It is a mistake to believe that Dr King's ministry focused purely on the injustices of society external to him. He also talked of healing humanities inner violence. None violent action, motivated by love, that he adapted from the teachings of Gandhi was about committing not only to non-violent resistance externally but also internally. Both he and Gandhi knew how vital it was that we transformed our inner lives first before we looked to the world. Gandhi named this Satyagraha (soul-force). They both knew that in order to transform society for the better, they first had to develop themselves spiritually.

Why was this? Well they knew that if a person did not heal the violence within themselves that when they did overcome the injustice they were experiencing they may well end up replacing it with something just as destructive. Just look at the revolutions of the past two hundred years. They began as a protest against tyranny and yet in many cases they replaced the former tyranny with something worse. We must all be wary of the “dark side of the force”, of how corrupting power and self righteousness can be. The last two hundred years are littered with examples of this.

Love is a way of being. It is not sentimental, it is not soft and mushy, it is tough and it requires effort and discipline. It is something that I will be attempting to focus on this Lenten season.

It always amazes me how something like Lent, which in my view is about self sacrifice, about giving of self for others, has somehow become so self centred. Today people give up things for Lent, but they seemingly primarily do so for their own good. People often given up certain food stuffs, for their own vanity, they do it for themselves. Is this what Lent is about? Well it doesn’t seem to be the right focus to me. Surely it’s actually about Agape, about self giving love, about loving all without prejudice, about recognising the “inherent worth and dignity of all” Isn’t this the example that Jesus gave to humanity, in the same way that Gandhi and Dr King did, they gave themselves wholeheartedly for others. Sadly they were murdered for it. That said their message did not die with their physical bodies; their message survived their physical deaths, it lives on today. 

This loving spirit is timeless, it is immortal, but it needs a body, it needs to be embodied. So I’ve made a decision. This Lenten season I’m going to attempt to let this spirit live through my body; this Lent I’m going to focus on giving, instead of giving up. This Lenten season I’m going to see what I can give to life instead of what I can give up; this Lenten season I’m going to live in what I consider the solution is as opposed to what the problem is. I am going to give love, even if it’s in small ways. I am going to do so while recognising how difficult that is, even to my nearest and dearest. By doing so I know that my outer world is bound to improve and my inner world will continue to heal.

My question to you, who read this blog, is what are you going to give, instead of give up, this Lent?

I will leave you with that one.

Are you a Christian? Gandhi, Jesus and Professor Dawkins

My sister contacted me the other day to tell me that she and my mum had been arguing over whether or not I was a Christian. She wanted me to settle the argument, to answer whether or not I was. By the way she contacted me by text, so my answer had to be brief. I said “well it depends what you mean”. She replied a little later to say “well we’ve stopped arguing now and have both agreed, that you are an awkward bugger”...well at least they’d stopped arguing about me, I thought.

No doubt the conversation had been kick started by the findings of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. During last year's census it conducted a survey on religious attitudes in Britain. It found that only 54% identified themselves as Christian, compared 72% in 2001. Almost three quarters who described themselves as Christian said they did so because they were born into the faith rather than it being their current belief. Only a third believed that Jesus was physically resurrected and that one in five did not believe in the resurrection, even in a spiritual sense. Almost half did not believe that Jesus was the son of God, while one in twenty five of those who declared themselves as Christian did not believe he existed at all.

The findings have concluded that most people who identify themselves as Christian turn out, when questioned on what they actually think, to be overwhelmingly secular in their attitudes on issues ranging from gay rights to religion in public life. It concludes that these people who identify as Christian are not actually Christian at all. The report triumphantly heralds the end of faith in this country and the victory of secularism.

During a a recent conversation on Radio 4’s “Today Programme”, between Professor Dawkins and Rev Giles Fraser, the former Canon of St Paul’s, Professor Dawkins announced triumphantly that an “astonishing number (of Christians) couldn’t identify the first book in the New Testament. In Professor Dawkins view people who identified as Christians and yet were not fully conversant with the bible and did not follow and subscribe to the teachings and or doctrines of the church were wrong to do so. Rev Fraser questioned these conclusions claiming that people had the right to identify as they saw fit. There then followed a brief interchange...

Rev Fraser: Richard, If I said to you what is the full title of “The Origin of Species”, I’m sure you could tell me that.

Prof Dawkins: Yes I could.

Rev Fraser: Go on then.

Prof Dawkins: On the Origin of Species...uh...with, oh God, On the Origin of Species. There is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

Rev Fraser: You’re the high pope of Darwinism...if you ask people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said two percent got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go “they don’t believe it after all.” It’s just not fair to ask people these questions. They self identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.

I heard an awful lot of hysteria from all sides during the debate over the findings of Professor Dawkins foundation. I occasionally heard a little sense. My favourite quote came from Linda Woodhead, a professor of Philosophy and religion at Lancaster University. She said:

"There's nothing new in Richard Dawkins's findings about the British way of being religious. But it's always good to be reminded of the findings of a poll commissioned by his Foundation for Reason and Science: that most of us are not "true believers" in either religion or in secularism and that Britain is neither a religious country nor a secular one, but an interesting mix of both. That doesn't make us muddled, or woolly, or confused – it just makes us British."

 “It just makes us British” I love that.

What has always troubled me about the fundamentalists either of religion or secularism is that they believe that they have the right to define what makes a person a believer or not. I find such positions arrogant. Who decides whether a person’s is a believer or not? Who has the right to set the boundaries? Of course no one is immune from this; I know I’ve done it myself. I could be accused of it in a previous blog (naughty me).

Anyhow I'd just about given up on them all when something remarkable happened, during a debate between Professor Dawkins and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams at Oxford University. The two men politely discussed “the nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin”. They also touched upon the meaning of consciousness, the evolution of human language and the Arch Bishop’s beard.


For most of the discussion the Arch Bishop quieltly listened to Professor Dawkins explanations of human evolution and said that he was inspired by the elegance of explanation for the origins of life and agreed with much of it. Professor Dawkins told the Arch Bishop "What I can't understand is why you can't see the extraordinary idea that life started from nothing - that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something as messy as a God?" Dr Williams replied that he "entirely agreed" with the "beauty" of Professor Dawkins argument but added. "I'm not talking about God as an extra who you shoehorn on to that."


And the something staggering happened, Professor Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100% certain of his conviction that there is no creator. At this Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic?" to which Professor Dawkins answered that he did. To which the flabbergasted Sir Anthony replied: You are described as the worlds most famous atheist." Professor Dawkins went on to say that he was "6.9 out of seven" sure of his beliefs that the probability of a supernatural creator is very low.

Later the Arch Bishop said that he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless “in the image of God” and added that the explanation for the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis could not be taken literally. Stating that “The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, they were nonetheless not inspired to do 21st Century physics,” he said.

Sanity at last after a week of madness. The God of surprises does indeed appear to be alive and well and at work in the most remarkable of places. I do wonder though if some people will now accuse Professor Dawkins of not being a proper Atheist and if others will claim that Dr Williams is not a proper Christian...I wonder what my sister and mum think...

We have now entered into the season of Lent, perhaps the most important period of the Christian calendar. For many Lent is about giving things up, it is about self sacrifice. It is about that central religious message of self giving love.

According to the Biblical accounts at the beginning of his ministry Jesus is “led by the spirit” into the wilderness, a place of transformation and temptation. He is taken to the pinnacle of the temple and to the top of a high mountain. Here he is offered the world, but rejects the allure of an easier showier more obvious path. Instead he chooses the road less travelled, the heroes path.

This is a universal tale; many of the great sages went on similar journeys, before embarking on their missions to heal their people. The Buddha had to leave the comforts of home, abandon his weeping family, shave his head and don the robes of a world renouncing ascetic when he began his journey to discover a cure for the pain of the world. Long before his revelations Muhammad use to retreat to Mount Hira, outside of Mecca, where he fasted, performed spiritual exercises and gave alms to the poor. He did this in an attempt to discover a remedy for the troubles of his time. When Ghandi began his mission he left the comforts of the elite in which he had lived his whole life and travelled India carefully observing the plight of the ordinary people.

During their own times in the wilderness the great sages found their answers. Through taking the road less travelled, the hard road, the difficult road, the answers came to them. They discovered the knowledge they needed to impact positively on their people in their time and place.

This is the spiritual life in its essence. It is often the hardest most difficult path and it can certainly appear to be the loneliest. That said it is the one where the answers are usually found.

Now none of these meanderings answers my sisters initial question I know. I promise I am not being evasive. I’d like to explore one of the more recent great sages Gandhi and his relationship with Christianity and specifically Jesus in an attempt to answer her question.

Gandhi saw Jesus as an ideal Satyagrahi, which is resistance to evil through soul force . Gandhi studied the Bible everyday for years and was greatly impressed with the New Testament particularly “The sermon on the Mount”. Like many Hindu’s it was the gentle figure of Jesus that he admired, who taught his followers not to retaliate and to resist violence. For him it was not the historical event of Jesus that mattered, but what the example of the message of his life had to offer humanity.  For Gandhi Jesus exemplified what it meant to serve your fellow humans and saw this as the guiding principle of his life. He saw the cross as being the perfect example of this sacrifice. 


He said:

 “Of all the things that I have read what remained with me forever was that Jesus came almost to give a new law – not an eye for an eye but to receive two blows when only one was given, and to go two miles when they were asked to go one...The message of Jesus as I understand it is contained in the Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole...If then I had to face only the sermon on the Mount and my own interpretation of it, I would not hesitate to say, “oh, yes, I am a Christian.” But negatively I can tell you that in my humble opinion, what passes as Christianity is a negation of the Sermon on the Mount...I am speaking of the Christian belief, of Christianity as it is understood in the west.”


Gandhi saw Jesus as the example to humanity, for Gandhi he pointed the way to liberation through self giving love. He believed that within all of us is this impulse for compassion and that this spark of divinity will one day burst into full flower and that Jesus was the personified example of this to every person. As he said “I believe that he belongs not solely to Christianity, but to the entire world; to all races and people, it matters little under what flag, name or doctrine they may work, profess a faith or worship a God inherited from their ancestors.”

So to answer my sisters question as to whether or not I am a Christian my answer is still the same, “it depends how you define Christianity.” For me, like Gandhi, Jesus is the example of self giving love that I aspire to. If being a Christian means following Jesus as the example to humanity then I am a Christian; if it means that I have to believe in the teachings of the established church then I am not. I am sure that by the definition of the fundamentalists of Christianity or Secularism then I am not. That said I do believe in the Jesus that Gandhi held up as the perfect Satyagraha. I see him as the embodiment of self giving love, as the example to us all. That said I do not see him as the only one, many of the great sages have also shown the way too and I also see those same heroic figures in my world today. We are all capable of being them.

Lent for me is about attempting to practise this in my life day by day. It’s not about giving up sweets or chocolate etc, it’s about giving of myself to life each and every day in whatever small ways that I can. It’s about practising non-violence not only with myself but others too, it’s about facing up to my own demons, those within and those without and about attempting to build the commonwealth of love here on earth. It’s about self transcendence; it’s about the full realisation of the truth that it is giving that we truly receive and that it is in these moments that we can know God.

I wish I knew how it would feel to be free

Is freedom possible? Do we even know how to be free? Do we even know how it feels to be free?

Life does seem to put limits on our freedom. Society puts constraints on the way we act and communicate with one another. It would seem that there are even limits for the artist, although thank God they are constantly being broken down.

Creativity often flows from coming to terms with life’s challenges and through learning to communicate with a variety of people. For me this is becoming the key to ministry. It has taken me time to develop spiritual intimacy with the communities I serve and to learn how to communicate with the people I share worship with.

Unitarians claim freedom of the pulpit but we don’t have absolute freedom to do whatever we fancy, reason and tolerance are the counter balance to this.  We do need to push boundaries though at times. If our history had not been littered with folk who were prepared to do that then we would not exist today as a free religious community unconstrained by creed and dogma. That said I am not convinced that we enjoy total freedom, societal norms and human expectations constrain everyone at times. And there are positives to this as it gives people stability and a groundedness that any community needs.

I have shared the following story before in a previous blog (This version was written by Rev Darlison). I love it, it speaks powerfully to me. I believe that it is strikingly symbolic of Hindu spirituality.

While travelling alone through some rough terrain, a man called Mitali stayed the night in a wayside inn. Tired from his journey, he went to bed and was on the point of falling asleep when he heard a voice calling, Freedom! Freedom! I want to be free!” from the courtyard below his window.

“Someone must be trapped nearby, “ thought Mitali. “I’ll go see if I can help”

He descended to the courtyard and looked around, but he could see nobody. Thinking he must have imagined the voice, he was about to go back in the room when he heard it again: “Freedom! Freedom! I want to be free!” but it wasn’t coming from a person; it was coming from a parrot sitting in a golden cage.

“How cruel”, thought Mitali. “no bird should be imprisoned like that”. He walked over to the cage and opened the door. “off you go!” he said to the bird. “You can go free now”

The parrot sat on its perch, calling out “Freedom! Freedom! I want to be free”, but it didn’t move. Mitali put his hand in the cage, but the parrot cowered away, all the while calling for freedom but making no move towards the open door.

Gently taking hold of the parrot, Mitali tried to drag it through the caged door, but the parrot resisted mightily, pecking at his would-be liberator’s hand until the blood flowed copiously. Undaunted by the pain, Mitali finally released the bird and threw it up in the air. “Your free now my friend. Go off and enjoy your liberty!” The parrot flew off, and was soon lost to sight in the darkness of the moonless night.

Feeling very pleased with himself, Mitali went to bed. “Captivity is wrong for man or beast,” he thought. “Birds should be free to fly; they shouldn’t be forced to sit in cages for the entertainment of human beings. At least I’ve helped one creature to escape to freedom.”

He slept very soundly that night.

With the dawn he awoke, and he smiled as he remembered his good deed of a few hours before. But then he heard the voice once more. “Freedom! Freedom! I want to be free!” “The parrot hasn’t gone very far,” he thought. “He must have perched on a nearby tree or rock. Perhaps he is sitting on the roof of the inn.”

Mitali went down to the courtyard to have a look. But the parrot wasn’t perched on the roof of the building. Nor was he on a nearby tree, or on a rock. He was back in the cage, shouting for freedom, and the cage door was open.

In many religious traditions the soul is often symbolised by a bird and it’s the same in Hinduism. The Hindu term for what we understand as the soul is the Atman. The Atman refers to the eternal none material aspect of the self. It never changes and is distinct from the mind and body. This real self is beyond the temporary characteristics of race, gender and even species. Ideas about reincarnation are natural extension of this concept. For Hindu’s consciousness, in whatever way it may manifest, is merely a symptom of the soul. Therefore for the physical life to have awareness it requires the soul.

The story of the caged parrot is symbolic of the soul becoming trapped by the body and or the mind, it is crying out to be set free. It is offered freedom but fights against it. Finally it is set free, but does not like or want this freedom and therefore returns to the cage, crying out for freedom “Freedom! Freedom! I want to be free”

As Rousseau said “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”.

How can we free the soul? How do we attain this freedom? How do we set the soul free? How do we truly live as ourselves amongst others and with others? How do we escape the chains that bind us? How do we leave the cage behind? What can we do to stop ourselves from opening the cage door, climb back in, sit on the perch and squawk “freedom, freedom, I want to be free” How can spiritual freedom be attained?

For me the key to spiritual freedom has to be self transcendence. In my experience it is through self sacrifice that we truly find ourselves and we set our souls, minds and bodies free to live as we were born to live. This seems to go against the grain of much 21^st century thinking which seems to be all about me feeling good about me, right now. More, more, more, now, now, now!

The Rev Alex Bradley, the principle at Unitarian College Manchester, where I trained for the ministry suggests:

“People sacrifice themselves to others in various ways. In doing so, they find themselves. They give themselves in the lives they lead. They may be seemingly ordinary nameless people or ones whose names live on. Margeret Barr in lifelong self service, James Reeb in prophetic witness at the cost of his life. Real freedom is lived in relation to others: real freedom is found in community.

Real freedom is about choice, and sometimes it is found through the narrow gate. It is found in the true self and it is found in self denial. Jesus spoke of the kingdom as a great feast for all. He also said that those seeking to save their lives would lose them, and those who lost their lives would find them.

Here is the spiritual paradox that all the great faiths have taught. Here I believe is real freedom.”

Alex makes a very powerful point. Through self sacrifice, in community, the true self is revealed and we are set free from the cage, we stop squawking about freedom and begin to actually enjoy it.

The great twentieth century Hindu Gandhi saw Jesus as the great example of this. He held him up as the ideal Satyagraha, which is resistance to evil through soul force. Gandhi, a Hindu, studied the Bible everyday for years and was greatly impressed with the New Testament particularly “The sermon on the Mount”. Like many Hindu’s it was the gentle figure of Jesus that he admired, who taught his followers not to retaliate and to resist violence. For him it was not the historical event of Jesus that mattered, but what the example of the message of his life had to offer humanity.  For Gandhi Christ exemplified what it meant to serve your fellow humans and saw this as the guiding principle of his life. He saw the cross as being the perfect example of this sacrifice. He saw the cross as the perfect metaphor of self transcendence.

 

So is self transcendence the key to freedom? There are those who will say no to this and cry out “If I lose myself what will be left?”

Well self transcendence is not about destruction of “self” it is actually about the discovery of the “real self”. It is the key to “real freedom”. It is not a new idea and is a message found at the root of the great religious traditions, theistic and non-theistic. I like to call it the "Diamond principle". Through self transcendence our “real” nature is fully revealed; the “Great Reality”, deep down within every man, woman and child and all life for that matter. Some call this the “Cosmic Christ” or “Cosmic God”, what Matthew Fox has named as the “I am” in everything. It is a faith based on change, dare I say transformation, because this “I am” can reshape matter for ever. It is a change that is brought on by the spiritual activity of self giving love.

Self transcendence is “really” about delighting in our very being, by understanding that we exist beyond the confines of ourselves. Keith Ward has described it as “Non – egoist delight in being” Karen Armstrong suggests “For human beings transcendence is part of our experience of the world”. It not only changes how we are as individuals but how we relate to the world. It opens our eyes to a far more universal perspective. It enables us to see the world through the eyes of others and not just from our own narrow perspectives. This breeds compassion and leads to a “real freedom” that transforms the world for ever.

To be really free requires courage. It requires us to speak and be our truth and to do so in love. We need not be afraid to express who we are and where we are coming from; we need not be stifled by the fear of what others may or may not think of us. Freedom is not something to merely talk about as an abstract concept but something to be experienced and expressed, but I don’t believe that happens in isolation. It happens when we come together and meet and give of ourselves to each other. You see by dancing our dance and showing others they can do likewise, we encourage one another to know how it feels to be free.

It is no good merely squawking about freedom, “Freedom! Freedom! I want to be free” We need to show the world what it means to know how it feels to be free.