Oxford calling

So, I have come to the conclusion that many things in my life are overrated. For example,

• working for a living,
• paying bills,
• renting a flat,
• generally being a grown up.

There is an obvious solution to this, which is to go back to university, so that's what I plan to do. I got a place at the University of Oxford back in February to study for a Postgraduate Diploma (PGDip) in theology, and I leave for St. Stephen's House in about 3 weeks time. 

So far, so terrifying, and that was before I got the Freshers' guide in the post. I haven't been a fresher for about 6 years, I'm not sure I know how! Freshers' week at UCL is a bit of  haze of awkward conversation, slightly dodgy parties in the Windeyer Bar (RIP) and then in the weeks that followed, a lot more beer, some drunken fumblings in Popstarz (you know who you are and I'm very sorry) and finally the bizarre decision (after a lot of vodka) to stand for election as co-president of the LGB Society*. All of that is totally fine and normal if you're 18 but I have this funny feeling that most of the people at St. Stephen's are real adults, and some of them might even have managed to hold down a job outside retail. I'm just a bit nervous that I don't really know how to talk to new people unless they want to know where we keep books by Philippa Gregory (ground floor, left-hand side, general fiction, her new title is also on display next to the music store).

Admittedly, as much as I joke about pink hair and piercings, I don't really think I'm all that unconventional. I've lived in Camden for six years, I'm well aware that I would have to try an awful lot harder to be really shocking. But, nonetheless, I still get slightly surprised looks from people when I tell them what I want to do with my life - "What, like a priest? Doesn't anyone mind about your tattoo?" - and it makes me more nervous again. It doesn't help that my view of the Anglican community is coloured by the media obsession with women's consecration and the place of LGB people within the church, and so I assume that as a woman who identifies as gay I won't last five minutes. 

None of this does any favours to the people I'll be studying with, of course, and the reality of living and working amongst people has taught me that to most people none of the surface issues really matter. Some of my closest friends and colleagues over the years have been very conservative and aside from the odd argument over a pint (of cola) about the precise role of the state in resolving the economic crisis, we get on just fine! 

More to the point, of course, most people will be feeling exactly the same way. St. Stephen's is a community of about 60 students, but the guide only lists 15 continuing students. So I can't be too worried about walking in to a pre-existing clique because new faces will by far outweigh the old. Many of the new students will be in the same position as me, independent students coming to study either theology or education but not seeking ordination in the Anglican church. Even more encouragingly, there seems to be a real sense that as a small college everyone takes responsibility for the environment and for building a community. The weekdays start as early as 7:30am with meditation, followed by Morning Prayer and Mass, and at 3pm on a Monday there is a slot in the timetable for "group duties", which appear to include gardening and cleaning. I'm sure I'll come to dread that slot in time (chores have never been my strong point), but at the moment it just seems to stand for a sense of responsibility for, and pride in, the place we all live and work that has to be a good thing.

So, come Saturday 2nd October I'll be a student again. I have a lot to sort before I go and when I get there, so I'm sure the next few weeks will pass in a blur. Meanwhile, if you're in Oxford, please send me a message and say hello! Friendly faces are always appreciated and I'm so nervous that I won't know anyone!  

*Now UCL Union LGBT Students' Network. How times change. 

Sometimes an image change is no bad thing

Pink hair! And a new hole for earrings. 

Today I decided to do something new (or newish) and highlighted my hair pink. I have had pink hair before, as some of you will know, but since the age of 16 only once for a show. But then I was taking my friend Reuben (The Wife) to have his ears pierced and it seemed like a good time to finally get the second earrings I've been talking about for ages (probably also since the age of about 16, actually, I'm clearly regressing).

I've been informed (by The Wife) that I look like a cartoon character at the moment, and despite the fact I don't really know what they are we have concluded that I look like the pink one out of the Powerpuff Girls.

So, voilà. Pink highlights - check. Piercings - check. Book of Common Prayer - check. I think I'm ready for theological college!

The great I AM

People are fond of seeing contradictions in the Bible, particularly in the ways that God is depicted. We see one God in the Old Testament - vengeful, demanding, jealous, quick to smite people who cause problems - and another in the New - loving, gracious, quick to reconcile to humanity. We put Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, automatically into this second category of aspects of God, we believe in Jesus as 'meek and mild', a lover not a fighter.

That's why the gospel reading we heard on Sunday (Luke 12:49-56) is so challenging; it puts Old Testament imagery into a New Testament context. In other words, this week's reading challenges the tendency we have to anthropomorphise God. People are generally pretty limited. We are contradictory, that's undoubted, but we are a mere 'image' of God, a reflection or a shadow, incapable of being as God is.

It is precisely because we are so limited that it is hard for us to comprehend how much more God is than we are. We try to use human language to describe the divine. We use words like 'loving', and understand them in the same way we would if we were to talk about other humans. We cannot ever comprehend how much love God has for the created world. So, too, when we talk about God as 'angry'. We can only understand so much anger at one time, before our perception is weakened and limited. And how much harder is it to truly understand the fact that God not only has the capacity for all the emotion we do, but can experience several at once in a way that the human mind finds contradictory?

And yet, to me, it seems that this is the very essence of God, one of the things that makes God divine and not human. St. Augustine of Hippo, as ever, had a lot to say on the subject. The core of his thinking, though is this; if the Trinity is indeed composed of three beings who are interdependent but also distinct, then it is possible for each of them to have attributes that are not part of the other. However, for the human mind to truly comprehend the depth and breadth of God as Trinity is impossible, we can but pray for enough understanding to get a glimpse of the truly awesome power and nature of God.

"We believe that Parent, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, maker and ruler of every creature, and that "Parent" is not "son", nor "Holy Spirit" "Parent" or "son"; but a trinity of mutually related persons, and a unity of equal essence. So let us attempt to understand this truth, praying that he who we wish to understand would help us in doing so, so that we can set out whatever we thus understand with such careful reverence so that nothing unworthy is said."

What he is saying here is that we should not be surprised to see what look like contradictions in the nature of God, because all things come from God and are of one of the beings of the Trinity. When we find a passage in the gospels that challenges our understanding of what Jesus the son is, we should draw near to God in prayer and ask for true understanding to allow us to speak of God's infinite nature.

Of all the names we use for God, the one I like the best is simply "I AM", because it reminds us that sometimes there is no need to describe God with human attributes, but simply to acknowledge that God is.

Rev.

I totally love Rev. I have spent 6 weeks been somewhat hooked on it. It seems to tap into all the anxieties and stresses of being a Christian (never mind trying to be ordained).

There are so many things that just tap into the ordinariness of trying to be nice to people and wondering how on earth it's possible to be good at all when the odds are stacked against you. How do you manage to keep working for God when there's no money (to make the world go around) and no one else is interested.

But more than anything else, they've created a real person who just happens to be a vicar. Full of prayers, insights, inappropriate thoughts, a slightly irrational need for friends and a nicotine habit. Oh, and some very fetching green and gold vestments...

I have always loved the Vicar of Dibley, but it is outclassed by miles by Rev. My only slight fear is that I might turn out to be more like Nigel than Adam. I quite like the idea of the commandment to keep the sabbath as the most radical. Maybe that's my years of retail work talking, rather than a theological imperative.

Incidentally, this week's episode reminded me I haven't looked at Ship of Fools for a while, and whilst I was on there I came across this, which made me giggle.

Remembrance

On Saturday, it was the tenth annual Transgender Day of Remembrance. Every 20th November we gather as a community to remember the trans men and women who have died as victims of hate crime.

Hate crime takes a number of forms. In its most extreme, it leads to murder. The murder of Ian Baynham in Trafalgar Square, or David Morley on the Embankment, or the brutal and unnecessary deaths at the Admiral Duncan pub ten years ago. But there are other things that happen that are dismissed. The people who call us names in the street, who make assumptions about others' gender identities and discriminate against them for it, even the people who were bullies at school. This is all hate crime, and it is all damaging.

When people die as a result of hate crime, it is not always because they are physically beaten by their persecutors. These mental beatings take their toll. It is estimated that 50% of young trans people attempt suicide at least once. In the LGBT community as a whole, rates of depression, self-harm and addiction are higher than in the general population. This is not a coincidence, nor is it because we are naturally disordered. It is because we face such discrimination on a daily basis.

And in that spirit, we should also remember the victims of bullying. It is anti-bullying week and we know that the victims of bullying today may be the suicide victims we are remembering tomorrow. A single act of bullying can be so devastating to a young person as to lead to all sorts of mental health and emotional problems later in life. Bullying is not normal, it is not a rite of passage, it is a devastating and life-changing thing to happen to someone. Sustained over a course of years it can destroy self-esteem and erode hope in someone's life.

The bullies will also suffer, those who torment others doubtless suffer countless torments themselves. The young woman of 18 who has been charged with the murder of Ian Baynham will never get her life back. She will forever be marked as "different" and probably even as "bad". Her life has been destroyed because she was never taught that it is wrong to persecute those who are different.

So this week, as well as praying for victims of transphobic hate crime and all forms of bullying, let us think about what we can do to make the world a better place. Report it when someone assaults you in the street, refuse to accept that "it's just a part of life". Do not let hate-speak go unchallenged, have the courage to correct people who make ignorant and hurtful remarks about what they cannot possibly understand. If you are in a position to do so, share your own story with a young person who will be given strength from it; maybe even write to your old school and tell them about your experiences. A few acts of harm can destroy a life, a few careful acts of kindness may rebuild someone.

We are all one body of Christ; it's time to look after each other.

More on the God Delusion

Whilst I don't want to turn this into some kind of anti-Dawkins platform, a couple of interesting points have been raised about what I wrote last week that I think I should respond to, particularly as Wednesday's post was something of a knee-jerk reaction. I still maintain that my issue with Dawkins remains that he rails against extremism whilst channelling some of that into his own thoughts. I hope those who commented on Facebook won't mind me lifting quotes to give this some context.

I don't quite see how he has replicated other social prejudices. I also cannot see how it follows that Dawkins and other atheists are in anyway like religious extremists. I haven't read any atheist writings that condemn and call for violence against people of faith.

I don't think calling for violence is the only way to instill hate and prejudice in others. What if he were to say that being gay is against nature and those who believe it is not are irrational and unless they are challenged and choose to change their beliefs, the very fabric of our society is at risk. That doesn't wish death on anyone, but it is still hateful and damaging. Indeed, it is one of the beliefs that Dawkins identifies as harmful, and challenges.

I find his attitude to religion to be equivalent. If you single out one religion he talks about - Islam - the things he says truly are designed to polarise and to pit people against one another. He claims to want to wipe religion from the face of the earth. No, he doesn't resort to using the language of violence but that doesn't make it acceptable in my mind.

Moderate religious people compartmentalise their thinking - accepting science in one regard but reserving a special place for their faith. I think you are probably right insofar as Dawkins' takes his fight to the fundamentalists because moderates don't offer the 'culture war' that you could argue the new atheists are looking for. However, I also thinks moderates are overlooked by the new atheists because they have effectively marginalised themselves. If you are moderate enough to believe that faith is personal, that science offers a method for progressing human understanding and as such, religion has less of a place in society in terms of say making legislation then you are left with a group of the faithful that is essentially toothless.

It's interesting, though, that as I said above Dawkins flip-flops between wanting religion to have less influence and wanting to get rid of it altogether. And I also don't agree that most moderates are 'toothless'. They will certainly not be if Dawkins gets his way and faith is driven out of society. He would push people to have to fight for their right to a personal faith. Something that is protected by (amongst other things) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just as he insists that all religion, taken to its natural conclusion, leads to 'young men with bombs in rucksacks', it strikes me that if his brand of atheism was taken to a logical conclusion (and if it becomes de rigeur in politics) would drive faith underground or make everyone fight. That in turn would make it look as though he was right, it would become a vicious cycle that could even create further extremism.

The crux of the 'new atheist' argument is that as a basis for understanding the universe, science offers a method based on logic and reason. As you rightly recognise, science cannot falsify the existence of a God. However, from this empirical worldview there is also no reason to invoke a higher power to explain any natural phenomenon. The bottom line is, whatever one might argue, science is irreconcilable with religion because in order to accept the tenements of any faith, one must put aside what is known about the laws of physics, biology and the universe and one must ignore the illogic that arises as a result of invoking a creator to explain its existence. Please understand that I am not attacking religious people here, I simply think that you have to accept that there has to be some suspension of reason in order to have faith.

But just as there is always an element of "who created the creator" inherent in religious philosophy, there will always be unanswered questions in science. What caused the big bang (and what if the LHC doesn't find out)? There is no reason to invoke God to fill the gaps, I agree. But Dawkins only ever challenges this 'God of the gaps' theology, and it is not the only thing that draws people into faith. I don't want to believe in a god who is diminished by science, or can only exist where science can't answer our questions. I am happy for there to be things I don't understand. Sometimes faith comes from a place that just can't be explained itself. Pascal (an agnostic) used to talk about there being a 'God-shaped hole' in all of us. There is a human instinct to faith, and maybe it does involve a suspension of purely scientific thinking, but until a couple of years ago it required a suspension of scientific fact to observe a bee flying!

It involves a suspension of science and rationality to enter into a monogamous relationship, to use birth control and have sex for pleasure. Love cannot be empirically measured, laughter can't be adequately distilled into chemical processes. We don't understand the human mind; science can see chemical changes occur in the brain of someone with persistent neuroses or psychoses, so why is it not enough to correct those chemical changes to restore a person to how they were without those neuroses?

We suspend reason in order to live to the fullest. Religion is not the root of all evil, science is not the cure. Religion can be used, shamefully, as a whip to drive people to do all sorts of things. But it's humanity that does that. Yes, there are arguments and turns of phrase that are emotive and are consistently used to draw people into extremist views, but politics can do that as well. Political Islam draws heavily on communist political philosophy (read The Islamist by Ed Husain to explain this more fully), and some parts of Christianity frequently embrace politically motivated 'scientific' studies to support their views on alternative sexualities.

We are flawed human beings. I can't explain through my faith why we aren't perfect, and neither can a scientist. We came to be this way through millennia of biological, social and psychological evolution. In so many ways, we suspend reason just by being.

This debate could keep going forever, there have been arguments against creationism for as long as there has been a capacity for human thought, so I'll leave it there.

The God Delusion on Channel 4

I will try to keep this as far from a rant as I can. I'm watching Richard Dawkins on 4OD in a series called 'The Root of all Evil?', and it is fascinating.

I do have a problem with Dawkins, and I should confess that now, but my problem is not that he is an atheist; rather, it is that he sees things in very black and white terms. He views all religious experiences as being 'the first step to young men with bombs in rucksacks' and says that 'even so-called moderate believers are part of the same religious fabric [as Osama bin-Laden and the taleban]', and that all with faith 'encourage unreason as a virtue'.

The problem is that this view is so distorted that I wonder if he would recognise a 'so-called moderate' if he fell over one. You know, Professor Dawkins, there are some of us who agree with you that the world is over 4 billion years old, and that evolution is indisputable scientific fact.

In fact, I would go even further than that. I know many Christians who positively thrive on the scientific method in their theology. To be more accurate, I suppose I mean the Socratic method (one cannot, obviously, test philosophical and theological reasoning in a lab). Like Dawkins, I love the times when other people from my academic discipline are able to come together to argue, debate and maybe even change one another's views. This tradition, although I called it Socratic, is also a very important part of Jewish tradition. Christianity and Judaism thrive on debate, discussion and the idea that the Word of God is both unchanging and of constant relevance.

Richard Dawkins does say, in fairness to him, that he doesn't hate anyone. I'm not sure this is borne out by the bigoted language he uses. I find it is frequently offensive, and if he were to talk that way about any other group in society it would be considered so and not aired. However, I am glad he is able to broadcast and to talk. I am glad that he challenges fundamentalism where it becomes dangerous, but I worry that he doesn't see a difference between 'death cults of suicide bombers' and the average church, mosque, or synagogue attendee.

I don't pretend to know everything. I have deep questions about the world that my faith can't answer. Science isn't there to fill the gaps in my knowledge of God, and God isn't there to fill the gaps in my scientific knowledge.

I hope I have been able to communicate that I don't disagree with him on everything, but I feel like Dawkins uses poor methodology to research his atheist work. He refers only to the extremes, never to the religious folk who might actually agree with him on some parts of his research. I find it telling that he doesn't talk to someone like Karen Armstrong, a former nun and expert on the semitic/Abrahamic faiths, or Richard Holloway, formerly Bishop of Edinburgh and both a relativist and a moderate. Is he too scared that he can't challenge the middle ground?