thinking theologically

The past three nights I've been privileged to attend a series of lectures by NT Wright - it's the first time I've heard him speak and he is a compelling communicator.  I always love learning by listening so this has been great for me - getting to think deeply and theologically (and take copious notes!).

The series has been titled (somewhat provocatively) 'Why we've all misread the gospels' - Monday focused on The forgotten story of the Gospels, Tuesday covered The Gospels in four dimensions - using a helpful metaphor of a quadraphonic stereo system, yesterday's came to the heart of the matter with Kingdom and Cross, and tonight looks at how we apply these things - the so what? factor.

Fascinating stuff - some of which I was already familiar with but I always like revisiting concepts and being reminded of things that have slipped from view.  Will try and post some summaries and impressions at some point.

On a personal level, it's been so refreshing to have the opportunity to reflect deeply and to be reminded of why I love studying theology - it always feels like a constant exercise in uncovering treasure.  It also feeds my mind, which is very much appreciated when I am often isolated in my learning and studying.


Image: not mine!

theology and discipleship

In a recent Baptist Times is an interview with Revd Dr Pat Took, recently inducted as President of the Baptist Union of Great Britain.

At one point she says:

"We need good, thoughtful and seasoned theology in our churches.  We also need loving discipleship.  We need that from ministers, who are the community pastors and theologians, and we need everyone to have access to such good theology and discipleship." 

Sometimes theology gets a bad press.  There's a wedge driven between the 'intellectual' and the 'experiential' as if were not all living, feeling and thinking beings - united, not fragmented. Sometimes you get the feeling that the 'ivory tower' stereotype is still out there.  But I think theology is vibrant, dynamic, and sustaining.  We have been given the capacity for deep thinking and deep feeling.  Both together = deep living.

Perhaps one day I should blog about my preoccupation with 'depth' - but the story behind it feels a mite too personal still.  Occasionally I share it as part of my testimony.  But that quote from Richard Foster at the bottom of this blog is no casually chosen thing.  This quest for depth has characterised my journey and indeed my blog will always be looking deeper.  That was its primary purpose.

But I digress, ever so slightly.

Theology and discipleship are co-partners, companions, each sustaining our lives and enriching them.

We need everyone to have access.  Yes.  We have all been given eyes and ears, minds and hearts that we should love the LORD our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength.  Do we seek him with both mind and heart?  Do we seek understanding?  Wisdom?  To be a disciple and to make disciples?

a feeling God? (part 2)

I'm grateful to Doug Chaplin (Clayboy) for re-clarifying the context of the post I quoted yesterday; the discrediting he mentions is that of a clear gulf between Hebrew and Greek thought

... by the time we get to Jesus. There are different histories and different cultural perceptions, but they have been exaggerated and too much tied to ideas of language and the biblical text.

Please read the rest of his comment on yesterday's post for more.  I feel I did not represent this clearly enough and probably applied it out of context.  Apologies.

I confess I am not at this stage going to comment at length on this - I'm far too theologically rusty to make a good job of it. Rather I'll continue with my main (segmented) post for now.

That's the thing about reading others' blogs - they spark off topics in your mind and before long you're halfway round a different block with your own thoughts!

In my original post, I was going to quote Doug again - I will do so because it was another trigger in my head, but then I'll stop (mis?) quoting him!

In another post on this subject, he says of the biblical emotive language that

I interpret it as the metaphor by which the narrative characterises the changing and developing relationship between God and his people, and part of the process where God’s people grow into a deeper understanding of God. I do not see us as being obliged to refer the narrative metaphors to eternal characteristics.

And off I went round the block again, pondering as I went.  (I like going round the block.  I can get quite addicted to those 'thought sparks'.)

Here is where I struggle.  I do not  disagree that metaphor is heavily used when talking about God - in fact how could it be otherwise?  But I believe nonetheless that it is trying to say something about God.

(There are many tangents and byways of course, easily sidestepping into the nature of scripture, inspiration and the nature of language - is it, as some would say, eternally self-referring? Can language be reliable? I'll pull myself out of that tangent before I get onto a new topic entirely.)

If God does not grieve, mourn, or sympathise, if he does not react in any way, if he does not respond to us in anyway, how does he relate?  Can a relationship be static?  Do we not claim that God is three in one?

And what about passages that express the joy of God - such as in Zephaniah 'he will rejoice over you with gladness, he will delight / exult over you with singing' - I'm not proposing he would literally sing (feel free to discuss), but am I then to say that this verse is obsolete, that there is no delight experienced by God, because it is what we would call a feeling?   

Is it simply a way of saying God approves - but then how do we define approval?  And if we say God is pleased do we take it not as literal pleasure - what then, does it mean?  Is it simply that we think he is pleased and thus interpret it thus?  (Hence, it is all about what we think of God and not true of God at all?)

And does the fact that someone feels change their character? Indeed he is the Father of the heavenly lights,who does not change like shifting shadows (James 1-17)....surely this is a testament to the unfailing, unsteady, utterly reliable character of God who does not do things on mere whim but always acts in line with his character - just, true, loving and holy?  The context of the verse is that he is the source of all giving, and that every perfect gift comes from him, and then goes on to talk about the purpose of God - not the feelings of God.  James later encourages his readers to 'draw near to God and he will draw near to you' - surely a verse of cause and effect?  Of God responding  to humanity?  Not a static idea. (Interestingly, just prior to this verse he quotes a scripture which reads 'God yearns jealously'...)  

Of course, we all probably  come from different traditions;  I'm not an Anglican, for example, and I probably place a little less emphasis on tradition than some.  Plus, writing blog posts like this still makes me feel like I am swimming without armbands on, so please forgive any foolishness or stupidity!


I'm also aware of our own tendencies to navigate towards that which we are most comfortable with (whatever that may be).  But more on that, later.

PS The placement of the emoticons is not in relation to the text - merely corresponding to the main topic!  Just in case you thought I was having mood swings throughout...

a feeling God? (part 1)

A few gentle musings on a hefty topic, which is far bigger than my tiny hands.  After throwing out a whole lotta words, I've divided it up a bit into a series of posts, which I'll put up at certain points.  Otherwise, it would be an eye ball roller¹.  Of course, this means I won't cover all points in one go and have to resist the urge to clarify everything at once - which, being me, I'll find quite difficult, as I hate being misunderstood!

In my gentle blogging the bible over at Thirsty Ground, I tend to stick with the story and not widen it into big theological conundrums - but that is not to say I am unaware of wider issues of how we read and interpret the bible, nor am I uninterested in such discussions.  In fact, I'm regularly going off on tangents in my mind, connecting ideas and themes with other things I'm reading or thinking about.  (The joy of being able to think - to perceive, to compare, to relate - does anyone else ever find this startling?)

In looking at the story of God's interaction with Noah, I am doing what I have decided at the start - reading the story and commenting on the story, not trying to squeeze things into categories or make them 'fit' with certain frameworks or, in some cases, make them more palatable.  That's not my purpose.  I'm reading the text as story - looking at the words themselves, applying, i suppose, the kind of technique when reading and reflecting on any story. I do this within the belief that this is of course, not just any story.

Nonetheless, I'm aware that some things, read in this way, will cause our minds to fizzle.  I note, for example, in this post that 'this is a story of a feeling God' which may cause problems for those who struggle with the idea that God has feelings, taking this to imply that God is subject to change.   I would say that I am reading it as story, and therefore am not trying to make a theological point about this.

But I do struggle with the belief in the impassibility of God - apologies to those of you who find theological jargon off putting and who do not like hefty blog posts (feel free to turn off or tune out)!  A couple of months ago Clayboy posted on his blog about this topic, saying

It is now quite common to find Christians believing that God has feelings.

He says that this idea, that God can be affected by what he has made - us - is based on what he calls a 'largely discredited' theory of 'static Greek essentialism' and 'some kind of  Hebrew dynamism'.  He talks about this in specific reference to the emotive language used about God in the Old Testament.  Obviously this is something I am particularly immersed in due to my journeying through Genesis, but I am also doing a more generalised 'bible in a year' reading, which I found helpful the first time I attempted it in 2009. 

I feel I cannot possibly approach the topic with any thing like the thoroughness and astuteness that he does, but I am still wary of the influence of Greek philosophical thought on classical Christian thought in this area, in spite of the suggestion that this has been 'widely discredited' - I'd have to examine that claim further in order to be able to comment on that, let alone argue against it.²  But was it not Aristotle who pronounced God as the 'unmoved mover' the one static source from which everything finds its motion? 

If God is moved by nothing, then why should he care, love, or even create?  I feel there must be degrees in this, that it is not merely one fence running through two fields - the passible and the impassible.  Why, I ponder, are we so ready to assume that because we say God must be such-and-such in order to be God (the more philosophical argument, I suppose), therefore he cannot be other than what we say?

I'm not the only one who feels that the image of God we conjure is influenced by a kind of dualism - in her post 'God in a Psychotic Rage?' Lesley notes that

...I am also aware that I tend to look at God through the lenses of the Greek dualism of the earthy being emotional, full of desire, changeable and grubby whereas the spiritual is beautiful, serene, knowledgeable and wise.

Lesley and I may choose to put different items in our wardrobes (see her post here) and we inhabit different traditions/denominations, but I appreciate her honesty, as its something I've always tried to be myself (honest, that is).

The Hebrew narratives feel rather muddier and more complex than our 'pictures of God'.  So, do we try and squeeze the biblical images to fit?  Or do we merely dismiss them?


I don't believe we should create God in our own image - it's the other way round.  I'm not saying God suffers from human feelings (aside from what he does in Jesus - hardly insignificant), thus implying that God feels like me (yikes!).  But I can't at this point condemn the language used as merely our interpretations of God.  Isn't that approach in itself an interpretation of God, open to exactly the same flaws?

More later!

A feeling God? (part 2)

¹Eye ball roller -  not, in this case referring to mere rolling of the eyes, but referring to posts so long that your eye balls dry up and fall out, rolling around on the floor.  Nice.

² I've not been clear here about what Doug meant.  Please see his comment on this post.  

The Lord is my Light - Lecture with Professor Alister McGrath

Spent some time listening to this lecture by Alister McGrath this morning. He tends to tackle topics that interest me, theology and apologetics among them. I decided to plug my netbook into the radio and listen while doing the ironing downstairs. It's a good way of getting two things done at once but I did find myself hissing occasionally that I did not have a notebook and pen to hand. I know my mind is so full of holes by nature that I cannot rely on my memory.


So, I may need to listen/watch again at some point - with a pen instead of an iron!  Plus, the screen was not in my view as I stood at the ironing board, trying to get the fluff off a T-Shirt.  I did run and get a coat hanger at one point, too.

I liked the ideas of seeing Christianity as light but also something that sheds light on everything else, seeing doctrines as both the glass of a window but also seeing through it to a wider landscape.  McGrath talks of theology as something that informs but also excites, something we do together as we look at scripture, drawing each other's attention to things we had not previously noticed (one of the reasons I love this kind of discussion).

In relation to apologetics, I was struck by the fact that in order to translate something, we need to understand our own meaning - which is often what I'm trying to put across when I bang on about intelligent faith.

 If you're interested in theology, apologetics and thinking deeply about faith this may be worth a look, as McGrath talks about loving God with all our minds - while still allowing for the fact that there are some things beyond our mental grasp, some things words cannot contain and some questions that cannot be resolved in a logical way.

Lecture with Professor Alister McGrath – Lanier Theological Library

Image from Alister McGrath's biography on RZIM website

Beyond Opinion by Ravi Zacharias (ed.)

Beyond Opinion: living the faith we defend is an apologetic resource edited by Ravi Zacharias (see the Zacharias Trust).   It is divided into three main sections: 'Giving An Answer',  which looks at difficult questions posed against faith in God, as well as the 'questions behind the questions'.  This tackles areas such as postmodernism, atheism and scientific questions. The second part, 'Internalising the Questions and Answers', explores deeper issues of spiritual transformation and the third part, 'Living Out the Answers', addresses the role of the church.

This is not a book that you can read straight through, and it is difficult to encapsulate in a review.  It took me a long time to absorb and digest the various themes and dilemmas presented here.  With a range of contributors writing on various subjects, the book is a collection of voices and topics, all important to apologetics.

I found this book valuable, and challenging.  As it wrestles with some quite hefty philosophical and scientific thinking at times, it can take some effort to grasp certain passages.  However, I enjoyed the opportunity of familiarising myself with the thoughts and questions posed.  The myriad of voices means that naturally a reader may appreciate one chapter more than another, depending on areas of interest or preference of writing style, but the change of tone can be helpful, especially after being immersed in a very complex subject.

The book resounds with the call of 1 Peter 3:15, the defining statement of apologetics, that Christ is set apart as Lord in our hearts, that we should always be ready to give an answer (Greek: apologia) for the hope we have and that we should do so with gentleness and respect.

This book is more meaty than milky. It is not an easy or quick read, and won't be to everyone's taste.  However, I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to think deeply about their faith, and longs to be able to explain it more fully.  There were moments in my reading where I was deeply interested, amiably befuddled, greatly challenged and even, I believe, spoken to in a way I was not expecting, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

I was provoked to think more deeply about my faith, ponder the incredible nature of God and examine my own attitudes and lifestyle.

More than that, it emphasises the need for us to live our answers, to reflect our faith in our actions and to be genuine disciples, demonstrating God's love to all around us.

I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze.com  book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

cream tea theology

When having a cream tea, I tend to put the cream on first and then the jam.  My husband, however, puts the jam on first and then the cream. (I read recently that is the difference between Devon and Cornish cream teas, but can't be certain).  Both of us have recently developed a taste for raspberry jam instead of strawberry.

I would venture to say that neither of these differences make it no longer a cream tea.  Doing things in a different order, and preferring a different flavour, do not change the fact that it is a cream tea.  However, eliminate the cream and it's a whole different kettle of fish tea.

I never used to like cream much and would ask for two scones, jam and butter instead.  Or, 'a cream tea without the cream'.  However, both I and the waiter/waitress probably knew that what I was asking for was not, at heart, a cream tea.  It lacked an essential identification mark.

(I should add that I am using this as an analogy.  I always say that if you stretch an analogy too hard it will pop, and in this case that would mean cream all over the place).

Order and flavour can differ, but they're not identity changers.  But a cream tea without the cream?

It just ain't a cream tea.

"If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." - 1 Corinthians 15:14

Picture: from Wikipedia, by Liyster

intelligent faith

I'm saturating myself in study at the moment, which sounds like hard work.  It is hard work, in one way, but at least I am not suffering from motivation issues.  Due to topics I'm looking at for writing research, including various articles and (eek) the book, plus regular challenging discussions, particularly with Jehovah's Witnesses, my own hunger for understanding my faith is rapidly expanding.  I've always been a proponent of intelligent faith.  Many people think faith is blind.  'Blind faith' is a common phrase, or even more well known the 'leap of faith' (Dallas Willard had some very perceptive comments on that phrase when we went to hear him in Swindon - I intend to look over my notes again on that).

I have faith in someone for a reason - because they are trustworthy, because they are faithful, because I know them.  My faith is based on my knowledge of that person.  It may believe in the unseen, but that is not the same as blindness.  In fact, it could well be the opposite, if you think about it. To keep digging deeper into what my faith means, to get to know what the bible actually says, to remove, as much is as ever possible, the lens of cultural misunderstandings and identify the rawness beneath: all this is valuable.  My knowledge fuels my faith.

No, I don't believe in 'wise words' over and against the demonstration of the Spirit's power (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:4-5), but to use this and other verses not to seek greater understanding seems to me to be nonsense - after all, Paul (who wrote these words), expounded frequently on what his faith meant, especially in response to issues the church was facing (the nature of letters, of course - one side of a conversation).  But when we determine to explore, to the best of our ability, the depths of what we believe and why we believe it, to question continually our suppositions and pre-suppositions, to immerse ourselves in a journey of discovery, we become stronger, healthier, more able to respond readily to those who question us.  It's important to do so in utmost humility, to offer what we have learnt as a contribution to the conversation, without ploughing in waving our discoveries like a baseball bat.

I'm reminded of the angel's words to Daniel in his own quest for understanding:

'Do not be afraid, Daniel.  Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard...' (Daniel 10:12)

me, myself and I

Last week we had the opportunity to go and hear Dallas Willard speak in Swindon (which I mainly equate with Jasper Fforde novels - and yes we did go on a Thursday!)  Talking about 'private religion and public reality' I scribbled manic amounts of notes, which I must type up so that they don't simply end up buried in my notebook.  I'm sure many life changing words are buried in the notebooks of life.

Really enjoyed a bit of deep thinking and reflection, particular in the area of knowledge and faith, and how often Christianity emphasises Commitment and Profession (of faith) over faith based on knowledge - to its detriment.  There's much more to chew over, of course, and if you're really interested, I can go into it in some more detail another time.


Had a neurologist appointment this afternoon over what they call my 'chronic daily headaches'.  Was rather a long wait (an hour and a half in a waiting room on a day as warm as this is an interesting experience), but I got in eventually, and appreciate the time she took over the problem.  (There's always two sides to it, isn't there?)  I've not got much to take away except the suggestion more physio would be helpful (something I knew already but was helpful to be officially supported in that) and taking me off painkillers for now.  Just in case they are perpetuating the headache.  Since I'm not a painkiller fiend I doubt this is so but I willing to give it a try.  I just hope my hip pain doesn't flare up - that's hard to manage without painkillers and I don't relish the prospect.

She (registrar to consultant neurologist) suggested some possible medications which she will also communicate to my doctor.  But I've decided not to go down that route for a while; I've already tried all the usual suspects, and as it is pain management rather than cure I want to try and 'manage' it meds free.  Not that any have worked, anyway!   She also checked all my reflexes and things with her little hammer.  Quite amusing.  Then she started pricking me to check the feeling in my arms and legs.  Lovely.

Preaching a sermon next Sunday so finishing that up, although the bulk is done now.  As long as I don't throw up over the front row from nerves it'll be fine.  Sit in the front row at your own risk.

 I don't get mentally nervous, as I think I've mentioned before.  My heart rate and stomach betray me.  Silly things.  Hissing at my stomach 'what the heck is the matter with you?  I'M FINE!!' does not, alas have much affect.  Ah well.  Never mind!

...so Moses made them drink it

Am currently attempting to follow a 'read the bible in a year' programme, over at Community of Readers. I rather like this system, because an email is sent out with your weekly readings, plus advance notice of the following week. I print out the emails and use them as a 'tick off' list as I go through the passages. I find this much more motivating than simply sitting down and doing it myself. Even with a guide, there is no real interaction. By having it sent to me in chunks, it feels much more do-able.

I've now read Genesis, Job, Exodus, in the middle of Leviticus, Matthew, nearly finished Mark, and gradually also working through Proverbs and the Psalms. Am not as daunted by Leviticus as I might be, as I deliberately chose to grapple with it at one point a few years back, delving into it for meaning and looking up explanations of the stranger parts, and even preached a sermon entitled: 'I'm in Leviticus, get me out of here!'

As well as this, am still doing my in depth Genesis study, although certainly less frequently. I'm not going to have a guilt trip about it as long as I am doing some form of bible reading - I do well on a variety of approaches. Of course, am also working through Luke, with a few exceptions, over at Thirsty Ground - somewhat erratic with entries I admit, although I have managed one this morning.

Am also trying to write a reflection on the fig tree and the temple in Mark 11, for something someone at church is producing for Holy Week; the trouble is it is supposed to fit on one side of A5, which I am finding a bit of a struggle. I keep wanting to go into the mission of Israel, the mission of the Temple, and the mission of Jesus, but have to be pithy and rein myself back. I tend to like to go through difficult points in a passage and clarify them - so what I've written so far is too much already, and I still don't feel I've explained it all properly.

(By the way, did you know the Court of the Gentiles in Herod's temple was HUGE? According to one commentary I read it was thirty-five acres in size. I cannot quite get my head round this...it was the length of 5 football pitches.)

So, a few bible related projects on at the moment. Finding it interesting reading through the biblical passages. As always, I'm noticing things that I just didn't see before. Or perhaps I just wasn't paying attention. Like when Moses comes down from the mountain and sees the golden calf, he doesn't just throw his new stone tablets on the floor in rage and melt the golden calf down, but eventually makes the Israelites drink it. They had to drink the components of the idol they had made. Moses was certainly furious. For some reason this made me chuckle, as it had never really sunk in before.

Said as much to Andy.

He said,' Well, you get your Gold Blend, don't you?'

rise and fall: Christianity, culture and celebrity

It sounds like an essay title, doesn't it?!

Aware of recent 'scandals' involving those in Christian ministry, I have begun to ponder this subject and my own reactions to it. This sort of thing used to make me furiously upset - that one person's actions would colour others' view of Christians, worse, of God. How could they?! Over time, instead, the rage was replaced by a disappointed resignation. Oh, I would think, the dullness reverberating around the word. Oh.

(This is not just those extremely well known and publicised, but occasionally someone known more personally to me. Oh. Usually those of whom we think 'but they would never...' Not seeing that, in fact, there but for the grace of God go all of us.)

This time my thoughts turned instead to our culture - and the culture of celebrity. How much does this influence the lives of Christians? How much have we bought into the same culture, unwittingly? In some respects it is unavoidable. With rapid globalisation, it becomes easier for someone to become widely known, as opposed to simply within their own neighbourhood. Everything is accelerated.

So how do we manage it? Individually, I mean. We so often pedestal-ize those we admire. (I am not a fan of pedestal-izing. It can only lead to breakage.) Where does admiration turn into hero worship? When does the ministry become the minister? Or the church the pastor? What happens when they fall off that plinth we've so carefully put them on, defended them and admired them? What happens when we discover they are flawed after all? Knowing the flawed nature of human beings does not lessen the disappointment we feel, nor take away the consequences of the actions involved.

But here are the questions to ponder. Do the actions of one person destroy everything they have done in God's name? Does the ministry dissolve when the minister does? Is it all for nothing? Was it worth it? Was it genuine? Can the damage ever be repaired? I suspect the answers depend on the person - and their own experiences.

I'm reminded of those Old Testament heroes with their troubled, uncomfortable stories. I heard a sermon series once, entitled 'heroes with clay feet', which I think is an apt description. Abraham and his faith - and his doubt. Samson - what kind of a person was he that God should use him? And would King David ever have survived the media ruckus following the affair with Bathsheba - and her murdered husband? Yet he writes: wash me and I shall be as white as snow. Do we see the challenge in that?

The question that rumbles in the background:
why does God choose such people? Why does he use them? He knows what they are capable of - for good and for bad.

Just as some are ready to pedestal-ize, others are ready to pounce. Should we jump to say 'aha! I knew they were all for show! I knew their relationship with God wasn't right!' Can we really, ever, say such things? What does it mean not to judge, lest we too be judged? What does it mean to get rid of the immorality among us? How do we hold all this together?

Please note, these are just questions I am throwing out, and are not relating to a specific situation.

(I want to talk more, about where our foundations are, and the upkeep of them, and what this means for leadership, but this entry is long enough - I will save it for another time.)

God chooses the weak. What does this really mean?

Thoughts, anyone? :)

Today: 4/10, high

the friendship of God

sometimes, for all my years of following you,
I don't know how to approach you
you in all your awesome huge-ness
my little 'I love you's seem rather tiddly
my insecurities more than just faintly
ridiculous. and yet you know me inside
and out, so how do I balance your all-power
with your all-knowing, bow down and worship
and alongside confide in you the trivialities
of my fears. what does it mean to be a friend
of GOD? I can't fix you a hot chocolate or invite
you to a movie - you're there any way, but
it's different, isn't it? I want to treat you
rightly - but that sounds condescending
how can I condescend GOD? I long to hear
your voice but often I fear to - wriggling
and writhing my way around your words which
aren't always comforting, though when I finally
stop and say yes I wonder what on earth I was
wriggling about in the first place.
I want to be a friend of GOD but still honour
you as GOD, I feel the thrill of the paradox
of the transcendent and the immanent - using
big words now to try and put it in the right
boxes, but you will not be boxed, you are
not predictable or comfortable and yet you
are utterly reliable and your comfort when
it comes is all the comfort I ever need
this prayer can never end because you
never end and the fact of the matter is
I do not always know how to approach you
but I come
anyway

rebuilding the bicycle

I am finally moving past Genesis 1-11 in my current studies and beginning the Abraham narratives. I could carry on digging and discovering - I have commandeered most of the Genesis commentaries from Andy's office. I have a distinct advantage at having access to so many resources on a personal level; although I suspect as an individual I would have collected some of my own. Certainly there are some that I bought in our collective...er...collection. Together we have built up quite a library.
Anyway, I have left blank pages in my bible reading journal so that I can go back over things if I want.

Yesterday's entry and my studies remind me of what it felt like to study theology at college. Some of the most breathtaking discoveries were so simple, not complicated or complex matters but merely taking off the cultural lenses we don't realise we're wearing, or reading what the bible really says and not what we assumed it meant. It's not an easy process. I remember Mary Evans talking about the effect on faith - like taking a bicycle apart, polishing up the pieces, and putting back together. There is a point where everything is completely dismantled and you can't imagine it otherwise. But it does go back together - brighter, stronger - and much less brittle. It...bounces. (I think we have moved away from the bicycle analogy, since I have never met a bouncy bicycle.) Instead of continuously on the defense, it absorbs new challenges and new ideas, assessing them without feeling threatened by them. Changing shape, sometimes, because of them - and other times rejecting them and being unaffected.

Anyway. Have just watched Doctor Who. I like Donna. She's a strong and likeable character. Went slightly apoplectic with excitement at the return last week. I think this will be a good series. Now there's a change of subject for you.

Energy levels: 4-5/10
Headache: Medium - Low