Oak Hill College and religious experiences

A little while ago I shared a few thoughts about Oasis and the Evangelical Alliance.

Round about that time I also read a post entitled “Steve Chalke or the repentant Rosaria? Whose religious experience?” by Mike Ovey at Oak Hill College.

The blog post reads like this:

Who’s the most unlikely convert you have ever met? Of course, given the ravages of sin in our hearts and minds any convert is nothing short of a miracle, a new creation that only the original creator can bring about. All the same, there are some whose place in life seems to make it especially hard to hear the gospel, and when someone in that position does become a Christian, one stands amazed at the power of God’s grace in encountering them and bringing them home to himself. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield comes into this category. Engaged, as far as one can see, in a stable, long-term, same-sex relationship, and with a glittering academic career premised on a radically feminist approach to Women’s Studies, her life was turned around as she encountered the gospel explained patiently, and faithfully, over a comparatively long period. Her lifestyle, beliefs and relationships changed (and one can only guess at both the huge emotional and the professional cost here) and she came to a living faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which she recounts in her book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert. Now why should that present Steve Chalke (hereafter ‘SC’) with any difficulty? I imagine in one sense it does not, because no doubt like any other Christian he rejoices at a sinner coming to repentance, as Christ enjoins in Luke 15. It does, though, present a very severe difficulty in view of his recent writings on the Bible. In fact, it indicates a fundamental incoherence. Let me explain why. The Bible, SC comments, is ‘written by fallible human beings whose work… bears the hallmarks of the limitations and preconceptions of the times and cultures they live in, but also of the transformational experience of their encounters with God.’ Quite consistently with this, SC does not have a closed canon of Scripture, because human beings outside the canonical authors have transformational experiences of God. The implication that SC draws is that the canonical Scriptures can be displaced in what they teach and say by the transformational experience of other human beings. Now consider that in the case of Rosaria. Changing the patterns of your sex life and your professional success is about as radical a transformation as you can manifest in Western culture. Does one think that Rosaria has had a transforming encounter with God? On this evidence, yes. And how has she been transformed? She has been transformed in terms of what she thinks about issues of gender and sexuality and how a human being may enjoy a saving relationship with God, through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ in which, among other things, he brings forgiveness through the cross and delivers us from God’s judgment. And here the problems start for SC. He has written in favour of same-sex relationships and has denied that Jesus bears the penalty for our sins as our substitute through the cross, reacting particularly strongly against the notion of God’s wrath towards sinners. Both of these positions – what SC accepts about same-sex and what he denies about penal substitution concerning God’s wrath – are of course extremely popular in modern Western culture. In submitting to the Bible over same-sex relationships, and over what it teaches on God’s wrath at our sin, Rosaria has accepted countercultural positions and lived them out. She has emerged from her cultural surrounds to embrace a countercultural position: this looks like transformation. Now clearly SC thinks she is wrong on these issues. In particular, on penal substitution, he thinks those who teach it and who believe it are saying the wrong thing about God by teaching about his anger, ‘telling the wrong story about God’, as he once put it. Naturally, this entails a negative evaluation of the transformational experience of someone like Rosaria. One possibility, naturally, is that SC thinks she has not had a transformational experience of God at all. Another possibility is that she has genuinely met God but simply got him disastrously wrong in her own encounter with him, so that she is ‘telling the wrong story about God’. Either way, the obvious question that springs to mind is, ‘How does SC know?’ How does he know either that she has not had any genuine encounter with God, or that she has vastly and tragically misunderstood her encounter with God? Now it is absolutely right that we should not take any claim that someone has had an encounter with God simply at face value. Apart from anything else, 1 John 4:1-3 tells us to test spiritual experience. The issue is on what basis one does that testing. The classic answer is that one tests these claims against the canonical Bible, on the basis that God does not contradict himself. But clearly, SC cannot use that benchmark because he thinks the Bible is contradictory and quite possibly that it is wrong in places. So how does he know that the transformational experience of Rosaria on these issues (who is not alone in being transformed to these positions) is wrong? Presumably SC thinks his own transformational experiences of God support his position on same sex relations and the wrath of God. But when SC’s argument is that believers like Rosaria are wrong on those issues, it does seem to require that his own transformational experience is better than theirs or that his personal understanding of God is better. It sounds very egalitarian to talk about people retelling their transformational experiences of encounter with God with no closed canon of Scripture. But rather like the animals in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, it seems that some people’s transformational experiences are more equal than others. But which ones? And how do you know?

I left the following comment:

Dear Mike,

I read your post with some interest, but I’m not at all convinced that you are being fair to SCs position.

It would have been helpful if you had included some links to the things that you say SC has written.

I believe that the argument that you attempting to present is based upon the experiences of people that have had experiences that agree with the beliefs that you have.

I get the feeling that you’re ignoring the experiences of almost everyone else in the world.

I believe that the vast majority of people that have ever lived have not experienced “a living faith in our Lord Jesus”. In fact I believe that they haven’t been given the opportunity to do so.

I’ve heard arguments that are used to explain this. But they haven’t convinced me.

I believe that almost everyone alive today would find it difficult to understand how anyone could believe that a book such as the Bible wasn’t written by fallible human beings. That it doesn’t contain inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Since these vast numbers of people don’t have any influence upon how you view the Bible, I’m not so sure why the transformed lives of a small number of people (small when compared with the vastness of human history) should necessarily affect anyone else’s opinion.

I’m convinced that the way people look at the Bible and how they interpret it … the way that hermeneutics works when it comes to the Bible … depends overwhelmingly on what they choose to believe about God. Or is it what God choses to reveal about Himself to them?

Perhaps it’s all about faith.

I’m fairly certain it isn’t all about rationality, logic or science.

Everyone picks and chooses how they interpret the Bible.

I suspect that SC wouldn’t agree with a lot of the things that I believe. But I believe that he would likely listen to my thoughts and be willing to be swayed by them.

I’ve come across Christians who are not at all willing to listen to alternative viewpoints and be in any way influenced by them. They seem to have the answers and have closed their minds to alternative possibilities.

And, I’ve come across Christians who believe that almost every human being that has ever lived will end up spending eternity in hell. And some of these Christians seem to spend more time explaining why this is the truth than they do in attempting to rescue these millions of lost souls.

Ultimately, I think that for you to suggest that there is some kind of an error in SC’s thinking without accepting the possibility that your own thinking is equally likely to be errant is … well … unreasonable.

Of course, I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, in which case please let me know.

Regards,

Andrea Wright

And it said:

Thanks! Thank you for posting a comment on the Oak Hill blog. All comments are read and approved before they're posted, but that usually happens pretty quickly.

Since nothing has appeared there it looks like my comment was disapproved.

I left an email address but didn’t get any kind of message saying why it wasn’t approved.

Ah well …

The Shack … life changing or confusing

 

A little while ago a friend recommended The Shack to me.

 

 

It’s a book that was written a few years ago now.

I recently finished it and am thinking that I need to do some thinking.

So here are some thoughts.

First, if you get a chance to read it I wholeheartedly recommend it.

It’s a work of fiction.

The main characters are a man, Mack, his family, a few of his friends and God.

On a camping trip Mack’s daughter is abducted and murdered. Her blood is discovered at The Shack.

This event marks the beginning of Mack’s Great Sadness.

For him The Shack comes to embody a whole lot of bad stuff. Anger at himself. At God. At life. Almost all that is bad.

Then one day Mack receives a letter from God. It’s an invitation to meet up at The Shack

And so Mack spends a few days with God – Father (Papa), Son, (Jesus) and Holy Spirit (Sarayu) - at The Shack. The place of his Great Sadness.

And his life is changed forever.

Although The Shack is a work of fiction the words “spoken” by God are intended to reflect the person, character and intentions of God. So it’s intended to be more than fiction. It’s a sort of picture of the author’s view of the kind of Person that God is and the kind of relationship that God wants to have with people.

Many people have gone on record as saying that the book has changed their lives. Try using Google or Bing or the search engine of your choice and see for yourself.

I found the book to be very moving. Tears running down my cheeks type of moving.

Whilst reading it … and now having read it … I’m left wondering.

Is God really like that?

Is it true that people can be friends with God like that?

There was a time that I became a Christian. March 3^rd 1973 at 144, Forest Road, Loughborough in Leicestershire.

So, in some ways, The Shack didn’t say much to me that I hadn’t been aware of at some point in the past.

And yet there are new thoughts. New interpretations of things. An emphasis on relationships. On being rather than doing. Love rather than judgement.

It stirs inside me a kind of a longing. A wishing that it could be true.

Over the past few days I’ve been doing some thinking about that.

 

I wonder … if God is really like that, then how come so few people know? Why is it such a big secret?

The Shack did top the best sellers’ lists for a while. So in a way it isn’t a secret at all.

So I wonder why so few people believe that God is like that. And why it is that I struggle to believe that God is like that even though I wish the He were.

Here the beginning of some of the things that I have problems with.

At this very moment the main thing is about why does God  hide the truth about Himself from people the way that He seems to do. Why is it so difficult to know what the truth is?

There are Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses … the list goes on. And there are lots of different brands of Christianity, of Islam … and so it goes on and on and on.

And then taking Christianity as an example.

Many Christians believe in heaven and hell. That people who don’t give their lives to Jesus end up in hell. For ever. That hell is a place of eternal punishment and torment. Everyone deserves to go to hell. It’s divine justice. Yet it’s easy to avoid hell. Just believe in Jesus. Divine grace.

Oh but … you might also need to not be gay – or at least not practicing gay. Or transgendered. You might also need to be a Catholic. Or is that a protestant? Or to be baptised. You might need to read only a particular translation of the Bible. Or believe the apostle’s creed.

Or maybe you need to be a Muslim?

There’s a sense in which maybe a lot of the above might not matter. Maybe you do only need to believe in Jesus … although that should probably be … believe in, trust in and rely on.

But if that’s the case … why so much disinformation and confusion. Lots of apparently very sincere and well-meaning people seem to disagree over all of this.

If any of this stuff makes the difference between heaven for ever and hell for ever and it affects everyone, then why is it so difficult to work out what the actual truth is?

So, OK, why am I asking these questions? And honestly, there are a lot more to be asked.

I think it’s because I’d like to know the answers.

So if you know them … I’m listening.

There will likely be more questions to follow.

Oasis and the Evangelical Alliance

Today Sally mentioned that during the service at the church she goes to it was mentioned that Oasis had been removed from the membership of the Evangelical Alliance.

The Evangelical Alliance say:

It is with sadness that the Evangelical Alliance have discontinued the membership of Oasis Trust.

Having heard the concerns expressed by the Alliance’s board and council as to what has been perceived by some as a campaign to change the Church’s historic view on human sexuality, the Oasis board did clarify their position as having ‘no corporate view on this matter’.

However they were unwilling to fulfil the council’s request to adjust the content of their website/resources and social media output to equally profile the traditional Christian view.

After many months of prayerful discussion, the Evangelical Alliance council concluded that a relationship between an organisation and one of its members in which the member felt it could not comply with a reasonable request from council, was not tenable.

The Evangelical Alliance council remain deeply respectful of the work and achievements of the Oasis Trust and have a strong desire to avoid any unseemly dispute and to speak well of each other.

Oasis say:

"The Board of Oasis is deeply saddened by the decision of the Evangelical Alliance to remove Oasis from its membership. We would like to take this moment to restate our profound belief that the ethos, values and mission of Oasis sit firmly within the evangelical tradition.

"The Evangelical Alliance made its decision following comments by the Founder of Oasis, Rev Steve Chalke, calling for an open and generous acceptance of people with sexualities other than heterosexual as well as to affirm and support all those who seek to live within faithful, lifelong, monogamous relationships. When making these comments, he argued that they had come from a deep understanding of the overarching message of scripture and has subsequently written about the importance of moving towards a more affirming, compassionate, rounded and thoughtful approach to the Bible, humanity and sexuality.

"At no point has anyone within Oasis tried to impose the Founder’s view on Oasis staff, volunteers or church members (let alone anyone else) and, as such, the board of Oasis continues to give Steve their full support in his quest to seek an open and honest conversation amongst the Church on these issues and on how to restore society’s confidence in the Bible more generally.

"Since the publication of his article ‘A Matter of Integrity’ in January 2013 the Oasis board has been in an on-going conversation with the Evangelical Alliance.  At their request, we have made several changes to our online content and believed that we had reached a point where both parties could be satisfied that our relationship would continue.  We are, therefore, disappointed  by their announcement  but will continue to seek and enjoy a warm relationship with the breadth of the Christian Church in Britain and across the world, forming partnerships to lift people and communities out of poverty and exclusion, and seeking to demonstrate the love of God to all through practical service."

I spent some of this afternoon reading around this. And ultimately was left with the feeling that for many people that categorise themselves as being evangelical Christians there is no room for debate about certain topics. Or perhaps there is room for debate. But there is no room to hold a viewpoint that is different than the one defined by the correct and true view.

I was also surprised to find so many people still write stuff arguing about the infallibility and inerrancy of the bible – even when they aren’t just saying it has to be that King James version.

I’m left with the feeling that the days the evangelical are numbered. 

A few pictures

Here are a few pictures taken at Surrey Swans on Sunday.

James, Sinead and Lexy:

James, Sinead, Andrea and Lexy.

The video ….

Back here and here I wrote about the making of the movie.

There are actually two versions. The shorter one, which was presented as the piece of course work and the “Directors Cut” which includes additional footage taken at Surrey Swans.

Well … here’s the “Directors Cut” …

 

It’s another little piece in the jigsaw of life.

Many, many thanks to James, Sinead, Lexy, Vlad and Xander for all their hard work in putting the whole thing together.

At the Swans

I described the the first two days of filming here … along with how it came about and what it’s about.

The rest of the filming happened at the Surrey Swans meeting on Sunday November 24th.

The meeting was unusual in several respects.

There were over 20 people there which was great.

There were four new people – Saffy, Gina,Carole and Louise – which was fantastic. It was great to meet them.

There was also the film crew, which was unprecedented.

The crew consisted of James, Sinead, Vlad, Lexie and Xander from the University for Creative Arts, Farnham. They are making a short (5 to 7 minute) film and are including some footage from Surrey Swans.

They arrived before anyone else so that they could spend some time interviewing Mike who runs the pub where Surrey Swans meet.

At about 7:30 they dropped by the room where the Swans actually meet.

During the evening they filmed general goings on and also interviewed several volunteers.

Xander and Vlad with cameras.

Vlad lines up the shot:

Vlad, Xander, Lexie (with thumbs up) and James setting things up for an interview.

Adrianne being interviewed:

There was a band called No Lip playing in the main bar.

James asked if anyone was ok with the idea of being filmed as part of a No Lip audience. So half a dozen, or maybe more, of us spent a while tapping our feet in the bar.

No Lip in the main bar:

The crew take a break. Lexie, Sinead, Vlad and Xander.

Shooting the juke box. I think the song was Girls Night Out.

Another interview:

Farewells:

The end of the evening: Xander, Lexie, James, Andrea, Vlad and Sinead.

We’re hoping that we’ll be re-visited by the team at the end of January 2014 so they can show us the end results of all their hard work.

For me the evening was very special for several reasons.

It’s great to spend time with friends.

It’s especially great to welcome new people to meetings.

The film crew were also great. Very friendly, helpful, unobtrusive and professional in everything that they did. Fantastic.

I feel that it’s good to open up the transgendered world to help people better understand it.

And it’s my hope that the making of the film will have helped James, Sinead, Lexie, Vlad and Xander understand us a bit better.

And that it’ll also help the tutors and other students on the course in the same way when they get to see the finished product.

The trip to the main bar was also unusual. Individuals have always done this from time to time, but it was unusual for so many of the group to be there together.

Again it’s all part of the process of making it not so unusual for transgendered people, in this case mainly transvestites, to be around in ordinary everyday kind of situations with no one feeling that it’s especially weird.

As this type of thing happens more and more, society … and individuals within society … will be given a chance to re-examine their preconceived ideas and learn to accept the transgendered simply as people.

The movie …

On September 24th I received an email from James, a Production student at the University for Creative Arts in Farnham.

James mentioned “My team and I have recently been given a brief which entails creating a 5-7 minute film”.

The initial idea was for a film that would be focussed mainly on the Surrey Swans. Because of difficulties in finding people that were able to participate on the dates that were available, it changed somewhat into more of something that would be about aspects of the life of a transvestite with some filming to take place at a Surrey Swans meeting.

I emailed everyone that goes along to Surrey Swans regularly to ask how they felt about the idea of a small film crew turning up. No one raised any objections. A little reticence from some. But also several people expressing really positive feelings about the concept.

Then there are  emails, phone calls, a visit from James (producer) and Sinead (sound).

Risk assessment and filming consent forms get completed.

James and Sinead check that Mike, who runs the pub where Surrey Swans meets is ok with using it as a film location.

And so, at about 09:30 on the morning of Friday November 22nd, James (producer), Sinead (sound), Lexie (post production), Xander (camera) and Vlad (director) arrive.

I hope I’ve got the roles right.

They come complete with cameras, sound equipment, light reflectors and all the paperwork that goes along with shooting a film.

I’d taken a day from my annual leave and woken at the usual kind of weekday time to give me a chance to greet them as Andrea.

The transformation takes about an hour.

The makeup actually takes less than an hour. I have to spend ten to fifteen minutes face shaving.

GGs (genetic girls) don’t generally have to factor these extra 15 minutes into their plans.

I’d done the nail polish thing and the body shave the night before.

“I know that you’re already wearing nail polish, Andrea, but can we have some close-ups of you polishing your nails?”

Vlad focuses everything whilst Andrea re-applies some Rimmel Pink Amazon to a selection of fingernails as directed.

Then there’s lipstick (Maybelline 24 hour) over lipstick.

We spend a while, unsuccessfully,  looking for a mirror and end up using the black mirror of a mobile phone.

And then mascara.

Two cameras are set up pointing in the direction of the armchair. Vlad positions one of them, Xander the other.

Things are adjusted to cope with the light and avoid unwanted reflections.

James sits on a chair beside the main camera with a sheaf of papers.

Sinead has the microphone which is attached to a boom.

I sit in the arm chair.

A few warm up questions from James.

Now everyone knows my name, my age and height – with and without heels.

There are quite a few questions. I occasionally ramble, I think.

I need to remember to include a paraphrase of the question in the answer. And to wait three seconds before answering.

The experience is ok for me.

I feel as though I’m talking with people rather than at a camera. It’ll be interesting to see how it actually looks.

Living in Windsor makes life more difficult than it might have been. Every 90 seconds or so an aeroplane passes overhead. The kind of thing that Sally and I never notice when we’re inside. Microphones are more sensitive, I guess.

And then … the main camera signals that its memory card is almost full.

Unfortunately, it’s not yet afternoon and there is still an awful lot of filming to do. Strange that I keep referring to “film”. There is, of course, no film involved at all.

It’s one of those technologically potentially catastrophic moments that can afflict us all from time to time.

However well we prepare, there’s always a hole waiting for us to fall into.

The camera can takes SD memory cards.

But on sliding one into the slot there doesn’t seem to be a menu option to convince the camera that it’s a good idea to use it.

It may be that one day someone will unearth this option somewhere on an obscure menu. But it would have helped a lot on the day if it was somewhere a little more in everyone’s face.

Andrea mainly sits comfortably on the armchair.

Sally is at the table working n a laptop.

Everyone else is busy working out the best way forwards.

I’m impressed that everyone is busy working out a solution rather than complaining about a problem or blaming everyone else.

Coffee and tea.

A few pone calls and Xander heads off to borrow a memory card from another team.

Everyone else tries to coax the camera into using an SD card. But it refuses to cooperate.

Phone calls.

But the camera still refuses to play ball.

There are some other shots that need to be taken using one of the other cameras.

There’s a plan to illustrate the transformation of Andy into Andrea.

The idea, I think, is that Andy does something and transmogrifies into Andrea in the process.

Wouldn’t it be cool if makeup was as easy as that?

The idea is to film the Andrea part of the activity now.

Andy can do his bit tomorrow.

So Andrea walks across the room and closes the curtains.

Several times.

Gets an item from a cupboard in the kitchen and puts it into the microwave.

Several times.

Comes in from outside and walks across the kitchen.

Yep. Several times.

These last two shots are more complex.

Vlad is outside with the camera.

The kitchen window provides a variety of unwanted reflections.

Andrea provides a black coat.

James stands beside Vlad using the coat close to the camera as a shield against the reflections.

It’s a cold day so there is some shivering.

Sticky tape gets applied to the floor to mark the spots where the camera was so that when Andy does his bit tomorrow everything will be aligned.

The camera moves. Sticky tape gets stuck.

Andrea walks out the bedroom door and down the stairs a few times.

The camera moves. More sticky tape.

Andrea walks down the stairs a few times. The camera capturing the high heeled shoes.

Here’s Lexie, Vlad, James and Sinead. I took the picture. Xander is out hunting for a memory card. The camera is pointing at where I was sitting during the interview.

 

The view from the interview chair – except Xander is out looking for the memory card:

Sally waits patiently for the arrival of the memory card.

 

Xander returns and the new memory card re-invigorates the camera.

The interview resumes.

And then it’s Sally’s turn to be interviewed.

I spend a while removing makeup.

The day ends with Andy arriving home, parking the car in the driveway and walking into the house. Four times, I think.

I have no idea what the neighbours thought was happening

And so ends Friday.

Saturday begins at about 11:15.

James, Vlad and Sinead arrive.

First on the menu is an interview with Andrea and Sally.

Then there is  footage of me removing makeup in the bathroom.

Usually, before I remove makeup, I remove clothing.

On this occasion I just remove my hair.

And then the makeup.

And then the problem of the day arises.

Another shot of Andrea with Sally is needed, but Andrea has become Andy. Though Andy is still wearing a dress.

James and Vlad discuss the problem.

The problem being that it will take Andy up to an hour to become Andrea again. Well, maybe 45 minutes. But not much less.

The proposed solution … filming from the back over the shoulder of Andy complete with a dress and a wig.

The camera is set up something like this:

It’s a strange feeling. Wig without makeup. Even though I’m wearing a dress I feel strangely naked as I head downstairs.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Andrea from behind says hello to Sally and offers her a glass of wine.

About 5 times.

Cheers

And then the other half of the transmogrifications. I can’t believe that I spelt that word correctly first time.

Off with the heels, the wig and the dress … on with the trousers, shirt and sweater.

Off camera.

Of course.

The camera moves and Andy walks across the room and opens the curtains.

The camera moves outside.

James gets the black coat.

Vlad calls out “Action”.

Andy pops something in the microwave.

“Action.”

Andy walks through the door and across the kitchen.

The camera moves.

Andy walks out the bedroom door and down the stairs.

The camera moves again.

Andy walks up the stairs.

Just the man-shoes appearing in the shot.

Of course each activity happens several times.

Each positioning of the camera involves lining tripod legs up on pieces of yesterdays sticky tape.

Pieces of sticky tape get gradually unstuck.

And that’s it.

Well, apart from the night at the Swans.

To be continued …