All are priests now...

Firstly, another apology. It's quite a basic one, but please accept my apologies that there is nothing new in this post which has not been said better, but better people at a better time. But... in my defence, I just wanted to point you towards a great article in yesterday's Guardian (I now get to read the Guardian on a diary basis thanks to the OCD of my new/old flatmate Mark).

The piece in question was about Wikipedia, but spoke more widely to other web 2.0 and wiki projects.

The piece is written by Nicholson Baker, and because it is written by an author of fiction, has flair which most journalists struggle to achieve.

There was one small section of the piece which really struck me...

"...when people did help they were given a flattering name. They were "editors". It was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundsman. Some brought very fancy professional metal rakes, or even back-mounted leaf-blowing systems, and some were just kids thrashing away with the sides of their feet or stuffing handfuls in the pockets of their sweatshirts, but all the leaves they brought to the pile were appreciated.

And the pile grew and everyone jumped up and down in it, having a wonderful time. And it grew some more, and it became the biggest leaf pile anyone had ever seen, a world wonder."

I just thought this was a rather beautiful little parable of the Kingdom of God.

But... like Jesus, Nicholson goes on...

"And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators who would look askance at your proffered handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side. And that was too bad. The people who guarded the leaf pile this way were called "deletionists".

But that came later. First it was just fun."

I know many would argue that my proposition is wrong and theologically flawed... but... in the first bit... isn't he talking about a priesthood of believers?

Slave to the cult

I know... I know...

Over the past couple of years I have felt the need to defend my position as a PC owner. As people have asked questions such as "Why don't you get a Mac?", usually in an annoying and whiney voice (at least that's how it has sounded to me). I have typically responded back with comments like "because I need a computer for grown up's"... I have even posted on such bulling tactics in the past.

But... I now find myself in the humble position of eating my past words of rebuke.

There are three reasons for my 'conversion' to the cult... they are:

1. More compatibility than in the past... This was a big concern, as I have to swap file with and between different clients for work, and any platform which couldn't do this well was a no-go, as was the Mac of the past.

2. Back up facility with leopard... When Matt so keenly informed me of the latest upgrade on Mac OSX, I watched with amazement at the 'Time Machine' tool. This was a major plus. Firstly because I am forever over writing files that I wanted to keep, and secondly I had just forked out £800 to recover data from a crashed hard drive. Ouch...

3. It just looks so much better than a PC... In the end of the day, the overall look of a Mac is so much nicer than any of the PC's on the market.

So... Matt Rees, Jonny Baker, Andrew Jones...

Can I now be a member of the emerging church, can I, can I, please... oh go on... please... please??

Chrysalis

Apologies for the delay, if apologies are necessary. I finished reading Alan Jamieson's latest book 'Chrysalis: The hidden transformation in the journey of faith' a couple of weeks ago, but due to other pressures it's taken me a bit of time to get round to blogging about it.

It was really Jonny's review and recommendation which got me to buy the book in the first place, and it is well worth a read.

There are a long series of things I really liked about the book, REALLY liked. This is a very necessary book, and as Len Sweet say's on the back "Alan emerges as the dominant journey-theologian of our time".

For those familiar with James Fowler's 'Stages of Faith' then the ideas of faith development are nothing new. But, I believe, the shadow side of Fowlers work is that it supports deconstruction, but can be presented in a way which has little to say to the reconstruction of faith. In Chrysalis Jamieson has drawn a lot from the work of Parker Palmer. I hadn't come across Palmer before reading this book, so have Alan to thank for that. Palmers work, in the way it's presented by Jamieson is MUCH more reconstructive, and this, for me, is perhaps the biggest strength of the book.

It was these 're-constructive' sections of the book that I was most interested to read, and I was not disappointed. Alan's insights into the importance of vocation, were just great.

Perhaps the only element of the book I struggled with was it's linear presentation of the journey. While I liked the grand analogy... Caterpillar - Chrysalis - Butterfly (I was able to recognise much of the journey as detailed by Alan in my own journey) I was left feeling it was a little too neat.

My own experience is that the journey is a little more like the 'Spiral Staircase' analogy used by Karen Armstrong, among others. The spiral staircase suggests that we come back to points time, and time again, believing we have answered a point in faith when in fact it's a point we need to visit time and time again.

Despite this, I feel the Chrysalis analogy is fundamentally more useful and accurate.