I have read your books and I am now writing [thesis] on how your thought relates to the work of Lesslie Newbigin. I would really appreciate your help in answering a few specific questions. Most of these questions regard your use of 'plausibility structures' in Finding Faith and your later pluralistic assumptions in Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Firstly, have you rejected or ignored Newbigin's emphasis either upon the church as elect group chosen (and called by Jesus) to have the truth revealed to them?

I haven't read everything Newbigin ever wrote, but I believe I've read about a dozen of his works - I imagine you've read more than I have, so I could simply be less-than-fully informed. But based on what I know of Newbigin's work and my own, I can't imagine why you'd ask this question. I see my work very much in line with Newbigin's. (My The Story We Find Ourselves In, for example, mirrors his telling of the Biblical story quite strongly.) But I wonder if you're reading Newbigin in a more exclusive/Calvinist/fundamentalist way than I read him. I can't think of any of my work that would signal a rejection of Newbigin's thought.

My sense is that, as a balanced thinker, Newbigin is aware of dangers both on the left and right (sorry to use those tired categories). His most popular book among conservatives (it seems to me) is "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society," which (along with "Foolishness to the Greeks") warns people about real dangers on the left. He has a special passion here, because he felt that his own nation and tribe had drifted into a kind of unprincipled relativism during his time in India. But Newbigin was also concerned about dangers on the right, and that's where (it seems to me) books like "The Open Secret," or "A Proper Confidence," or his commentary on John, "The Light Has Come," strike an important balance. To use terms I use in A New Kind of Christian, Newbigin never seems (to me at least) simply to take one side against another; he seeks to call both theological conservatives and liberals to higher ground.

Secondly, have you rejected or ignored Newbigins emphasis upon the church as a trustworthy plausability structure under the authority of Jesus, exercised through the trustworthy narrative of scripture?

The key issue here is what you mean by "trustworthy." When large sections of the church sanction torture, cover up sexual abuse scandals, resist our environmental responsibilities, support pre-emptive war, practice xenophobia, and so on, trust is certainly eroded. But I believe the Spirit of God is faithful to the church - and humanity - even when we're unfaithful. It seems to me that the primary plausibility structure for the Gospel is, and I think Newbigin would agree, the Holy Spirit at work in communities that live by the gospel.

I do not mean to be critical but you seem to suggest that the plausability structures are uncertainty principles but Newbigin seemed to believe that there existed a trustworthy plausability structure - namely the church. Thirdly, Newbigin also seems to be critical of early twentieth century liberal thought which cloaked the dominant ideology of the day in kingdom language (We are familiar with the way liberal Protestant Christianity used the biblical language of kingdom to give a pious colouring to the dominant ideology. Seeking the kingdom meant working for social progress - Newbigin in Foolishness to the Greeks). In some of your work you seem to be cloaking postmodern pluralistic assumptions in kingdom language - do you think that Newbigin's criticism might apply to you? Especially when you suggest as you do in The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives that 'the gospel message must change as well as its methods'.

First, the issue of 'cloaking assumptions' goes both ways. I'm not interested in cloaking either modern or postmodern assumptions in kingdom language. When I try to talk about the kingdom, I'm trying - imperfectly, no doubt, but that's true of all of us, isn't it? - to be faithful to the gospel, not postmodern or modern assumptions. Newbigin also was critical of the ways the conservative church withdrew from social issues - I remember him somewhere talking about how Marxism was in a sense a Christian heresy, because the Marxists were filling in the gaps where the conservative/institutional church had capitulated to a privatized version of the gospel. For what it's worth, your questions feel to me like a sincere and intelligent attempt by a conservative Christian to appropriate Newbigin as a conservative, when in my reading, Newbigin was neither a traditional liberal nor a traditional conservative. Again, he was critical of both in many ways, and supportive of both in other ways. Friends of mine who knew Newbigin well have told me this is the case. I hope I am in the same general category - neither in the liberal nor conservative pocket.

I should also add that outside of some academic circles, I think the "dominant theology" today is not the liberal one you describe, with which Newbigin struggled in a special way. The dominant theology today, here in America at least, seems to be a neo-conservative one that trusts the power of nationalism, empire, markets, pre-emptive war, culture war rhetoric, legislation, domination, exclusion, and the like (to put it indelicately). Many of us hope that is changing ... but it's important to remember that the world has continued to change in the decade since we lost Newbigin, and it will change in the decade ahead, so we must learn not only from what this great thinker said, but also from the way he said it - and from the nuanced, non-binary posture he took in understanding his times.

One other thing. You seem to set up plausibility structures and "uncertainty principles" as opposites. I think Newbigin would object to a conflation of "plausibility structures" as "certainty principles." As I recall, Newbigin somewhere said that certainty comes through an intellectual system - but we work with a story, not a system, so it yields something other than certainty. Instead, he said, the gospel offers us confidence - a proper confidence, not over-confident and not under-confident either. That's what I'm seeking ... imperfectly, no doubt ... to live, model, and teach.

Finally, your emphasis upon the church being the catalyst and not the goal of the mission of the kingdom seems very much like the claims made by Johannes Hoekendijk in 1952 where he argues for the church to speak more of God's work in the secular world. Newbigin was critical of Hoekendijk then and has been since arguing that the church is both 'a means and an end because it is a foretaste' (The Household of God). Would you accept the suggestion that your thought is closer to Hoekendijk's than Newbigin's on this point?

Since I haven't read Hoekendijk, I can't comment. Based on your quote, I can't imagine why you would think I'd pit "means" against "foretaste." Why put those in either/or categories? Couldn't one dimension of the church being a catalyst be that it provides a foretaste? And, as Newbigin said, why pit means against ends? Aren't they interwoven in God's ecosystems? Again I hope you'll remember that Newbigin worked largely in what I think you would call a "liberal" context (the WCC, etc.). He needed to stand against the primary imbalances of his community, just as Barth did. This might make him seem conservative. But if Newbigin had been rooted in a more theologically/socially/politically conservative community, I think you would have seen him equally resistant of imbalances on that side. I come from a conservative context, although like Newbigin I am trying to find a higher ground that affirms and critiques both streams of Christianity in the modern era as we move into terra nova.

I am sorry if I come across as critical of your books. I know they have helped many people to grow in Christian faith. But you will appreciate the confusion between your work and Newbigin's that I am trying to clear up.

No offense taken. But please remember that you're not simply working with McLaren and Newbigin. You're working with your readings of both ... Apart from the fact that Newbigin was dealing with issues of his lifetime and generation, and I'm trying to deal with similar issues as they have morphed and evolved since his passing, I see myself very much in line with Newbigin. (The same would go for David Bosch, by the way.) But perhaps I read him as a less binary thinker than you do ... and I may be misinterpreting both him and you, so please accept my apologies if that's the case.

An important reuters news story after the jump. (Thanks, Dorjee!)
AND LATE NOTE: Today the US House of Representatives passed (219-212) the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) - AKA cap-and-trade. While many of us feel this is only a first small step ... it's an important step.

ACES aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 83% by 2050. It still has to pass the Senate, but this marks a sea change in the fight against global warming in the US Congress.

Wed May 27, 2009 5:08pm EDT

By Maria Bendana - Maria Bendana

[This article originally appeared on The Ecosystem Marketplace.]

Last week was a banner one for advocates of using forestry offsets to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

First, a coalition of 16 conservation groups, environmental organizations, and energy providers formally backed the Avoided Deforestation Partners Unity Agreement, which lays out 14 principles under which carbon offsets can be used to promote sustainable development in the developing world.

That consensus agreement had been in the works for weeks, and the fact that more and more once-disparate groups had found themselves on the same page sent a clear signal to the United States House Energy and Commerce Committee, which approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) by a vote of 33 to 25.

This comprehensive energy bill's stated aim is to deploy clean energy resources, increase energy efficiency, cut global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy, but the version that now passes to broader debate in the U.S. House of Representatives gives more prominence to REDD than it did when first introduced on March 31 by committee co-chairs Henry Waxman and Edward Markey.

The Consensus – and Copenhagen
Indeed, the growing consensus could already be seen in the revised version of the bill introduced as H.R. 2454 on May 15, 2009 (for a summary of the bill click here [PDF]).

"This is the first time a broad environmental NGO and industry coalition have come together to endorse a market based mechanism for REDD," says Gustavo A. Silva-Chávez, International Climate Change Policy Analyst for the Environmental Defense Fund. "This move by the House clearly indicates to the rest of the world where the U.S. State Department and the negotiation team is going to be in Copenhagen."

Offsets = Allowances (Sometimes)
Media attention has already focused on the broad targets: specifically, the fact that the initial 2020 target of 20 percent under 2005 levels has been slightly compromised to 17 percent and 85 percent of allowances or pollution permits will be given away in the proposed cap-and-trade program through 2025. (The mid- and long-term targets, however, remain the same at 42 percent below 2005 levels in 2030 and 83 percent below in 2050.

Less well-noticed is the fact that, in addition to these reduction targets, the bill allows the use of REDD offsets to reduce emissions an additional 10 percent below the 2005 baseline by 2020 bringing the total to 27 percent by 2020.

The new version of the bill – like the earlier version – distinguishes between allowances, which are issued by the government, and offsets, which come into existence when someone manages to create an approved clean development project that reduces emissions in a measurable way.

As before, on top of emission allowances, covered entities are able to offset up to two billion tons of emissions annually by using domestic and international offset credits approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The new bill lets entities split their offsets equally between those that come from abroad and those that come from inside the United States, and it also gives offsets more recognition than the previous bill did.

Domestic offsets have been upgraded to equal status with allowances indefinitely, while in the previous bill they were 4/5 of an allowance.

International offsets, on the other hand, now have a one-to-one turn-in ratio for the first five years of the policy, with the ratio dropping to 4:5 in 2018 – meaning that covered entities using offsets must submit five tons of international offset credits for every four tons of emissions being offset. Additionally, if there are an insufficient number of domestic offsets available, the number of international offsets allowed may be increased up to 1.5 billion metric tons. Covered entities may also submit an international emission allowance or compensatory allowance in place of a domestic emission allowance.

Price Projections
A recent economic analysis [PDF] by the U.S. EPA determined that the revised bill will likely result in lower allowance prices, a smaller impact on energy bills, and a smaller impact on household consumption. Specifically, EPA estimates that: (1) the relaxation of the 2020 cap from 20 percent below 2005 levels to 17 percent below 2005 levels is likely to reduce allowance prices by 3 percent; (2) the changes to the offset provisions will lower allowance prices by 7 percent or more. It estimated that allowance prices would be $13 to $17 in 2015.

REDD Wins Big

The revisions and markups to the bill have not diluted the international forest carbon provisions. The bill still provides essentially three funding avenues for reducing deforestation: a 5 percent set-aside of allowance revenue for REDD, reducing to 3 percent from 2026 to 2030 and to 2 percent from 2031 to 2050, and of course international offset credits that recognize REDD as an eligible project type, and finally proceeds from the quarterly strategic reserve auctions will purchase international offset credits issued for reduced deforestation activities.

Because these provisions have not changed, please refer to our previous article analyzing the draft bill for a detailed description of each of these.

Eligible Forest Carbon Project Types

The bill defines the term 'international forest carbon activities' as national or sub-national activities in countries other than the United States that are directed at:

• reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation or forest degradation; or
• increasing sequestration of carbon through afforestation or reforestation of acreage not forested as of January 1, 2009; restoration of degraded land or forest; or improved forest management.

The bill calls for the creation of an Offset Integrity Advisory Board, and the EPA, taking into consideration the recommendations of the board, may include forest degradation, or soil carbon losses associated with forested wetlands or peatlands, within the meaning of deforestation.

Eligible Countries, States or Provinces

The EPA will establish, and periodically review and update, a list of developing countries, states or provinces that have the capacity to participate in deforestation reduction activities including:

• the technical capacity to monitor, measure, report, and verify forest carbon fluxes for all significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation with an acceptable level of uncertainty, as determined taking into account relevant international standards, such as those established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
• the institutional capacity to reduce emissions from deforestation, including strong forest governance and mechanisms to equitably distribute deforestation resources for local actions;
• a land use or forest sector strategic plan that estimates a country's emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, assesses national and local drivers, and identifies the maps out a plan for removing those drivers and implementing a national deforestation reduction program;
• the state or province by itself is a major emitter of greenhouse gases from tropical deforestation on a scale commensurate to the emissions of other countries
• the EPA, the Secretary of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S.AID) will also establish and periodically review and update a list of developing countries that will be eligible based on recent, credible, and reliable emissions data which shows they account for less than 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and less than 3 percent of global forest-sector and land use change greenhouse gas emissions; and have, or are making a good faith effort to develop, a land-use or forest sector strategic plan mentioned above.

Deforestation Baselines: National Requirements

The quantity of the international offset credits is determined by comparing the national emissions from deforestation relative to a national deforestation baseline which will:

• be national in scope;
• be consistent with nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions with respect to deforestation, taking into consideration the average annual historical deforestation rates of the country during a period of at least five years, the applicable drivers of deforestation, and other factors to ensure additionality;
• establish a trajectory that would result in zero net deforestation by not later than 20 years after the national deforestation baseline has been established;
• be adjusted over time to take account of changing national circumstances;
• be designed to account for all significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in the country; and
• be consistent with EPA and U.S.AID-approved standards

State or Province Level Requirements
In addition to the applicable requirements for the national level, a state-level or province-level deforestation baseline will phase out beginning in 2017 and will not be issued international offset credits.

Project or Program-Level Requirements

In addition to the applicable requirements for the national level, project or program level baselines must be adjusted to fully account for emissions leakage outside the project or program boundary. It will also phase out beginning in 2017 but the EPA may extend the deadline to no later than 2025 if the country:

• has been identified by the United Nations as a least developed country and
• the EPA, the Secretary of State and U.S.AID determines the country lacks sufficient capacity to adopt and implement effective programs to achieve reductions in deforestation measured against national baselines; is receiving support to develop such capacity; and has developed and is working towards implementation of a credible national strategy or plan to reduce deforestation.

Standards

The bill charges the EPA and U.S.AID with establishing standards to ensure that supplemental emissions reductions are additional, measurable, verifiable, permanent, monitored, and account for leakage and uncertainty.

In addition, the reduction in emissions from deforestation needs to have occurred before the issuance of the international offset credit and needs to take into consideration relevant international standards, using ground-based inventories, remote sensing technology, and other methodologies to ensure that all relevant carbon stocks are accounted. The reduction should be consistent with any relevant requirements established by an agreement reached under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The EPA will also make appropriate adjustments, such as discounting for any additional uncertainty, to account for circumstances specific to the country. Moreover, the activities should: be designed, carried out, and managed in accordance with widely accepted, environmentally sustainable forest management practices; promote or restore native forest species and ecosystems where practicable; and avoid the introduction of invasive nonnative species.

Rights, Consultation and Benefits Sharing

The EPA, the Secretary of State and U.S.AID will ensure the establishment and enforcement of legal regimes, standards, and safeguards that:

• give due regard to the rights and interests of forest-dependent communities, indigenous peoples, and vulnerable social groups;
• promote consultations with, and full participation of, forest-dependent communities and indigenous peoples in affected areas, as partners and primary stakeholders, prior to and during the design, planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of activities; and
• facilitate sharing of profits and benefits derived from international offset credits with forest-dependent communities and indigenous peoples

New: International and Domestic Adaptation Fund

The EPA shall allocate 1 percent of the emission allowances annually from 2012 through 2021 for international adaptation, and increase it to 2 percent from 2022 to 2026 and 4 percent from 2027 to 2050. The domestic adaptation fund has the same allocation. The international adaptation objectives are:

• to provide new and additional assistance to the most vulnerable developing countries, including the most vulnerable communities and populations in order to support the development and implementation of climate change adaptation programs and activities that reduce the vulnerability and increase the resilience of communities to climate change impacts, including impacts on water availability, agricultural productivity, flood risk, coastal resources, timing of seasons, biodiversity, economic livelihoods, health and diseases, and human migration; and
• to provide such assistance in a manner that protects and promotes the national security, foreign policy, environmental, and economic interests of the United States to the extent such interests may be advanced by minimizing, averting, or increasing resilience to climate change impacts.

U.S.AID will distribute allowances to any private or public group, international and faith-based organizations or any other entity engaged in the following activities (all activities except number 8 have synergies with the forest/land use sector):

• the development of national or regional climate change adaptation plans, including a systematic assessment of socio-economic vulnerabilities in order to identify the most vulnerable communities and populations;
• associated national policies; and
• planning, financing, and execution of adaptation programs and activities;
• climate change adaptation research in or for the most vulnerable developing countries
• the protection and rehabilitation of natural systems;
• the enhancement and diversification of agricultural, fishery, and other livelihoods; and
• the reduction of disaster risks;
• support the deployment of technologies to help the most vulnerable developing countries identifying and adopting appropriate renewable and efficient energy
• encourage the engagement of local communities through disclosure of information, consultation, and the communities' informed participation relating to the development of plans, programs, and activities to increase community-level resilience to climate change impacts.

Additionally, U.S.AID will give priority to countries that are most vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change and ensure that local communities are engaged in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of such programs and activities. Not more than 10 percent of the allowance amount will be distributed to support activities in any single country.

Maria Bendana manages the Forest Carbon Portal, a project of Ecosystem Marketplace. She can be reached at mbendana(at)forest-trends.org

Rainforest photo CC-licensed by Flickr user pfly.

Your browser may not support display of this image.© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

Several times in recent days my breath has been taken away by one of these creatures, one of God's millions of masterpieces.

And another - an amazing man named Ray Anderson.

Ray taught theology at Fuller Seminary and wrote many books. Often when I meet Fuller students, I ask about their favorite professor. Most often, they name Ray. I met Ray when I taught a short course there. He came out of retirement frequently as a guest lecturer, and he did so for our class. I was quickly won over by his enthusiasm, intelligence, and beautiful mix of piety and scholarship, of reverence and willingness to tip some sacred cows.

You can read a warm tribute here. If I were to recommend one of his books, it would be this one - An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches.

Thank God for this good and wise professor, author, mentor, and friend!

Regina Spector - what a gifted singer/songwriter! - engages in some fascinating theology in this song. (Thanks, Rachel!)

The synchro-blog on sexuality yesterday apparently got a lot of attention and evoked some of the kind of red-faced fury that Regina sings about. For some good religious dialogue on sexuality, check this out from Andrew Marin at theooze.com, and check this out from Jim Wallis (with Stewart and Huckabee) at sojo.net. And don't miss the honest and poignant postings here.

The pre-order page for A New Kind of Christianity is now up at amazon. And here's The Justice Project pre-order page available at amazon and Barnes and Noble.

But there's a deeper irony: what if big usually means unaccountable, and what if big and unaccountable are inherent to our problems?

I think it was Rick Warren who said, "Bigger isn't better and smaller isn't better. Better is better." Here's an article by Dave Pollard (thanks Bob C!) that makes this point beautifully. Prime quote:

So what we have now is a political system (nations, governments, cities, educational institutions, legal regimes) that is too big to work, and too big to be allowed to fail. We have an economic system (corporate oligopolies, industries, health care institutions, banks) that is too big to work, and too big to be allowed to fail. We have not only crop monoculture, we have human monoculture, what Terry Glavin has called "a dark and gathering sameness" all over the world.

These are complicated, mechanistic structures, not the complex resilient ones that nature has evolved. They are fragile and vulnerable, constantly at risk of flying apart.

The latest edition of Orion magazine describes the Transition movement as one that attempts to rediscover community, the natural 'right size' of human relationship and endeavour, between the atomized individual/family and the massive, groaning and ungovernable political and economic institutions and systems we have created that currently hold sway over our lives. We need to reframe the discussion away from big government versus big corporations versus libertarianism versus anarchism. The first two are different flavours of the unsustainably large and hierarchical, and the latter two are different flavours of the unsustainably small, narcissistic and atomized. The only structure of human relationship and human endeavour that has ever sustainably worked was and is community.

As Rob Paterson wrote today, "We have to change the prevailing story from 'its all about me' to 'it's all about us'. The first step is that each of us has to take is to start to live this new story. We cannot lecture. We cannot explain. We have to live it."

One way or another, we need to facilitate the breaking down of the complicated, dysfunctional and unsustainable hierarchies and systems of civilization culture, and the building up from alienated, atomized, narcissistic individuals, into community-based structures, relationships and endeavours. It is naive to believe that we can do just one or the other; we need activists breaking down the too-big and communitarians building up the too-small, until what we have is organizations of the right, natural size. Rob calls these right-size groups 'natural organizations'. I have used the terms 'natural enterprise' and 'natural community'. The right size is, usually, dense clusters of about 5-8, networked into larger communities of about 50. It is the only size that has ever sustainably worked, and it worked for a million years.

In Everything Must Change, I paid a lot of attention to Jesus' references to "the flowers of the field" and "birds of the air" in the Sermon on the Mount. I think Jesus was saying something very similar to Pollard ... that we must turn from the Roman Empire for our models and scales for life and work, and turn to God's creation. Like the old Proverb says, "Learn from the ant ..." The natural world - the sacred, evolving, dynamic, beautiful, and wisdom-packed created world - has much to teach us.

I'm in the editing stage of my March 2010 book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith. I knew when I began the book that one of the ten questions would be around the subject of sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular. What would I say about the subject?

For many years, I was like thousands of Christians: uncomfortable with the conventional approach to homosexuality - namely: it's a chosen lifestyle, and it's a sin. (I was also uncomfortable with the "anything goes" approach that was often - and falsely - presented as the only alternative.)

I knew from my many years as a pastor that sexual orientation was not a choice; I can't count the number of people who "came out" to me over the years, and never once did I have a person say, "This is a choice like any other sin issue. I'm just choosing to rebel, and if I repent, I will be different." They all had gone through months or years or decades of intense struggle and shame before coming to the point of saying, "This isn't a choice. It's a fact of my make-up. It's integral to who I am."

So, I was uncomfortable with the conventional approach, but I was unsure how to construct an alternative that was equally faithful to Scripture and faithful to the reality I saw in human beings who came to me as their pastor, friend, and family member. Over many years, that alternative has become more and more clear, and surprisingly (to some), it was a passage of Scripture that opened the way for me to see it.

While people have vigorously and sometimes viciously debated isolated verses in Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians (versus which, I explain in the book, may have very little or nothing to do with contemporary understandings of sexual orientation) ... Acts 8 was waiting with a story that is more powerful than many have realized.

It's a story about an African man who because of his race can never fit into the Jewish nation, and because of his sexual identity can never fit into the traditional family. As a eunuch, he can never be "healed" to become heterosexual. So now, through no choice of his own, he finds himself an adult who can never be categorized in traditional sexual roles. He has come to Jerusalem to worship God, but has, no doubt, been turned away - first because of his race and second because of his sexual identity: the Hebrew Scriptures explicitly excluded both Gentiles and people in his nontraditional, not-part-of-the-created-order sexual category.

Returning in his chariot to his home in a distant land, he is reading the prophet Isaiah. One passage seizes his attention. It's about a man who was led like a sheep to slaughter or a lamb to the shearers, despised and rejected, a man who would not have physical descendants, a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. A disciple of Jesus named Philip runs alongside the chariot and asks the man if he understands what he is reading. The man invites Philip into the chariot and asks if the writer was writing about himself or someone else - a question that suggests this man feels the prophet is talking about him in his sexual otherness: he too will have no descendants; he too has been rejected, misunderstood, despised, shamed ... he too has been brought like a sheep or lamb before people with cutting instruments.

Philip explains that this passage can be read to describe Jesus, and he shares the good news of Jesus and the kingdom of God. As they pass a body of water, the man then asks if there is anything that could hinder him from being baptized. Anything that could hinder him - his race? His sexual identity?

Imagine what Philip might have said: "I need to contact the authorities in Jerusalem to get a policy statement on this issue. Maybe we should wait a few centuries until the church is more established. Baptizing you could cause real controversy in our fragile religious community. In the interests of not offending people back home, I'll have to say no. Or at least not yet."

But Philip doesn't answer with words; he responds with immediate action. They stop the chariot, and Philip leads him into the water and baptizes him.

Neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles in welcoming a new brother into the community of faith. As early as Acts 8 in the story of Jesus and his apostles, the tough issues of race and sexual identity are being addressed head-on. But as we all know, as the years went on, both issues once again became obstacles. It's only in my lifetime that we have truly begun to put racism behind us - although even there, we still have a long way to go. Now, it's time for us to remove the second obstacle. Not in spite of the Bible, but because of it. We've lost a lot of ground since Acts 8. That's why I am among those who dissent from the conventional approach and attitude, appealing back to Philip's even more ancient church tradition.

There is the Islam of the dictators and their religious allies, used to keep people in their place, used to justify their own power, used to shame and threaten those who question their authority. And there is the Islam of the protestors, calling out to God in hopes of liberation. Whose prayers are heard? Which group has a more true vision of God?

I've been saying for several years that I think there are two kinds of Christianity, along with two kinds of Islam, Judaism, and every other religion and non-religion too: one of social control and one of social transformation ... one to hold people down, one to lift them up ... one an opiate to pacify people into compliance, the other a stimulant to empower people to imagine a better world, a better future, a better life ... giving them the courage to live in peaceful defiance of violent, corrupt, and greedy powers-that-be.

Neither kind is perfect, and both kinds contain good and sincere people. But if those who use God and religion for social control are left to define faith ... the religion they define will be a false one, an ugly one, an idolatrous one. God bless humanity ... and God help us find a way of being faithful that opens the door to a better future.

rowan williams opening chapter identifies these features of catholic spirituality:
non verbal expressions of faith
a central place to sacramental action
seeing christian life as taking time and use of the christian year
faith is a community experience and not just an individual one

This book (along with Jonny's comments) puts "the church that is emerging" in a broader context - a catholic phenomenon that is happening across traditions - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, traditional protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal. That insight alone is worth the price of the book.