Comments on: Sins Of The Drivers

By: bigcircumstance

bigcircumstance — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:04:37 +0000

Peter,

You can get on the list by emailing Rosy Baxter: office AT chelmsfordcathedral DOT org DOT uk

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:20:15 +0000

Dave, I might indeed be interested in the Theological Society, but I haven’t seen their programme recently. Do you have one of future events, and not just past ones?

By: bigcircumstance

bigcircumstance — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:34:48 +0000

Here is a list of recent speakers at Chelmsford Cathedral Theological Society. Shame it's too far away for you, Pam. But maybe someone else reading this thread might be interested in coming along some time. £3.50 at the door each time.

By: PamBG

PamBG — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:36:13 +0000

Gah! You got to hear Alison too! Envy!

I can imagine him being obscure. His books are not particularly easy to read.

By: bigcircumstance

bigcircumstance — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:30:45 +0000

Thanks, Pam. I heard Alison speak a couple of years ago at the theological society, and he made the odd mention of Girard, but was summing up an about-to-be-published book at the time and was sadly rather obscure! I’ll follow up your link when it’s not so late at night! Thanks.

By: PamBG

PamBG — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:21:20 +0000

Argh, I can’t think of anything offhand that explains it in a very direct way. James Alison’s PhD thesis ‘The Joy of Being Wrong’ devotes the entire first section to mimetic theory and then he connects it with the idea of ‘original sin’ (not the Augustinian version)

I’ve just found this on the internet and it seems helpful: http://tinyurl.com/9hnwk3

I love Giles Fraser. Wish I’d known about the lecture.

By: bigcircumstance

bigcircumstance — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:05:15 +0000

Pam,

Thank you. As someone who hasn’t studied Girard, I’m indebted to your knowledge. And in fact, I shall miss a forthcoming lecture on his work by Giles Fraser at Chelmsford Cathedral Theological Society, because it’s happening on my birthday!

From what tiny amount I know about mimetic theory, it might explain well some of the stuff I was struggling towards when I referred to the ‘corporate character’ of an area.

If you have any good recommended reading on the area, I’d be interested.

By: bigcircumstance

bigcircumstance — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:03:19 +0000

Peter,

Perhaps I should clarify: the overtaking on roundabouts was the first thing I noticed in Chelmsford! I only noticed the driving without lights more on Wednesday.

I’m sure your Wink versus Wagner point is right, but then Wagner and the territorial spirits folk need to be further distinguished from other people who hold ‘conventional’ or ‘traditional’ beliefs in demons with personalities. BTW, I found Chuck Lowe’s book ‘Territorial Spirits and World Evangelisation’ (Mentor/OMF) from a few years ago a useful biblical analysis of the issue.

By: PamBG

PamBG — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:57:02 +0000

The thing is that mimetic theory explains all of the above quite well. Not sure we need demons for it.

I’m agnostic but a tiny bit open to the idea of demons-with-personalities. If they exist, however, I doubt that their manifestation is anywhere near like as frequent as an idea of ‘territorial spirits’ suggests.

I think that we form our behaviour around that upon which we focus. I don’t really understand the idea of focussing on deliverance from demons; it’s a negative focus. We’re supposed to be looking to the light of Christ, not to the darkness of demons – even if it’s to get rid of them.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:59:07 +0000

Interesting. Over the years I have heard all sorts of things said about the characteristic sins of Chelmsford, but never driving without lights. I thought it was a problem everywhere. But perhaps in this town where radar was invented there is a “spirit” of driving by radar!

I studied Wink’s theology of spirits a few years and compared it with Peter Wagner’s. The difference seems to be that for Wink spirits are metaphorical, personifications of evil, but for Wagner they are real personal beings. But I wonder if this is in fact a valid distinction, or if in fact in this non-material realm the metaphorical is real, what has been personified is really a person.