Gravitational Cognisance:

Anyone who has watched cartoon will be familiar with characters walking off high places and continuing their progress in mid-air until they realise solid ground has gone as, looking down, the begin to plummet to the ground. We may find a parallel between Wile E Coyote and those who have lost the solid ground of their Christian faith. They continue walking as if they're on solid ground until something causes them to look down and then . . .  Whoosh . . .  Satan-like they plummet out our sight and are lost forever.

Some manage to never look down, they keep plodding on in the hope that they will have one of those Damascus road experiences or be hit by a bolt of lightning and so live out their lives of obedient drudgery when all it needs is for them to encounter and engage with their doubt! It is this that makes me think that doubt is one of the most excellent things we have in the arsenal of our faith.

And if doubt is one of our greatest gifts then one of the greatest curses has to be the loss of meaning that has been supposedly gifted to us by postmodernity. I say 'supposedly' because it has always been with us throughout all the ages. Those generations who have known the price of everything and the value of nothing, the many good men who have failed to act (regardless of the reason) and the valueless faith that imposes no standards to demands that we keep - this I that of which we speak.

The tension between getting all the good stuff (forgiveness, approbation, affirmation. acceptance, etc.) without having to believe 'all the ****!'* (absolutes, commandments, rules, standards, etc.) is an ever present reality. This is the bottom line for many and shapes and makes their faith life. No surprise because, when it comes down to it for we are like little children who want the sweeties but baulk at having to eat the cabbage (or whatever your dread vegetable happens to be), aren't we?

It is here that some cling to religion (rules and absolutes) whilst others turn to ritual (bells, smells and tat) and others still turn to inclusivity and freedom from restrictions (the 'God wants you to be happy' approach).

Whenever I encounter this area, personally or in others, I find myself coming back to Matthew 21.44 and the words that 'Whoever falls upon this rock will be broken and those upon whom it falls will be crushed.' Doubt needs to be be broken by recognising the thin air upon which the doubter is standing and, having acknowledged it, addressing and remedying it. Denial of doubt is death (spiritual and sometime physical too) and has no place in the Christian faith - we need to encourage doubt, for otherwise we push it underground to creep, cancer-like, behind the scenes just before we notice the weight-loss (and there are many emaciated Christians out there) that heralds the slide into being departed. Early prevention comes through checking for the signs and responding when they are found.

Have a look at your feet and see whether they are are solid ground or about to lead you into the plummet that is terminal decline.

Remember: Christianity demands that you do not leave your brain at the door! 


*A quote from one of those trendy clerics with which we are so blessed with these days!

Thought for the Day: Seven Dangers

I love this and thought that it might just make a good point for reflection today - especially as it will also enable those who moan about me being 'too Christian' (like Duh!) to have someone who was not a Christian as the source for a change.

Aren't you Vicars supposed to just do religion?

That was yesterday's challenging question!

As we discussed the issue of Syria and the options open to this government as part of a proper response this little gem appeared. Dialogue continued and another question appeared, this one asking, 'Why we had to do anything at all?' And that question, for me at least, answered the first question rather nicely.

You see the reality is that we are not supposed to just 'do' religion but are called to live out our faith and turn it into something that not only changes us but those around us and beyond. In my big black book I find many passages that inform and enable; many bits that challenge me to change who or what I am and to get down and not only make a difference but 'be' the difference!

In chapter two of the book of James (vv.14-17) we find this:
'What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds?
Can such faith save them?
Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.'

The idea that we Vicars are just 'supposed to do religion' is as ludicrous as having the view that a chef's calling is 'just cooking' or an artist's role is 'daubing'! There's no point creating culinary delights if no one eats them, and in the eating engages with others and builds relationships and is changed. Art done and locked away is dead art - for it is in the seeing and being touched by it, the being moved and changed by it, that the real value of the art is made real.

Religion is a sterile, limited and dreadful thing: It serves only to condemn sinners for breaking regulations, rules and restrictions that no one could keep on their own, or in their own strength. It puts on services and nods at God but goes no further. It offers much as a philosophy or set of beliefs but like culinary delights uneaten or or art unseen, the potential only becomes realised when it is taken into ourselves and allowed to change us.

My role is to open the eyes and hearts of others to the possibilities that God makes available and to help those who can see it make that real. This is part of what we are seeing in fine detail at the moment with Syria but it was there in the needs of the mentally ill, the long-term sick, the jobless, the homeless, the (far too many) NEETs*, the addicted and many other categories of concern that exist in our communities and outside our own doors.

The needs are great and yet in a society which sets the standards that enable the police to police by consent we have the opportunity to define and maintain what is to be considered 'right'. In a society that was once the envy of the world with its National Health Service, welfare system and Legal Aid, we have to realise that we get what we permit the governments (National, County and local) to give us.

But where there are needs, religion that is faith acts to meet them.

Where there are wrongs, religion that is faith seeks to right them.

 Where there is sorrow, pain and death, religion seeks to bring love, comfort and healing.

Just do religion? How very dare they suggest that - I deal in change not decay (what about you?)


*Not in Education, Employment or Training - the 16-18 year olds who are merely 'lost'!

Act for the Day: Take a Minute!

Here we are ladies and gentlemen (boys and girls*) a simple act of the day (where you can have a 'thought for the day'!):

Here's something for those who are Christian to take and celebrate Him, creation and the Cross

For those of other faiths to stand with whoever (or whatever) it is they believe in

For those with no faith in anything except man (and perhaps science) to just marvel at how all this came to be

Regardless - may you have a blessed and profitable day

Pax

*Am I the only one who hates it when clergy use this add-on?

Huxley, Darwin, 'Killing God': Science vs Faith

As much as those who love to think of a chasm separating the worlds of faith and science (note I don't use the word 'religion' for I understand religion to be man's ultimate rebellion against God in that it replaces relationship with unattainable states bounded by rules which serve only to condemn) from either side, I can only (once more) point out that this is a construct rather than reality!

Thomas Huxley never used the words, 'You' have killed God,' when Darwin showed him his work regarding evolution; neither did he consider science and faith (he called it 'religion'  - it was what they called it then!) to be in conflict. In fact in his own words we find (thanks to Bob fore the quote):

 “The antagonism between science and religion, about which we hear so much, appears to me to be purely factitious - fabricated, on the one hand, by short-sighted religious people who confound a certain branch of science, theology, with religion; and, on the other, by equally short-sighted scientific people who forget that science takes for its province only that which is susceptible of clear intellectual comprehension”. 

Darwin feared ridicule from his peers more than any issues with the Church and only published when another (Alfred Russell Wallace) was about to publish what was basically the same work as him (and there was much to be gleaned from others besides).

Darwin was struck hard by the loss of his beloved Annie, but he didn't die an embittered atheist and in fact died thinking his theory (never quite made it to hypothesis or law ;-) ) supported the concept of a creator God.

Seems that once again all sides are sorely treated and truth is once more the casualty!

Pax


*'The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature' in Science and Hebrew Tradition.
London: Macmillan, 1904 pp.160-161

New Atheists - different from the old?

Whilst I am hoping to find some people who will state their cases and explain what they think their position is called and what it believes (or perhaps doesn't), one of the conversations I have had this week was from a someone who was a devotee of Dawkins. They used the man's name repeatedly and spoke of the 'irrational beliefs' and 'delusions' of the 'religious'. They (note: it was them, not me!!) sneered at the philosophical emptiness of the old style atheists, putting them down as merely playing at being atheists.

New atheists, my companion said, 'Weren't interested in conversation but were, 'concerned with ridding the world of the religious faith groups and bringing about a new world order through social, political and educational means. 'We need to teach our kids that there's only us and that the God thing merely brings separation and causes wars, famine and poverty.' 

It is obvious that somewhere in the mix is something fuelled by the actions of fundamentalist believers and the twin towers for they, and other acts of violence, all featured in the conversation. It was also obvious that whilst we might be able to find some commonality between those who consider themselves to be new atheists, there are also very many differences (and for me one of these is that many of those who appeared to embrace it were very much of the red top tabloid variety!).

This is not meant as a put down but as a reference to the simplistic and unquestioning acceptance of some who fail to examine or challenge those whom they quote;  and the manner in which the adoption of the 'blame culture' tactics whereby all the world's ill can be laid at the door of a few groups:
those who have,
the politicians, and
the believers

(Interestingly what appears to the common element in all three is 'God' (really - don't see that but perhaps I wouldn't).

So who are the patriarchs of the new atheist movement ('old atheists' have Russell, Huxley and the like)?

Well, to name but a few there are: Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Robert Park and many other major and minor prophets besides. What is interesting is that I don't see any clear thinkers in terms of philosophy or logic and there's a 'scientific' element (real and pseudo) behind everything which makes me think that perhaps we'd be better off relabelling 'new atheist' as 'enlightenment or renaissance II' (the first being 'if we can understand it we can control it', the second being 'if we use science we can deny it'?).

As the conversation progressed I was told that: 'The old atheists merely appear content to deny the existence of God and consider all the arguments, proofs and statements regarding God as ultimately false - and having thought thus, God disappears in a puff of logic! Not so the new brigade who want more. Their faith in science puts paid to the old faith in God.'

Another interesting observation in the conversation was the view: That just as Christianity trumped the pagan beliefs so too has scientificism (is that really a word?) trumped faith. This is a new world order: one that will see an end to famine, war and inequality for science can be the measure by which justice and order are made real and, 'Science is the only real way of knowing – everything else is just superstitious nonsense'

So perhaps I'm getting a clearer picture of what new atheism is (well in one person's view anyway) in that it is the new Messiah, 'Truth', that will lead us into understanding, knowledge and freedom from the cancer of faith and the multiplicity of gods that call for our attention, obeisance and defence in battle when deemed necessary (For as I was told: 'Remember the crusades and the inquisition, the result of religion!').

'Without faith, we will be better as well as wiser. Conflict is a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm.' (I think this is a paraphrase of Hitchens or Dawkins - can't find the direct quote so would lean towards Dawkins - clarification most welcome).

A nicer way of explaining away wars and conflicts (note I didn't say ALL) and selling the new atheism as the panacea to all ills and the vanquishing force against the evils of faith and religion (I see faith and religion as different things but others appear to see them as synonymous and interchangeable - What is certain is that the intended interpretation is that without 'faith' we will be well, peaceful and of one accord).

What concerns me is that I can see within the conversation that some think a faith in a lack of faith might lead to a new (atheist) world order. I think I'd rather have a faith-based, moral and ethical society (for there is much of that in the faith communities) rather than a function or scientific one!
Perhaps I am unsettled by the hints of things past that made me think we were looking to revisit the past with this striving for the utopic future it promises.

But that might just be me.

Twenty minutes of banging the keyboard, drinking tea and eating toast complete - over to you.

Pax

ps. I have modified this post to show where the comments were from my companion and the underlined segment is intended to show the ownership of the comments relating to the old order of atheism.

Thanks

Arrogance or informed: New Atheists Vs Christians

One of the biggest issues I find when engaging with atheists is that of the fact that one side is often willing to dialogue and the other is resolutely fixed and rigidly unwilling to move from their tenets, dogma, doctrine and beliefs (regardless of how irrational they are).

Of course what makes it even stranger is that the latter group are the 'Atheists' who cling to their beliefs (or should that be lack of beliefs?) and quote their prophets (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and others) and argue in a most illogical and emotive manner. In fact, truth be told, there are times when I struggle to see who the 'irrational people of faith' are.

That said, there are a number of quite flawed and fallible Christian sources; those who take extrapolation of things scientific and portray them as if they were fact. Those who argue for a 'young earth' and rail against evolution and seek to find the God of the gaps solutions that bring about an 'Intelligent Designer' for use by an ignorant (scientifically and theologically speaking) people.

I am about to embark upon a journey of exploration the goal of which is to dialogue and to enable others to dialogue with those who would contend that there is no God (and I'm happy for them to prove this - for the assumption for so many years having been that there is, the task is surely theirs to deny any such belief. I am content to remain with the status quo that there is) and to defend my own position (in a balanced manner - start shouting and all you will hear is your voice!).

I look forward to rejoinders (and will issue in return, of course, my own surrejoinders), correction and the impartation of facts (and opinions - for these too are helpful, perhaps even when not valid). I relish the challenge of being made to think and to look at how I might be able to gibe and answer for the hope that I have in Jesus, the Christ, to all (and any) that might ask; and I do so realising my limitations and trembling in trepidation at the paucity of my wit.

There are those who tell me that religious belief lies at the root of all the atrocities; that belief (they call it 'religion') is to be found at the root of all wars and conflicts. Of course the deaths, oppression and conflict founded in, and enacted by, non-faith groups (remember Russia, Marxism and so many other non-faith group like Nazism for instance) are glossed over.

Christianity is seen as an agent of conquest during the time of Empire and obviously wrong acts and response throughout the middle ages taken as a constant to be kept and used as a talisman to provide some form of absolute proof. The Acts of the Jewish nation throughout the Ancient Near East (and especially the actions of their God, the God also of the Christians) show how wicked God is.

The comparison of 'like for something different' whilst claiming congruence and equality uses both flawed science and logic and the lack of integrity (often unintentional) on both sides makes this a most difficult path to tread - but tread it I will.

Pray for me - educate me (facts is possible) - tolerate me

ps. I'm happy to defend my position but not in isolation - for many merely pepper me with cries of 'defend, defend . . . ' and I'd like to have those 'prove by logic, reason and the like . .'

Living the life scientific

I'm enjoying engaging with someone who considers themselves to be an atheist at the moment. What makes it more fun is that they appear to have bought into the whole 'anti God - anti faith - anti religion' thing with a vengeance and assume that all the world's evils come from having a belief in something. Fun? Yes indeedy folks because their belief in things scientific!

It's quite amusing in that they consistently mock those who believe as the source of death, destruction and fundamentalism and put forward the idea that science is all about 'fact' and 'logic' and is the only rational way for mankind to be. In fact, science will eventually lead to the demise of religion as people come to see that it is only in science that mankind can be both saved and directed.

Now that sounds like a religion to me!

'Of course,' they tell me, 'science never killed anyone; it was religious people who did the killing. Science may have provided the means for the killing but it is pure and above the religious fanaticism that actually did the deed!'

Now this keeping one's hands clean is understandable and yet I find many cases where logic and rational thinking, separated from any idea of a religious influence or use, has brought about the death of many.

The other side of the coin is that whilst those who embrace a purely rational scientific faith have their outcomes and advances, it is more often than not the faith groups who are out their being altruistic in the many relief works and agencies. Thus we find the reality that religion is, like the Curate's egg, something in which 'not all of it is bad' and we can also see that not all of those things scientific are good either.

I'm going to have an attempt to dialogue with the new atheist issue - not because I want a fight but because I want to understand where they have a point (and some points are indeed valid) and where they have merely left their brains at the doorpost and believed blindly the modern prophets and purveyors of flawed logic and bitter misrepresentation.

So, let us reason together (for that is what Christian do - reason). Blind faith is as the name implies 'blind' and of little use to anyone!'

Pax

Made me laugh: Evangelism - who's most fanatical?

 The answer to the question was never in doubt. After all, who wants to live on the dark side . . . . of technology?

A friend once told me, 'Faith is for those who don't do science or technology,' but of course they were very wrong. The had no faith and didn't use Apple so I guess they were damned on two counts ;-)

And there was no Apple to blame for sin coming into the world, it was the pear (sic!) on the ground what caused it!

Jesus also said that He was the only gate - so makes sense that we avoids any other Gates and as the devil makes work for idle hands - God obviously wants us to be taken up with Jobs (products).

And I have to say that those who think the Garden of Eden was in Malaysia are obviously mistaken for it it was then Adam and Eve would have eaten the snake, not the apple!

Happy Friday ;-)

The word 'Church'

One of the biggest issues I have been confronted with for some time surrounds the word 'Church'.

Of course the reason for this is the British government's decisions over certain other (yawn) issues and I, for one, am perhaps not just bored to death with it all and the distractions that it brings but also in some small part just a little grateful.

Surprised? (of course you are - so let me explain)

The two 'churches'  that have been most quoted as being in favour of, and wishing to, provide 'religious' services for you know what are the Quakers and the Unitarians.

So we have to perhaps first and foremost ask ourselves what these two groups are and how we should regard them - and the answer to this is:

NOT CHRISTIAN!

So what we actually have is two non-Christian groups (and the use of the word 'church' is valid here in the context of relating it means and bunch of people who hold to the same views, beliefs (for atheists, political types and others all have tenets of belief and understanding). What they are not is (think I've said this) Christian and so it is perhaps not a surprise that they wish to do as they do.

Just to refresh memories (as I have said this before too - take a looks at VtV's past):

QUAKERS

Origins: England

Began in: Mid-Seventeenth Century Founder: George Fox (UK), William Penn (USA)

Membership: c. 200,000 worldwide

Bible: It's a good read and can yield some interesting and quite motivational stuff, but it's no more special than any other book out there. It most certainly isn't the inspired Word of God and although it might be found within a Quaker setting, it would only be one of many other books that might inspire or motivate and be merely equal to the rest.

Beliefs: To use their own words, "Quakers do not share a fixed set of beliefs."
They are essentially another brand of (universalist) Unitarians who meet together and have a 'shared understanding' but no common or unifying creed, concept of God and like the Unitarians find Pagans (of which there seems to be a lot of) rubbing shoulders with atheists and other philosophical and religious thinking.

Everyone has something (the light) of God within them and that all are equal regardless of belief, behaviour or practices.

This is one of the reasons they are pacifistic (another Unitarian characteristic), because all are right there is no need to defend or push one's views, just a need to protect those of others.

So, God is Love and the light of God shines through us all such that we need no person, creeds or books to guide us for we experience our own redemption from within and live it externally (think I've understood this correctly).

Like other groups, the key is on the outworking and so Quakers seek to make the world a better place (not a bad goal) and engage in human rights (because all choices are valid and all people are equally valid too), social justice, environmental issues, the peace movement and above all, the freedom to act and believe as one feels is right.

Conscience is all!

They don't have the Bible, they don't have the Trinity and they don't do anything that would otherwise be considered 'sacramental'.

As a bit of a parting shot, I understand that the name 'Friends' derives from John 15:14: where Jesus says: "You are my friends if you do what I command you." 

A bit of an enigma appearing here as they are doing what someone commands and yet not believing in Him, the One who sent Him, or the third member of the Trinity!

Are they Christian?
Obviously the answer is 'No'.!

I would be amazed at the number of people who assume that the Quakers (AKA Religious Society of Friends) are Christians if it were not for the fact that I also (a long time ago) used to assume the same thing!

Listening to a couple of Quakers on the Radio a while back, it appears that they were canvassing the general public regarding what opinions might be popular for the Quakers to have and were commenting on how popular being a Quaker had been last time they updated their attitudes. All very egalitarian and as damning as it might be applause-worthy (I fear)!

UNITARIANS

Origins:Transylvania and Poland Began in:16th Century

Founder: Francis David

Membership: c. 750,000

 Bible: Although regarded as valuable the Bible is fallible and therefore not regarded as authoritative. Or as one book I read on the issue stated, "It needs to be read with a degree of reason, logic and a pinch of salt. At the end of the day the truth within it is dependent upon that which the reader wishes it to have!"

The Bible is just one of many sources, sacred or secular, which can be used in the services for no one book has the monopoly on religious truth.

 Beliefs: There is a strong belief that there is only one God but it is obvious that this means little in reality. In fact, it appears that views regarding God are such that he is a cosmic force, a convenient name given for natural (and supernatural) forces, a hindrance to any unified existence and an unnecessary encumbrance.

Don't think we even need to consider their views from a Credal or Christian trinitarian setting as there simply isn't one. Jesus ranges from a freedom fighter, a pacifistic visionary and a poet and there's many other takes on Him besides.

The bottom line is that He is neither man made God or God made man, he's merely a bloke.

The Holy Spirit, like Jesus, continues the pattern in their non-trinitarian beliefs (understandable as they don't have a first member (God) either) but fares a little better than the other two (Father and Son) as the new age 'cosmic force' or as an eastern 'spiritual force'. But, at best, He's still an 'it'. Seeing unity in all things, no matter how apparently diverse, this is a group who try to bring all things together in a way that allows for a very wide range of beliefs and doubts. All are free to believe whatever they wish in unity with others and the more diversity there is the more there is an opportunity to also find some unity.

To this end it is possible to find a degree of pluralism that many faiths are embraced and lifestyles validated. So much so that within one group it is possible to find Jews, Christians, Pagans, Atheists, Buddhist and Hindus happily co-existing.

There are no creeds or set beliefs for all, or none, are valid.

There are no ministers, for all lead themselves as they make their own journey and plot their own beliefs because, obviously, there are no exclusive or primary truths. That said, there are core values of love, respect and unity. After all, unity with all things in all things is what they're about.

Seems also that the key evidence of being a unitarian is 'making a difference'.

Their motto should be 'actions not words' as I see it and it is because of this that we see them often in caring professions and roles within society.

Basically, for a bunch who are happy to admit just about everything, they omit or deny quite a bit!

They deny just about everything that is Christian: the Trinity, Jesus' Deity, sin (just ain't there and there's no need for redemption if that's gone - so no need of Jesus).

The Bible's dodgy, flawed, fallible and equal to everything (including Viz!) and yet they still call themselves 'Christian' (which I think in this setting means 'Humane' or 'kind').

Are they Christian? I have to fall back on something Donald Guthrie once said in a lecture:

"Those who believe everything in fact find themselves believing nothing!" and it is here that the answer 'No' becomes rather obvious.

So what's the problem? The government are happy to let gatherings or groups of people to exist in the religions of their own making and let these 'churches' conduct same-sex marriages. Not only that but they wish to make it illegal for Christian churches (ie. Church of England and the Church in Wales) to conduct same.

Personally, I'm more than happy to see that upheld by law - after all it does provide a measure of security as people strive to keep the law (God's and man's).

Simples methinks :-)

Christians - Persecuted, marginalised or victims?

I have waded through a few emails, all of which have sought to show me how we are, rather than how I seem to think they are.

The first group seek to point out that Christians are marginalised in every walk of life. We are "No longer the force we were and are thus marginalsed and ignored." They were the biggest group, so I'll address them first . .

Think I've dealt with this (to death) but one last nail (hopefully) in this argument has to be that we are where we have, in the main, placed ourselves with our particular brand of 'authority'. Where we should have taken a lead, we have been silent (or worse still, sat on the fence and sold that special brand of fudge that Christians are so good at making). It is for this reasons that we are so rarely listened to.

There is 'stuff' going on all over the world and yet when Rowan (or some other Christian worthy) speaks it is rarely relevant or even accessible. Lives are in disarray and we re-arrange the deck chairs on a sinking ship.

If Christians are marginalised, how can it be that when I look at the things that are happening in our community, the prime movers, those engaged with the needs of the community, those who are in partnership with the local and county council, number a great many Christians?

At ground level, where the need is (and the work done) we see Christians engaged and welcomed, respected and supported by the secular world.

Could it be that we want to be marginalised so that we might garner the sympathy vote to bolster the less desired place we feel we occupy. Could it be that those who are marginalised most are those who do least and want the highest esteem?

Is that the model Jesus brings us? Nah, don't think so.

Jesus came to this world, God made man to 'serve', that is to be a 'servant' and we know that servants don't get the money, they don't get the recognition their services perhaps demands, but the reward is in serving (not being afforded 'rights' and not being listened to as an authority).

So, let's be honest and admit that we don't have the position, power, authority or deference shown to us that the clerics of days gone by had.

Halle-blinking-lujah! We aren't called to be the ruling classes, but the serving classes. The days of 'father knows best' have, thankfully, gone and now we look to partnerships and to being Church together.

If you want to prove you're marginalised, it's easy - just go out and find someone to make a point against - works every time.

But if you want to see just how respected and valued we (Christians) are - get off your behindside and engage with the needs around you, love the unloveable and serve like Jesus taught us.

More Humour

This is one of my favourite jokes, sent in by one of my favourite atheists (I knew they had a sense of humour):

"An atheist is in a forest and is attacked by a bear. In terror, he prays, and say “I know that I have always been an atheist, and have never had time for you, so am not in a position to ask for help and would not expect you to try and convert me, but could you find it in yourself to help me and convert this bear into a loving Christian?”

The bear puts him down, places his together and says “For what I am about to receive...”

Another joke that has come in (from an RC member) is:

A drunk staggers into a Catholic church and after a few minutes disappears into the confessional.

The priest, having seen the man's perambulations around the building, gives the man a few minutes to compose himself and then enters the other side of the confessional. He taps on the separating wall to draw the man's attention to his presence only to be greeted with the words, "It's no use knocking mate, there's no toilet paper this side either!"

As I said, I've always known the sense of humour was there, but I wonder, do humanists, secular humanists, or just plain atheists, tell jokes about their beliefs (or lack of them?).

I wait to see what comes forward.

Thanks Fil and FT

Christian Brands? - Christian Science, Final thoughts

I've been reading Mary Baker Eddy's (MBE) 'Science and Health' (S&H) and have stumbled at a great many pages. The words she writes claiming that Christian Science came about because of "a spiritual sense of the Scriptures and through the teachings of the Comforter." (S&H 123:21-22) sound excellent and yet, throughout the book I find that I don't recognise 'the comforter' as the paraclete that is the Holy Spirit.

Throughout, it appears that the Holy Spirit is merely some form of maleable and 'apply here' force rather than a person and I have found this troubling.

It seems to me also that MBE feels she's locked onto the same methodology and means of healing that Jesus used and of course, I don't see it at that, Jesus was merely doing what He saw the Father doing and God was working with Him and through Him (and of course was Him!). I feel a devaluing of the role of the Holy Spirit and overall, the whole encounter has left me thinking that this is a very one-dimensional image of the Christian faith and the distortions in that image do (sadly) make it essentially non-Christian too!

I have struggled greatly with the healing aspects of CS, for after all, isn't this the crux and test of the CS faith? Not only that, as I understand it, death and sickness only came about because of the fall and therefore it's man's imperfection that lies at the root of illness. But not so says MBE:

“Man is spiritual and perfect - He is the compound idea of God, including all right ideas; the generic term for all that reflects God’s image and likeness - that which has not a single quality underived from Deity;” (S&H 475:11-20)

"The only reality of sin, sickness, or death is the awful fact that unrealities seem real to human, erring belief, until God strips off their disguise.” (S&H 472:27-29)

So there we have it. Humanity is perfect and the answer to absolutely everything is, 'it's all in the mind'!

I have spoken to (or attempted to speak) to active members and have found the responses rather limited and extremely vague and distant. I have been in receipt of various bits of quotation and idealised positions of where humanity is and yet there has been no reality to support this.

I have spoken to ex-members (who we have to acknowledge may well have axes to grind and grudges that colour) who have told me of loss of loved ones and the withholding of medical treatment such that people died terribly in terms of pain, length of illness and the like. Of a Jesus who was not God and God who was at variance with the Biblical understanding of Him (and that's without considering the Holy Spirit).

MBE writes that:

"If the student adheres strictly to the teachings of Christian Science and ventures not to break its rules, he cannot fail of success in healing." (H&S 448)

It seems to me then that there can be few strict adherents if this is the means and outcomes in healing are the test and if this is the case then, to be (sadly) honest, all falls and the whole philosophy and reality of the 'church' is in error.

For those who support, follow or are members of the Christian Science church, my prayer is that you come to know the person who is the Holy Spirit and that you, realising the brokeness and sin of humanity, come to Christ the rock and fall upon Him.

Pax