Journal: Monotheism, tritheism and Islam

One of the things that Christians appear to either struggle with or ignore has to be made real in the form of the Trinity! If we look to the words of Deuteronomy 6.4 (the shema) we find ourselves faced with the statement: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one'

No doubt or hint of equivocation to be found here - and we believe that God is consistently one, one substance, possessing three distinct and separate natures. There have been, and still are, people who have one God and then the other two as subjective and inferior, other have three gods. God as the Creator and the Holy Spirit and Jesus as created was dealt with in the Church Councils - Sabellius, Arius, modal stuff where there's three form - each existing like ice, water and steam - all this stuff was dealt with and lines were drawn to uphold the Trinity as something solid, sound and consistent.

The thing is that many don't understand the concept and outworking of the Trinity at all and if this is true for the Christians, how on earth do we expect Muslims and others to understand that we Christians and not a bunch of polytheistic - well tritheistic - sorts?

This was the task before me as I taught at an Islamic school yesterday. The school was good in so many respects, the children were disciplined and well-presented, generally attentive and to be honest - pretty much everything you don't always expect from a state school (in my experience).

Moving on to the classroom, the questions were though out and a dialogue was established. I did stuff in a year nine class and then a mixture of years nine and ten - boys in the first, girls in the second - and I think ( hope, pray!) that we all got something from the experience.

One of the best ways to understand your faith is to try and explain it to others and having had friends from many faith (and no faith) groups and nationalities I have often had to become an apologist for the things I believe to be true and found in Christianity.

So in all, a stimulating and most excellent afternoon was had - after an invigorating shower in the morning (indulged in whilst fully clothed in a graveyard with others) - some administration (which, like the poor, it seems will always be with us - followed by some study, some music practice and then a rather interesting Bishops Certificate course where the topic on offer was 'the Trinity' (how's that for a coincidence?).

So a day in which to give thanks for so many things.
For those I have engaged with.
For the places I have found myself.
For the conversations had.
May the things that divide us be made things that bring understanding and respect.
The things that we use to condemn others never be turned against us.
And may the love of God, and of his image made real in the person before us, never be weakened by the meanness of our hearts.

Who is building your house today?

I was taken up by the opening words of Psalm 127 and then struck down by them as I reflected upon what they really say. How often have you heard this Psalm used as a bit of prooftexting in a sermon to speak of vision and 'working with/for God'?

But have we really ever stopped to think about the emphasis and impact of the passage as I've scribbled it below:

Unless God is behind it - we labour is in vain.
Unless the Lord defends it - we guard it in vain.
Up early and bed late - working with God or because we don't trust Him?

Unless we are in step with God, we labour in vain. The problem is that we don't seem to do a lot of listening to God when it comes to what He wants, in fact whenever I find myself in a 'vision' setting it seems that the majority of the process is about telling God what we want Him to do! The people around me know what God wants and so never bother to ask Him or listen for an answer and that all-important direction.

Last night I saw a programme where a man was setting out to restore/develop a castle yet had no drawings or plans, everything was in his head and eventually (through a number of factors), the project stalled, stumbled and failed. How many times have I seen this sad reality enacted in the world of Christian endeavour that is mission?

Who is the architect of the building we seek to create?
Who has drawn up the plans?
Who is the project manager for that which we seek to build?

Moving on the next line smacked me around the head (in a nice 'God awareness' sort of way - Thank You Lord!) as I recalled something I have recently read by a man who turns science upside down to make it look like his ideas of what God has done, and wants, are supported. But unless God defends it, any defence we create is defined to fall and, as in the case of this man, damage the reputation of the God we serve.

Isn't God big enough to defend His own Church?

Now I'm not saying walk away and leave the ramparts such that there is no defence, but conflict has always been about taking stock of the situation, gaining intelligence and listening to orders from the chain of command. Too often I find no one is listening to God (or reading the book He so kindly gave us) but instead are setting out to defend what is undefendable in a ways that look like war crimes!

So let us cease fire and gather round the Boss of an orders meeting (which we call 'prayers' in a military setting - ironic that, innit?). We should be fighting intelligently and with an obvious integrity!!!

Then comes a sour, barb, thorn and concern for me. I get up early to do my daily Office (the prayers I promised I'd do when I was ordained) and more often than not hit the sack when tomorrow has become today: what does this line do for me?

Am I trying to prove something or seeking to 'outlive God'?

Are my actions working with God or working hard because I don't think God is up to the task?

'God gives His faithful people rest,' that's what it says in the Psalm. Well I get enough rest (usually) so I can breathe a little easier here I guess. But we do need to make sure that, once again, what we do comes out of listening to God.

How do those three lines at the top work for you?

Are you listening in the same way as I, and others, obviously aren't?

Failure to do so might just render our action to be not just in vain but perhaps vanity.

All yours Lord.

So What's being a Christian all about then?

The at perennial question that chase me up and down the streets like Monty Python's perennial hedgehog, but instead of shouting out, 'Dindsale,' my assailant cries out: 'Christian? What's that then?' and you know that's is a very good question indeed. Let's hope my reply is up to the mark! Here are your three starters - more tomorrow:

First and foremost, being a Christian demands some form on belief, after all I know a few groups of people who think that mentioning the name (or sticking it about their doors) makes them Christian, but it doesn't. After all I know people who go on about alcohol all the time but they aren't alcoholics, in math they are the very opposite ob being alcoholic. The same is true for those who go on about Jesus with to without the job descriptor 'Christ' - or like to use either, or both of those words singly or in combination most assuredly doesn't make you a Christian! Saying the name is great but it's knowing the bloke that matters.

So here's the first top tip of being Christian: You need to know the bloke!

The next step is that you need to know what Jesus (the bloke) and  the job title He has (the Christ) are all about. Some people get a bit confused here and think He was a man who got zapped by God and became a super-being. I have to say if that's your stance then you've got Jesus a but mixed up with the Hulk or Spiderman, sorry. You see, Jesus is God but to get that which was necessary for us to be friends with God again all squared away, knowing that the price that needed to be paid was someone willing to exchange their life for our own, He came down as a man (Christmas? Remember Christmas - the baby? Well that was Jesus; don't let that thought go!). The person what's going to do the swapping places and saving us bit - He's called the 'Chosen one' (no not Mourhino, he's just a very naughty boy!) -That's what being 'The Christ' means.

Next tip - remember Christ is Jesus' job title and the next time you want to use Him as a swear word, have a think about how you'd feel if someone you loved had their name used like that!

Now, if someone gave up their life to save mine, I am certain I would say something twee like, 'OOOh, I'm going to try and live a better life because He died to let me live my life!' It's what they do in films; it's what they do when we think of those who gave their lives in conflict (and it is remembrancetide innit?), so if it really happened, wouldn't you try to live it out for real?

Of course you would... top tip three:  Live like you've just got your life back!

So what's it like being a Vicar (Second Service)

Having set the backdrop and walked you through the first of the Sunday services (with three as the nom.) we find ourselves with the second service quickly upon us.

Now although many seem to think that this is now a walk in the park because all we do now is preach the same sermon we've just done -  that isn't the case where I am because that would be merely reheating the previous meal and  attempting to pass it off as fresh - and that, from my point of view, would be very wrong indeed.

Wrong because the congregation and the setting are different and so, even with the same readings, the emphasis and sometimes the Bible version used are all different. Add to this the fact that there are hymns, songs and perhaps even anthems to be considered and with them comes music teams or organists and music groups or choirs and perhaps servers and acolytes and a myriad number of other changes and you will soon realise that what you have before you is a totally different entity indeed.

One of the first service strengths is that it is often the more traditional service of those on offer and this might mean the BCP or some other older language is on display. The next service might be another communion or a family service or a parade with uniformed organisations (something that is diminishing as some take the Scouting and Guiding movements away from their Christian birthright) or an all-age service - the combinations are endless and exciting indeed and the challenges all different and extremely varied.

This is the service where visitors are often most likely to be found and so after the service there are people, familiar and new, to be greeted, engaged with and enjoyed. There might also be wedding banns to be read and this often means that couples on their way to marriage will be [resent to be engaged with also. Then, being the principal service of the day we find that some of the families of those we have buried will be at this service too and this can mean time spent at the votive stand (where we light candles and pray) praying with and comforting those who mourn.

The musical side of the service has to follow, and support, the time and season and this means dialogue with the organist or music director or picking the songs and hymns yourself - something I love doing.

But by now what is certain is that there has been another period of time taken up to make sure that everything that needs to be in place is there. The sermon doesn't just happen and this takes some time if you are to read the passages before you and to get the various aspects of location, audience, what was happening at the time and all the other stuff that makes sense of the passages (we call this 'fixing the hermeneutic' -  it means finding out what there is in the text and what it has for us). Then there are the connections to be made. 

Those themes or characters or behaviours that connect the passage - sometimes it is tediously just the fact that all three readings have one word or character (recently we had shepherd as the focus) and sometimes there is some real work before us if we are to present a sermon that draws from all three (and we mustn't, as so many seem to do, forget the Psalm).

So there we are - halfway through the day and there's still more to do yet (Did I mention the 3.30pm baptisms?).

To hear the sermon I did yesterday at the second service, click HERE

Sleeping again Vicar?

When are you too old for salvation?

I would assume that those reading the heading of this piece would have sucked their breath in through their teeth and said, 'You're never too old (or young) to find salvation and reconciliation with God through the cross of Christ.'

Recently I was challenged by someone who, having had the misfortune of hearing me preach, wanted to take me to task over my making the old and disabled feel criticised and abused when I said, 'Building church was not the responsibility of the paid clergy or those who take upon themselves the role of leadership but is something every member of the Church should be doing.'

What, apparently, I should have said is, 'Well done you good and faithful servants, you are now too old to witness and we thank you for the part you have played and now respect the fact that you are no longer able to witness or share your faith in any way - enjoy your retirement !'

Now what happened next was quite a change in method for me, for instead of my usual, 'Oooh, that's an interesting take on it, let me go away and think about it,' I told the person challenging me that as I understood it neither age or disability provided an exeat for those in possession of a baptismal calling and so thought my comments were correct - a viewpoint that didn't appear to go down too well I'm afraid.

But let's take a look at the background to this situation, which is the words of Acts 4 as found in last week's Sunday readings:

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

As I have pointed out on many occasions, the cheery verses from Acts 2 and 4 make for great reading for those who like to think of unity and fellowship (koinonia) and church growth and the needy being dealt with and everything is wonderful at St Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm Fellowship. Well it is fine until I point out that the model of Church shown in Acts requires people to:

+ Meet the needs of others whenever a need arises

+ To share in the duty of pastoral care - ministering to those who are in need, contacting    
   those who are noticed as being absent from church meetings and all that stuff

+ Taking the time to meet with others to share Bible study and to pray together

+ Being reading to give an answer for the hope that they have in Jesus, the Christ, to 
   anyone who might ask (1 Peter 3. 15), and I quote:
   'Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you about the hope you have.
    Be ready to give the reason for it. But do it gently and with respect.'

+ To be willing to share their faith, in and out of season, in whatever way they feel is most  
    accessible to them. It might require words, it could be actions, it could be something as 
    simple and being hospitable - find your means and engage with others

Now I have checked my Bible again and can find no place where it says there is an upper age limit when it comes to salvation, or witnessing, or leading people into relationship with God through the Gospel of Jesus, or even ministering before the Lord (we leave that to the apparently ageist attitudes found in the Church these days!). Such findings lead me to consider my views, however unpopular, to be correct and so the issuing of what we call in the Army, a 'Biff Chit*' on grounds of age of medical problem is just not going to happen - end of!

The problem with Church growth is that all too often there isn't any and the all too often reason for this is that of finding an excuse for us not to get out there and do what we are called to do, which is:

Witness the love of God as shown through the servanthood and sacrifice of the Christ

Share  in the care and support of those around us

Live - in such a manner that others realise that you are, and have, something different from 
          that which the world has and offers

Learn - Everything you can about God and His dealings with the world and the solution for 
             the problems that is Jesus - read your Bible (and do it with others)

Pray - and do it regularly (and 'No' - praying for the bus doesn't count as prayer time) and 
           intelligently and with others and check what needs there are and what your prayer 
           might be doing - and keep doing it!

None of this is rocket science - but the lack of it is the reason Church Growth isn't

Now - anyone else want an apology - because the person who took me to task has just had one**

* A light duties permission issued by the medicos to those excused boots, running and much, much, more.

** apologia: an answer or defence of who we are and what we believe.

Can't make it to church? 28th December 14

Today we have remember the 'Holy Innocents' - the children who were put to death by Herod in his quest to ensure that any competition to being king was quite literally 'put down'.

If we looks at the Gospel reading (Matthew 2.13-18) we find the following:

"Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’

When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:

‘A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.’

Thus says the Lord:
A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.

The Passage in Jeremiah to which the Gospel refers is our Old Testament reading for today (31.15-17 15):

"Thus says the Lord:
A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.

Thus says the Lord: Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for there is a reward for your work, says the Lord: they shall come back from the land of the enemy there is hope for your future, says the Lord: your children shall come back to their own country."

The commemoration today recalls the children who were put to death on the orders of Herod to ensure that Jesus was found and killed and this serves a couple of purposes for us in that first and foremost we realise that we are some two years into Jesus' life (which is why those boys who were up to the age of two were put to death) - a nice reminder that the Hallmark card moment of the Shepherds and Magi crowded into the stable is merely a nice image rather than a reality!

The second purpose is to remind us of the sort of bloke Herod was, for this puppet ruler was not averse to killing people who got in the way, especially if he thought they might be out to take his crown; and Jesus really fitted that bill from the description the Magi used of Him when they encountered Herod!

Herod had put to death his own children and so his actions were indeed in keeping with the story. Interestingly, outside of the Matthew account, we have little to add weight to the story until the late fourth/early fifth century when a Roman writer, Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius. mentions it in one of his writings, the second book of 'Saturnalia' (chapter 4):

'When the Emperor Augustus heard that among the boys in Syria under two years old whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered to kill, was his own son, he (Augustus) said: it is better to be Herod's pig, than his son.'

The problem with the account from Matthew and the reality surrounding it is that whilst some have hundreds, thousands even, as the number of those boys put to death, the reality would have been (due to the size of Bethlehem) something around one or two dozen! This is such beer that it wouldn't generally be worth a mention outside of those people who had been directly affected by the event!

That said, historical accounts of the time (and the man) do appear to indicate that this is not out of character and would have been rather likely rather than something fictitious designed to support the claims of a bunch of 'religious nutters' (my words)!

So just as we found in Mary the first follower of Jesus; the first to put their life and their ambitions on the line for the Messiah - Today we are looking at the first to have their lives taken from them because of Jesus having come into the world. Stephen might have been the first to stand for Jesus as the Christ and so lose his life for it - but the male children of Bethlehem were the first to lose their lives because of the opposition to Jesus.

This is a tough call because whilst we recall the death we do so with an air of sadness that innocents were killed and remember that today, across our 'civilised world', they still do. Today should cause offence at those who use their power wrongly; who take life because they can and do so to meet their own ends. As the light comes into the world the response is for the wicked to turn up the darkness! Herod did it then - other continue to do it now.

So today is a call for us to take up the challenge and oppose the darkness - bringing the light that is within us into the world 'so that all may see by it!', and the New Testament reading (1 Corinthians 1.26-29) is of assistance here:

'Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise;

God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God.'

Christians are not called to 'leave their brains at the door; neither are they called to engage in self-serving cleverness to be something. No we are called to be salt and light and peace to the world - it's about humility not being one of the proud. It is about serving rather than being served!

So today the call is upon us to be everything the world isn't. It is a call for us:

To celebrate people rather than self-promoting wisdom.

To seek truth rather than being subjective and puffed up with clever egotistical tosh!

To seek peace and engage in dialogue where others will merely stuff fingers in their ears and ignore everything that they choose to ignore.

And so from this we pray the collect (and the Post Communion prayer)for today:

Heavenly Father, whose children suffered at the hands of Herod, 
though they had done no wrong:
by the suffering of your Son and by the innocence of our lives
frustrate all evil designs and establish your reign of justice and peace;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Post Communion Prayer
Lord Jesus Christ,
in your humility you have stooped to share our human life with the most defenceless of your children:
may we who have received these gifts of your passion rejoice in celebrating the witness of the Holy Innocents to the purity of your sacrifice made once for all upon the cross;
for you are alive and reign, now and for ever. Amen.

Now there are that many songs or pieces of  music that I could offer you for this day and yet one that fits the bill is the 'Coventry Carol' which has within it references to the 'Holy Innocents' and their death:

Standing on the rock

What an odd few days I've had as Remembrancetide, building on All Saints and All Souls, headed towards the climax that is Armistice Day (11th November) - the variety was sublime but some of those I met during the exercise left me just a little bruised and bewildered. It is to them that, as promised, I write the following (but all may read and offer correctives for that in which I miht have erred and, like a lost sheep, strayed).

One end of the 'knowledge/opinion' spectrum' appears to be filled with opinionated people with very little knowledge (and/or understanding) and yet they shout about everything in quite an unsettling manner. At the other end we find people who are quite passionate about stuff but, having taken the time to learn 'everything' about whatever it is that matters to them, they proceed to bombard you with their version of the truth whilst sticking their fingers in their ears.

Thankfully there is a centre ground populated by people who've taken the time to surround themselves with knowledge of all kinds and engage with others in a most impressive way whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. These people are a joy to spend time with and regardless of their position on things, whether it be with or against you, dialogue is generally a joy (even when I found I might be wrong!). It is these whom I feel are those who are 'standing on the rock',

The sad thing is that 'bucket mouths' are usually, because they are the loudest, the people that are most noticed and therefore most reacted against; this is something that permits those in opposition to them to act with a high degree of general public support. A good case in point might be some of the stances taken on a variety of issues by groups like Westboro' Baptist Church (who I thought were a spoof when I first found them so extreme were the views expressed by them).

These people put forward views that no one I know supports and yet rather than see them as an isolated bunch of (insert your own word or words here) those who wish to portray Christians as something extreme, stupid, ignorant, downright, bigoted or generally wicked (delete whichever do not apply in your opinion - please note, your opinion might just be as wrong as Westboro's !!! ).

The equally sad thing about those who have ALL the facts (as they understand it) and do not engage in a civilised, rational and wonderfully enlightening manner - especially those who having ALL the answers are against anything that might suggest things that they do not wish to consider (and it's usually choice rather than something logical or reasonable - if you don't believe me read some of the books that a famously pseudo-scientific atheist has scribbled and tell me I'm wrong).

Ignorance is not usually the sole property of any group - It is something that all people whether they are wise or foolish, bright or dim, theist or atheist can make their own - and therein lies the rub, for as Christians I would hope that whatever we think should be influenced and set by the words of Jesus, the Christ, and the accounts of God's dealing with humankind. The problem is that science can make superstitious people out of the wise (and those who consider themselves wise( too: It can endow mind reading capabilities upon those who have read too many books to the extent that they have forgotten how to read, and enjoy, people.

The same is true of religion, for truly religion is humanity's greatest rebellion against, and rejection of, God. When blind rules are taken up in such a way as we can no longer see the image of the invisible God made visible before our very eyes (1 John 4 - you can't love God and hate your brother) then we are lost.

The problem is that between those who are ignorant and happy to remain such AND those who have all the answers can easily lose sight of the valid stuff. For me this is the message that Christ came to reconcile people to God, not teach them 'facts'.

To be 'Christian' and occupy either of the extremes on my spectrum is to act against Christ and His message of reconciliation and love; it denies everything that Jesus is and came to make known and fuels those who oppose us and confers upon them a degree of credibility they do not deserve. So the choice is ours: rock or rocky - crushed or broken?

One product to satisfy all the needs of all the people?

The key to success is the ability to produce sonething people want to hear, watch, read or in some way desire. That thing that touches them in the places that bring them something. Anything!

It might be pleasure, after all pleasure is surely one of the needs we live to satisfy in oh so many ways. For some it's found in images whilst for others it's music - the muses of old harnessed and shackled, cajoled and controlled and mastered- and yet touching us at a point of need (or should that be desire?).

Then there's that thing which confers the illusion of  being that which you perceive as generous and morally right - that which peddles the illusion that you are a good, moral, and 'right' person. The need to be, as a supervisor many years back, 'A good sort!' But it's sated by dropping a few coins into the cap of the beggar or by responding to that appeal on Radio Four or signing that sponsorship sheet. Look at me - I wear a poppy, a daffodil, a piece of pink silk, I must be a good person.

Mustn't I?

If we can find that thing that takes away the emptiness, that feeling that we are somehow short, somehow wrong, somehow needy - not quite right. That thing that keeps us drinking, dancing, talking, reading, watching, listening, living, copulating, earning, spending, possessing, doing, being - in the knowledge that it will bring us into that place - the reason we live:

Ecstasy

Nirvhana

Paradise

Knowledge

Salvation

Salvation? Now there's a product to be refined, packaged and peddled!

Look at the many people out there with feeble minds, some shattered (or at least crazed) by mental and emotional fault lines caused by chemical imbalance or the influence of drug, drink and the people they've meet. That ready market who will put aside reason and caution to buy into the words and images that confer the moral, spiritual and intellectual rectitude that has eluded them.

We all know them - the people who will buy into that message that brings it near to their grasp - and yet the possession of the grail is momentary.  A fleeting tingle; that momentary feeling of have made it. That tingle we feel when we've acted in such a way that we feel some connectiveness, so tangible connection with whatever or whoever we seek: That 'having touched the face of God' moment.kilkkk

What if you could sell that?

Isn't that what the TV prophets, the snake oil salesmen, the shopping channels, the sex industry, the drug pushers, the barren, the advertising industry, the plastic surgeons, the moving (and static) images, the musicians and so many others - isn't that what they do?

The modern atheist - often corrupting science as badly as those who are religious do - seeks it in reason and yet often, ironically, without reason or logic. They have no god - only their unscientific, illogical, bitter prophets - they're free thinkers (as long as they're told what to freely think)!

The person of faith - any faith, any god, any focus for their hope - seek it in in ways that contradict and contract into something self-serving and of their own construction. Seeking to buy salvation - or the hope of it through whatever guru is in vogue, or hasn't fallen (yet) by watching! listening! reading! sending their donations!

The humanist - lives (should that be exists?) in an existence that comes and goes and has no other purpose or reason other than to be now. No progression, purpose or hope really. That state of being that, as a humanist conducting a funeral had it, means, 'This is all we get - born, live, die and then gone as if we were never were - our value being in the memories of those who remember us!'

And when they forget we are gone - it as if we never were.

The more I reflect on what 'THE' product is.

That thing which would really sell and would sate the desires of all in every sense and for every sense: Seen, heard, felt, smelt and tasted. the more I reflect upon it I find myself coming back to something that should be handed out for free - not sold, not exchanged for gold or experience or satisfying our desires - and that is Jesus.

And it's a freebie!

Not Ashamed of the Gospel

I found this to be an interesting read:

Peter Guirguis

A site for sore hearts :-)

God's Not Dead - a Curate's Egg of a film

Two days on and I'm still very much engaged with some internal dialogue over the film 'God's not dead! for (sadly) like the Curate's egg - not all of it is good!

Now I know this view might draw some fire from those who loved it unreservedly but I cannot excuse nor applaud some of the elements within it even though it was one of the better examples of this this genre of film (which perhaps also indicates how awful much of it is). Here's some of the current struggles:

There were some valid sections but the sharp apologetic was in stark contrast to some of the poor dialogue and the film might have been greatly improved by a pair of electronic scissors! Why they had to include the Islamic convert sub plot I have no idea - as an apologetic it was already sorted - this was tacky and unwarranted (and yes I know it goes on - but if the issue is to be raised, do it in coherent and contextually secure manner for Pete's sake).

The end was simply amazing (and not, I'm afraid, in a good way) but at least it cut the bluebirds singing and the Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm conclusion that I feared was becoming inevitable. Mind you complex medical diagnosis at a glance and a street death conversion of epic length and amazingly extensive dialogue (did it really take an hour or was that merely my perception?) all conspired to cloud over, and out, the positives and leave me with an unwieldy and unpalatable scene that provided if the the final, then it was the penultimate, nail in the coffin.

But I loved the apologetics, the analogy of sin as a cell was outstanding and the call to not only 'give an answer to all who ask' but to stand up for our faith regardless of the opposition  - but especially when it comes from within.

Waiting for the DVD now so I can cut out the dross and celebrate the good (it's called gleaning - something it seems that many Christians seem to have lost) - Happy Friday

Grace - Cheap, Costly and Hyper

This represents the opening section of something that I think might become a bit of a magnum opus (or at least a Feast) because Grace, for me at least, one of the issues of Christianity. (note: in my nomenclature - Capital G Grace is God's to us)

Grace is, as I understand it, my not getting what I deserve because of the love of a God that caused him to take flesh (incarnate meaning what it says on the tin) and humbling Himself, die upon the cross to reconcile me to God, the Father. Jesus getting what He did not deserve so that I didn't get that which I did deserve! Or to use Wesley's words: 'Amazing love, how can it be, that thou my God should die for me? '

In his book 'the cost of discipleship', Dietrich Bonhoeffer contributes much on the subject of  grace and the call to die to self and take up our own cross is clear. Grace,
according to Bonhoeffer, can be 'cheap' in that it can be found in a grace without discipleship, the cross, the Christ (truly man and resurrected). We find forgiveness without repentance preached - it's yours for the taking, free.

Now, I'm not denying that Grace is free, but the danger is that we treat is as something of little value because of the price tag attached to it for us - for it comes at an inestimable price. But let Bonhoeffer help set the scene:

'.Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing.' (Cost of discipleship. P. 45)

The tragedy of such a grace is that having told us sin is defeated and proclaiming that we are therefore no longer sinful, it is too small a step to find ourselves caught up in sin! After all, costly Grace is taken up with admonishing and correcting and adhering to law, but the cheap side of the market often takes Paul's words regarding the condemnation and impotence of the law to heart and seeks to reside wholly in Grace. A popular and appealing position from where I, struggling to put the old man to death, am sitting.

For me the reality is somewhere in the middle, law having the power to condemn whilst Grace speaks of my innocence (justification).

With Paul's challenge to me (Romans 6) is ringing in my ears: 'What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?' I fear this (perhaps cruelly labelled, 'hypergrace' position  might just be leading us into error. But since so many who occupy this position like to work from Paul's words, perhaps it is best that he speaks up (ibid):

'By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.'
Grace costs us nothing and demands everything! We are dead to sin. New creations who walk 'in newness of life' - this is the walk of discipleship, or no longer being 'under the law' but living within it so that those who are might see how we live and consider their own walk. Because we are 'under Grace' we are enabled, by the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit, to live godly and Christlike lives.

Grace demands discipleship. a discipleship that looks to keeping the commandments and possessing the circumcision of the heart that marks us out as true believers.It confers blessing and screams forgiveness (justification) but to reside in that mercy, under the blood of the Lamb, requires more than us just being willing to receive it - and yet it is not a reward for works either lest we might boast. The cost of Grace is, for me, found in the conviction of sin and the desire to see more of Jesus, the Christ, and less of me each day made more obvious by the shadow of the cross.

And so my journey to dialogue with, challenge and understand this, for me, new and emerging group begins. This is but the first step of, I fear, many and though some may disagree and even doubt my own faith - that's where Grace comes in, isn't it?


Suggested reading
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1959, The Cost of Discipleship, Second edition, London, SCM Press Ltd  (1963 reprint - Macmillan Paperbacks Edition)
Romans

Hypergrace - sound or warp(ed) factor?

I've today come across Joseph Prince and find him, like the Curate's egg to not be all bad and yet whilst I like much of his Christology and his emphasis on grace there is something that just doesn't quite sit comfortably with me.

It might be the Word of Faith like resonances and the prosperity that goes along with 'name it claim it' theology. It feels like Hagin and Copeland reheated and mind-melded with Ron Bell on one side and yet the fast-paced presentation (is he prompted or does he really do all that in a structured 'ad lib' manner?) is quite clever and compelling in terms of showman (mind you that would be Bell I guess) and clever revelation (Chinese for boat being the amalgam of symbols that add up to eight people (Noah and his missus plus three kids and their other halves) in a floating thing, neat or what?).

The bloke doesn't ask for money - but there's plenty of opportunity to spend it.

He does talk about Jesus never having any disease and never being poor - and there's plenty of claiming stuff (but there's too little of that with some) and it don't feel too triumphal.

I've started reading some of his stuff and wonder what I'll find when the smoke clears - anyone out there that can point me to some sound considerations of the man would be most welcome. I'm not looking for the the 'he's a false whatever' stuff - just stuff that will let me see when the horizon ends.

I've read a short treatise on 'hypergrace' (a genre I assume Prince might be considered to be part of) and now have found someone who is a walking, talking, living preacher of it (and looking good for 51 - already hate him :-)  ).

Thanks

Blue Sky Thinking - Answers

Now here's one for theist and non-theist alike - for in both camps I find people who are so assured of why they should (and, sadly, why others shouldn't) because they have failed to engage with this 'first rule' thinking:

Crazy?

Speaks for itself:

Rights and Responsibilities

Heard today how some clergy were becoming members of Unison (the union) so that they have support for them in what they obviously perceive will be a battle over their rights.

A few days back I chatted to a member of the clergy who was telling me about all their rights and how the church needs to understand and respect them  . . . or else!

Often meet with members of church and and other organisations who are all too ready to tell me about their rights and what 'they deserve' or are 'entitled to' and to be honest it is just beginning to grind and grate and tug just a little too much for it to be comfortable.

Many years ago I was a member of a fraternity who found themselves very much acted against and to be honest, distrusted and quite despised. As a result of (misplaced) popular opinion this group found themselves legislated against in the sort of popularist, kneejerk way, that humankind excels at. Interestingly though, the kneejerk response aside, the clever people said that if legislation was passed then certain things would occur and some of society's ill would be remedied. Sadly though some seventeen years later that which they hoped to see change has actually gotten worse.

Now the incident that started it all was William Hamilton's murder of innocent children in Dunblane in 1996 and the subsequent law which removed handguns from the hands of those who legally held and used them did nothing to diminish gun crime, in fact the very opposite has occurred (I'll give you my theories some time . . but best continue).

The thing about having rights is that with them come responsibilities and yet I find it interesting that these days rights are what many people assume to have and responsibility appears to be what others have when it comes to the fulfilling of the expectations of those with rights.

Christianity is all about getting something because of grace, we don't get forgiveness, eternal life and the  other 'benefits' of Christ's death because we deserve them - they are not a right but a gift. But in accepting that gift of grace poured out on the tree for us, we do find ourselves with responsibilities.

We have the responsibility to keep commandments - even when they deny what we think is a right - for let's be frank, many of the things people tell me are rights are actually little more than selfish, soulish and often unchristian desires. They are all about 'me' rather than reflecting who Jesus is and what he has done for us and how He lives in, and through, our lives today.

We have the responsibility to read our Bibles and pray daily and develop our knowledge and faith and when we don't we are failing in our duty and putting aside our responsibilities as believers.

We have the responsibility to put our obedience, worship and devotion to Christ before our personal pleasures, desires and ambitions.

We have the call to love one another and the duty to avoid making any one cause the defining sin; to avoid labelling any one group and without merit or unloved; to avoid preaching hatred and right or sin as acceptable.

We have the responsibility to proclaim and live out God's love in our own lives and as a covering for others.

If you don't agree, that's cool, but please don't kid yourself (or con others) that what you do is a right, Christian, or is right either - for even though it may well be such in the eyes of the world in the eyes of God, and in His sacrifice and commitment to us, it is merely selfish and sinful (and I don't expect this to be that popular) and therefore wrong!

Let's stop and have a reflect on the words of 2 Timothy 2:

'You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus and the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer. Similarly, anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor’s crown except by competing according to the rules. The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops.

Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.

Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Here is a trustworthy saying:
If we died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him.
If we disown him, he will also disown us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

Keep reminding God’s people of these things. warn them before God against quarrelling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 

Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.  Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels and the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.'

Blue Sky Thought - Opposites

This is so true, for often I find people who are comfortable in what they know, think they know or believe and then . .

Blue Sky Thinking: All or Nothing

This is a quote from C S Lewis that has been stuck to the wall for many years and is one that I try to live by (and encourage others to do also):

In or out - we should do it fully. I'd rather a rampant atheist than a lukewarm (or ersatz) Christian.

Blue Sky Thinking - Ignorance

Saw this in a slightly different form and thought I'd post it as a bit of 'Blue Sky Thinking' as it's something I wish we, as Christians, did a lot more of and would love some of the 'I'm a thinker and I'm a scientific sort' to engage in a lot more! After all so many people out there claim to be thinkers and yet their assumptions and glib off the cuff comments show them generally to be better sheep than the Christians (who are supposed to be after all!!).

Anyway, enjoy yourself with this one:

Would be good to think that there were more willing to dialogue across the strata that exists in Christendom and with those outside who claim - wouldn't it?

The Bible: Inerrant?

 'You don't believe the Bible is true do you?'

And it was with those words that our conversation begun - and what a conversation it was - and the day became just a little more interesting. After all, who believes the Bible is anything more than a collection of good thoughts and some wisdom wrapped in a bit of poetry that might help us to live a bit better? It's not like it is the actual word of God is it?

Now before I go any further I think I should let you know my convention regarding Bible and 'word'. Bible is 'word' and Jesus is 'Word' - that is  logos and Logos - the written word and the living Word. Simple innit?

The conversation spun a bit and there were two words that kept coming up, from them not me I hasten to add, and these were: inerrant and infallible. So I let them talk to (for that read 'at') me for a bit and kept smiling - and they talked and I smiled, I smiled and they talked and . . .

Well actually before we get to the 'and' let's freeze frame and think what the two words mean first shall we, because (to be brutally honest) most of the people I find using them rarely have a consistent or even accurate definition to inform or legitimise their views. The problem is that (like sex and gender) the two words are used interchangeably and (as Alice in Wonderland shows) words can mean whatever you wish them to mean (and perhaps not mean too)!

I realise that within the time I have I can only do one word a day and so, if you're sitting comfortably, the words is:

Inerrant: Has no errors - does not 'err' (have error) or wander from the truth or facts. It is what the Bible is - that is not just 'not wrong' but 'unable to be wrong either - I liked the thought that it is not, and cannot, sin! In a nutshell - it is Truth.

There is a struggle here for the Bible is seen as a mirror to who, and what, and how, God is. If He is Truth (and 'All-knowing truth' at that) in all its forms - then that which comes from Him and reflects Him and speaks for Him and (well, I'm sure you get the picture) has surely to be true also. If it's not then conversely neither can God be. If it's a light to our path (psalm 119) then it's a true light and if not then it is surely a stumbling block and needs to be consigned to 'literature'.

Break the mirror and you only see fragments of God*

This is a real biggy when you think about it because taken to it's ultimate consequence we can but see God disappear in a puff of self-serving, God-crunching, pronouncement.

Our first problem is that we can translate stuff wrong (through ignorance and by design) and this can have a great impact on what is written and how we understand it.

The second problem is that we can take things out of context and apply our own assumptions (like 'they're primitives and we are sophisticated') which colour the way we interpret it - after all, most I find with a view on something in the Bible hold that view to deny something others or permit themselves to act under the warrant of the very same Scripture they would otherwise deny.

Indeed the Simon and Garfunkel gene is active and virulent in Christian world - so many of us hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest!

But we have a high degree of confidence in the manuscripts - and many who will tell me they were deeply edited and added to to sell 'Coca Cola' and support political and cultural views and are totally untrustworthy. There is a chasm extant between the word of god and the way we interpret it - one is 'holy writ' and the other (at times) is more like 'Holy Cow!' One is to be considered inerrant and the other just ain't and this is where the 'Let's revise the Bible for today's language, culture, and [implied greater] more sophisticated society' tumbles into error - for the Bible becomes 'Bible Lite' rather than the 'Full Fat' version that is inerrant.

When I posed this I was asked whether I believed 'Each and every word in the Bible was true?'

My response was that every word was true, because it is after all just a word. The question of truth only becomes valid when we put words together because it is the construction, materials, attitudes and the like that make the untruths appear. It is the heart and the intention that chooses the words rather than the words themselves.

'I do believe that sentences and clauses, when read and taken contextually point to truths (even when we don't want them),' was my summation. Something which was not as well received as I might have hoped! In fact it brought back the response, 'So you take it all literally?'

This in an invitation to greater joy in that in those few words more doors are opened, and even more lunatics enter, to make the circus just that bit more fun. The reason for this is that I don't take it all literally and, if Donald Guthrie (whose every word I used to hang on) is to be believed, we shouldn't! It is true in that it is true when I say I boil an egg for three minutes I am not employing a scientifically, to the millisecond, timing but what I say is indeed true. It isn't 'literal' but it is correct and this is where I find myself with the Bible.

Creation: Years, days or what - I know there are in the narrative distinct periods and these 'aeons' might have an arbitrary delineation and yet the delineation exists (and don't get me going about the order because I go from bang which would be light followed by sound and struggle from there depending on what book I've read!).

Literal or accurate: two sides of extremely different coins I would have to say and struggle to examine, critique, define and pack away everything and you end up with something as clumsy and confusing as the Athanasian Creed ;-). There's a middle of the road approach (but then again being part of the 'via media' that is the Church of England I would say that wouldn't i?).

Being Christian is about brains, faith, reason and tradition too (we call this 'orthodoxy') for we need to read the Bible contextually with regard to the author and the focus of His dealings (us) and to reduce it to equations, rigid 'literal' stuff is to make a sterile and impotent thing of the Bible. Conversely, to read it with stalled breath and hushed tone - as if each word itself was made of crystal and needed kid gloves and falling on the knees would be to render it overwieldy and underimportant.

Emphasis, context and balance - that's the way to do it (who let that parrot in?).

Seems to me that in the final analysis the problem is that some of the stuff in it we just don't want to understand, accept or live by - do we?

*discussion for another day - debilitating or delivering?

The Fallacies and Faith of the 'faithful AND faithless'

I have recently been amazed to find the often proclaimed 'arrogance of Christians' residing more aggressively and entrenched in those who claim to have no faith.

Time and time again I find people of faith reading books from those who oppose their belief on the grounds of reason, rational thinking and logic and yet rarely do I find the opposite taking place.

Time and time again I find those who claim that reason, research and evidence form the basis of their thinking and attitudes rarely exercise reason, never do research (unless this is the revised usage of what I call reading newspapers) and accept the flimsiest of evidence (anecdotal and unsubstantiated is always of course acceptable if it's not faith for some).

The reality is that there are those from both camps who dialogue, read, think and continue to engage in research. When I became a Christian I was challenged to collect a brain at the door rather than leave it as those of no faith often accuse. My faith demands that I continue to study and to challenge the Bible and the settings - I acknowledge consistencies and similarities with some of the Biblical narratives and other writings; I accept the psychological imperatives and definitions of faith and can agree that religion does indeed provide someone to thank when it goes well, plead with when it's going wrong and appease when 'under a curse'. That said I also acknowledge the empirical evidence before me and test it with eyes that seek explanation in both science and faith. I look at the stuff I can understand and seek to find answers to that which I cannot - acknowledging the intelligence of those 'ancients'  and trying to see what their cultures might have added to the mix too!
Would that those on the other side of the divide did the same.

Recently I encountered two sides of the same 'ignorance' coin on the same day in the one episode - I find myself returning to the people and their comments and, on each replay, find myself more frustrated and (to be honest) just a little angry with them each time - Let me explain:

The Christian
This person was firmly stuck in a position whereby their faith was something fixed and what they believe was totally dug in and fixed. They 'knew what they believed' and they were not going to be shaken from it. The problem was that what was on view was an immature faith in a long-term believer and this was all due to the place they worshipped in. You probably know the type of place - great sermons on a dozen passages, a Bible with about twelve books and a faith that move mountains and a reality that made its members walk around them!

They were rigid in their belief and vehement in their rejection of 'God haters' - the primacy of the Word they neither knew or understood was central - and yet they could neither defend it or show themselves to be able workers for it. 'In the name of the Lord' is a great way to travel - but the words need to be fleshed out and take upon themselves the incarnacy that God's Word did!

There was no willingness to debate - just to shout people down and assumed to work on the basis that by repeating trite little Christian mantras and closed statements that others would 'be saved'.

The Atheist
Were keen to tell me how open-minded they were and yet even had it been open (and believe me it wasn't) there was so little of it (a mind) that chewing gum and walking would have cause a core failure!

As the conversation progressed I realised that they kept using the word evidence and yet when prodded and probed it was obvious that their evidence was gleaned from the laboratory that is the pub, newspaper and that oft quoted source: The Friend. They (mis)quoted from their prophets and gurus and (in the name of balance I'm sure) also misquoted Bible and other 'religious' stuff too. They appealed to reason but there was little of it. Pointed to facts, but they were misquotes and error-filled utterances. They spoke of research and yet had never really even read the basic books of either faith (for theist and non-theist are but two opposing faiths - God or Science, free or under authority, self-pleasing or God-pleasing - divide it as you will).

What was sad in these encounters was that both adversaries worked from a position of entrenched ignorance. There was no research into what they or those with whom they disagreed believed (or didn't) and thought. There was no ability (or apparently willingness) to engage in dialogue and find out what the other side believed - just a reliance on the belief that merely opposing, and writing off, the other side was enough.

What was really sad was that neither of the people had even the basic tools to be able to defend their own beliefs and this, in my book (and God's too) is probably the most sad part of the whole.

The way forward (for theists and non-theists):
Please remember that faith engaged in without involving your brain is useless and hollow religion - it is the stuff that ignorance grows in to choke everything that God (or not god) would have us celebrate and renders us an impotent and limited, superstitious and empty people.

So read the books that form the basis of your belief (And where this is the real Bible - read ALL of it, there's 66 books you know!)

Read books about the things you think challenge our faith and find out for yourself.

Read books by people you might think oppose your faith (and people) and dialogue with them, then

Dialogue with people who believe what you believe and check your understanding (and theirs) and, that done, engage in dialogue with people you think you don't disagree with.

Remember that no one group has the monopoly on being good, acting wrongly, being stupid, having closed minds, bias, ignorance, stupidity, blind faith, selfishness, exclusivity and best of all - being just plain ugly people!

How can we say we love God when we hate the image of Him made visible in the person before us?


I scribbled this over a period of weeks - revisiting and rethinking about how what I'd encountered informed and challenged my own position and attitudes. I think that this might be the right time, as we reach the end of 2013, to post it.