Blessed are the poor: Urban poverty and the Church

Recently I visited a parish on the very edge of a city centre and was treated to a tour of the features and facilities within its boundaries. We started at a splendid church hall with many rooms and a variety of posters and notices advertising Bridge and Canasta and the like. From there we went on to see the parish itself, row upon row of fine Edwardian and Victorian mansions boasting marvellous front lawns and palatial entrances.

As my host drove me round pointing out the homes of the notable residents, the celebrities and the ennobled I found myself reflecting upon how different it was from the estate church setting I work and reside in. My thoughts were then interrupted as my host pointed out a junction and pointedly explained how we had reached the boundary. 'That side of the road,' they said, 'is social housing. We don't have anything to do with them!" Point made, we drove on, more names bandied about as being residents, until we came to another junction and again we stopped and I was informed that this was another boundary. 'That road,' they said, pointing at what looked no different to the rest through my uneducated eyes, 'Used to be a lovely road, but now it's full of (voice dropping a little) of Asians!' The rest of the journey was much of the same, I was shown where the 'difficult parish' abutted their little piece of heaven and told stories of the great and good who were members of the paradise on earth that was theirs. 

Over lunch (not beans on toast by the way!) one of the parishioners told me how they'd be interested in any ideas I had to reach into their community. 'We want to bring in people like us, were not interested in doing stuff in the poorer bits,' they said, 'After all, what we want is to get the numbers back up so we can continue to enjoy everything we always have. We're not looking at the sort of mission you've been talking about!'

Thankful that I hadn't choked on the canapés or caught anything mission threatening from those gathered  in the place I mentioned social audits and the value of the palace that was their church hall (five rooms plus a kitchen and toilets almost as large as the building our church occupies!) was in attracting people and building relationships and left.

Laurie green in his book 'Blessed are the poor' Speaks of visiting  a parish with a view to serving his title (i.e. its first ordained job) in that place. He writes thus:

"so there we were, huddled in the back of a rather large saloon car being driven by the parish rector is surrounded by other members of his parish staff. The Rector was very keen to impress, and in many ways he had reason to be proud of his team's achievements. The parish church was extraordinarily large, and he proudly boasted that they nearly filled it with willing members every Sunday. 

He was now driving us around the rather prosperous neighbourhood and chanced to look across to the right where stood houses of distinctly lower quality than those we had viewed so far. He saw me looking more intently at them and, hoping to quell my fears, remarked:
'oh that's our council housing estate. But don't worry, I don't ever bother us.'  and on hearing that, my decision was made. I wanted to spend the rest of my ministry living in those areas that others like to ignore.'" *

So, having found a kindred spirit in the first few pages, would the restt of the book live up to expectations?

I found the book to be a wealth of theological reflection, which considering his now seminal work 'Let's do theology' (which appears in the hands of many training for ministry) should come as no surprise I guess. But add to this the insights of a man who has dedicated his ministry to working in the poorer places and ministering the love of God to those on the edges and thinking about it with the Bible aforethought and you soon realise that this is a bit of an understated gem.

This is a book in which missional thinking, good honest ministry, the Bible and theology all collide as Laurie leads us into thinking about what this part of the beatitudes ('blessed are the poor') really means in a world where they only seem to inherit being marginalised, vilified and ignored. This is an invitation for us to explore just how counter-cultural we are called to be - and it is most certainly something I would love to send to the PCC of the church I make mention of at the beginning of this blog. 

As someone blessed with living and working in an Urban priority area / Estate church I know the generosity and love, the enthusiasm for the Gospel lived out in a place where the minority are waged and everyday life is difficult. I also know that many around me in the wider community have definite views about social housing and those who have little. Those who have would like more and those who have little deserve all they get (but not my taxpayer's cash in benefits). The Rake's progress that was post-war social housing and it's demise with the 'Right to Buy' and the rise of the private sector landlords (and now housing associations who are providing a halfway house between state and private social housing) brings much fruit and many attitudes - not all of which are positive when it comes to the attitudes of the people formerly known as 'working class' towards the poor; for the poor have indeed become poorer, even amongst their own it seems.

This is no purely academic book on the poor and poverty (although the academic is present and appears correct) and it is not a quick read (200 pages requires some commitment); but it is an essential read for those looking to minister on the edges of our society. 

I have to say that, like most books with a 'theology' label, this is a book that doesn't come cheap with a price tag of £18.99 on Amazon (but under a tenner used) (AMAZON) but if you are serious about estate church and 'the poor' - which always sounds to me to be on a par with those who used to call out, 'Oh workman,' when I was a BT engineer as something just a little derogatory - then this is a book that demands shelf space.

* Introduction: page x   Blessed are the poor? Urban poverty and the church   
                                     SCM press  London    2015   ISBN 978 0 334 05365 1

Apointed for man to live once . . .

. . . and thenhave the opportunity to change your mind perhaps?

As one who enjoys the naked pastor cartoons I have to say that this one raises a smile with me. After all, it not only sums up the human condition but also raises the question I long to ask regarding those who hold what I can only think of as dodgy theological positions too.

But whatever you think, believe or want to believe: enjoy!

The Archbishop of Canterbury Speaks . . .

And, as is often the case with this bloke, I like what he has to say:

Now those are very good words indeed (and of course we need to extend them to people who will disagree with our theology on grounds of choice, what society wants and selfish desires - but that wouldn't have been a sound bite by the time that had been said, would it?)

Sadly, I haven't seen too much of that in Church so it would be a great move forward to see this being done.

Happy Wednesday

No, it's not a 'normal' blog!

Had a most challenging and enjoyable conversation with someone who felt they need to make the point that my blog wasn't a 'normal' Christian blog! My response went along the lines of 'No surprise there then Sherlock!' because it isn't supposed to be, and here's why:

Many of the 'normal' Christian sites I encounter trawl out the same old theological explanations (often it seem lifting them from other places) relating to the same old theological issues. They work hard at looking clever (something I'd never be able to carry off) and and amongst their highly polished (something I'd never claim to have) web presence they produce extremely clever theological thinking - often proving it with proper theological words and quotes from the great and influential theological minds what clever people refer to (I can't event spell SchloerMarker!).

Sadly, what I try to do here is look at issues that collide with me and having survived the impact define some baseline for me, and perhaps others, to begin to dialogue with and establish some sort of understanding of the issue before me (and perhaps us).

I will engage with things theological but, thanks to some excellent training which taught that theologians are accessible or academic, I have decided that I favour the former and so try to appeal to things with less syllables and fewer names of the Germanic variety*!

I will also continue to leave myriad typos as I rush in, scribble and rush out again - it's the curse of the scratchpad nature of the blog (but will try to remedy said typos at some stage to protect the brains of those around me).

I accept that this place will never be one with a myriad of whatever it is that those wonderfully polished site with loads of neat little adverts and clever little gadgets have to make it stand out as 'something to win prizes'**

What you will find here is stuff that I come across, dialogue with, find myself (and others) challenged by as something we can engage in and develop our own apologetic as we do theology in a real and everyday manner.

So that's me and this place and who, what, how and why it is here - please feel free to become a part of it and make it your own in whichever way you can - All are welcome to view my own brand of weirdness and my journey for integrity in my own faith and ministry life.

Pax

*mind you hypocritically, and just a little inconsistently, I will continue to turn to Barth, Moltmann, Bonhoeffer, Hauerwas and many other of my inappropriately germanic styled heroes as I seek to grow my faith and learn.

** A cool comment from someone who stumbled across the site and, applauding some drivel I'd scribbled, made a number of 'design and features' suggestions which, they assured me, would make me 'an award winning'  offering. Not the aim (but of course if you'd like to applaud - feel free (and if you'd like to offer suggestions, correctives and dialogue - feel freer still).

Baptism and Covenant Theology - Part the Second

Moving on we know that in the OT the believer's children were circumcised as a sign of the covenant in accordance with Genesis seventeen:

'This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,'

Now here we have initiation into a people group and not a profession of anything other than discomfort from the focus of it (the child) in sight (or hearing). Now if this is the outward sign of the inner grace that is God's offering of relationship and the outer circumcision of the flesh is to be matched by the 'circumcision of the heart' that we would today call 'discipleship'; as we find in Jeremiah nine:

'The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh - Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart.'

Circumcision is an interesting thing to behold in the NT for we find Paul telling us that those who are uncircumcised but keep the law will find their uncircumcision regarded as circumcision and this will pour condemnation on those who are circumcised but fail to keep it (the law). The sign alone does not confer membership of the covenant for it is more than physical it is a 'matter of the heart - by the Spirit, not the letter of the law.

This, I feel confirms my stance that baptism confers membership of the place where discipleship may be made real rather than conferring discipleship (or the covenant) in itself. It is the place where potential for discipleship and membership of the club is made accessible. The OT's circumcision is replaced by the NT's baptism  and as Titus three tells us:

Jesus saved us, not because of what we have done as righteousness but according to his own mercy by baptism and the presence of God's Holy Spirit heralding us into new life. But I hear some turn to Acts two and, thinking they've won a point and pointing to Peter, tell me how Peter says:

'Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'


But this washing confers salvation with the baptism acting as an appeal to God for the benefits and merits of that which were won for us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it's not our profession or our acts or even decisions but the coming and being baptised (if we are to believe 1 Peter three). And so as we find circumcision replaced by baptism as the sign of making the covenant ours we receive the circumcision of the Spirit, the ‘circumcision of Christ’ (Colossians two) and are 'buried with Him in baptism’ and receive also the fulfilment in the resurrection of Him also.

So it does seem to me that if we accept the premise that circumcision is interchangeable with baptism insofar as covenant theology is concerned then there does appear also to be merit in the the practice of baptising kids. This, along with 'oikos' and the fact that this was a practice that was to be found in the NT from the earliest days does strengthen a claim for such practices.

But don't take my word for it (I know I don't and I'm aware that throwing this off the top of my head is a recipe for madness rather than concord) - we will have to look at the sacramental approach and the reasons for refusal too.

Which will have to be parts three and four (and probably five too).

But remember, I've never claimed to be bright ;-)

Baptism - stirring the pot again

I have purposely left the issue of baptism for a couple of weeks to let the dust settle and to give some of those dialogue with me to the opportunity to have a think and, where necessary, regroup.

There are a few areas we still need to consider and these cover such things as the sacramental nature of baptism (for there is more going on than the mere image before us might suggest.

There is the part that baptism plays in the single atoning and salvific act of Jesus, the Christ, on the cross.

There is the stuff that some have made it (baptism), elevating it to the point where it becomes the source of eternal life, forgiveness and much, much, more.

There is a need to try to understand whether we are restricted to something formulaic or free to just 'go, dunk and celebrate' (a quote from a colleague) as some seem to think, What makes a baptism valid and who is fit to receive it (adult, children, all - those who understand*)

The last are to finish this part of the journey is, for me, that of language. A colleague recently (proudly) proclaimed that they, 'Left out most of the words from the current service because they didn't apply.' I have to say that, generally speaking, I think they do apply and the error is not to be found in the words but in the preparation of those coming forward for baptism and the manner in which the service is enacted. The words provide a great opportunity for informing those present and since in my experience, there is no sermon in the short Sunday afternoon slot, this is a gift to the person doing the service.

The journey so far has led me to think of baptism as something that confers membership of the Church and opens the door to the person becoming a Christian - a rather loose term that implies that having that badge confers something that it doesn't. Being 'Christian' is about being a disciple and since I have met many (from ALL church groups, denominations and affiliations) who have been baptised and have never made good their baptismal calling and are certainly not easily recognised as being disciples I have to say that (using the lyrics to a favourite song) that when it comes to baptism: There must be more than this!

I fear it is arrogant, ignorant, or perhaps merely foolish, to presume that a church with those who were baptised as infants are 'unbelievers' in exactly the same way that others see them as 'saved and redeemed' when lifestyle, commitment and their own words prove them not to be. Salvation comes by hearing and doing and unless we preach Christ in and out of season and 'encourage' our members to grow in the faith and become fully-fledged, equipped and released followers of the Way then we condemn them to something less than fullness in their faith and stand condemned in our ministerial inadequacies.

You know - Justin Welby was right about 'Good Vicars' - we need to focus on bringing them in and through to baptism as the 'Go' of the Christian Monopoly board and then along the squares that confer understanding, commitment, engagement, calling (and we are all called) and through to the final square (marked 'eternity with the Boss') rather than all the really important issues that we dissipate our energies on (you know the causes, the rights and the issues I'm sure). Yes, I'm sure they are all 'really important ' and that we do need to make a stand - but we need to get out priorities right and what's the point of getting freedom for people to like (or dislike) Marmite if at the end of the day the bigger issues have been left unattended to and they are doomed because of that shortfall?

So - roll up you sleeves - be prepared to engage and dialogue and respond in a positive and challenging (for we all like to be challenged, don't we?) manner. For this is an issue we need to deal with.

And then we need to ask - what about the person from across town who comes and asks for baptism because their local church wants them to attend for three months - or the person who wants a baptism in a club because 'it will save them having to travel to and from it to the church for the service' ?


Let's play :-)





* If understanding becomes a requirement then few would be baptised or receive communion and fewer still would be baptised!

The Twelfth (and Last) Day of Christmas - Credo

The final part of our song is billed as the 'Twelve Articles of the Apostle's Creed'.

Now I don't know what people out there know about the creed (Credo - to believe) but there are three such beasties and the first, the Apostle's, is the one that begins with the words, 'I believe' and this is an important consideration. Important because this is a personal confession of belief (I, not we) and was part of the act that saw the new believer baptised (how timely in the light of Michael Nazir Ali's words today).

The other two creeds being the Nicene* creed, which is the first 'ecumenical' (meaning everyone who is 'Christian' should be able to say it without any theological concern) and because it is for every Christian it begins with 'We believe'. The other creed, the Athanasian creed, is a great example of how you can make something simple totally unintelligible when you try to explain and clarify every step of the process.

So here we are - twelve articles, let us play:

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
Just as our faith begins with God the Father, so too does the creed

2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
The incarnacy and the Trinity emerges as we state who we believe Jesus to be

3. who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
Enter the Holy Spirit and the 'theotokos' (Godbearer), Mary

4. suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried;
Wounded and pierced for our iniquities, died for us

5. he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again;
And having broken the power of sin (death) makes resurrection a reality

6. he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and
Job done - back where He began

7. he will come to judge the living and the dead.
Yep - we believe in the Second Coming

8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
Not a spook or bloke in sheet - but part of the Trinity - one substance, three natures

9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
One Church, One body - Catholic meaning 'universal' - that's all of us in communion

10. the forgiveness of sins,
Jesus died to take away our sins - all you need do is look in Jesus' eyes and take your ticket

11. the resurrection of the body, and
When the end comes we'll find that our end wasn't at all - resurrection is to be expected (and awaited)

12. the life everlasting.
And when it comes, we'll be with Him for ever (and those who don't know Him can enjoy eternity apart from Him) - Bargain!

Amen.


And there it is, the basic beliefs of being Christian - in a nutshell: virgin birth, incarnacy, death and resurrection, eternal life, sins forgiven, Trinity, creator and all that stuff in a simple to learn and remember statement.

* Council of Nicae, 325 AD - when the Church came together to deal with heresy and dodgy thinking in general and come up with a way the whole Church could be united and at peace - theologically and practically!

The Tenth Day of Christmas - The Decalogue

Yep - no prizes for guessing what comes in tens in the Bible today is there?

The Ten Commandments - now modified by many as the ten (or fewer) suggestions, good ideas or restrictions.

The BCP (Book of Common Prayer) Communion service starts of with the recitation of these (followed by a request that God writes them on our hearts but since BCP is a fading feast for some the nearest most Christians come to them is a joke, which goes like this:

A dogcollar, standing at a Zebra crossing, was greeted by a colleague. 'Where's your bike?' they asked, only to be met by the sad response, 'You know, I don't have a clue. I think someone might have pinched it!'

'There's a simple solution to that,' said his friend, 'Next Sunday preach on the Ten Commandments and when you get to the "'Thou shalt not steal' bit - have a look round at the congregation and see who looks away, you've found your bike!'

The following Monday the two passed each other, on their bikes. 'I see the sermon worked,' Cried one. 'Indeed it did,' responded the other, 'I got to the adultery bit and I remembered where I'd left it!'

I wonder when the last time was that you heard a sermon (or series) on the Ten Commandments or (other than BCP) had all ten before you in service. I asked about twenty  people and their response was, 'errrr - don't think I have!' So let's at least attempt to redress that situation a little with a visit to Exodus 20:

'Then God spoke all these words:

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
4. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
5. Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.'

There you are - what needs to be said other than these are the basic building blocks of our society, smooth coexistence with out neighbours and the path for concord and peace if kept.

Postscript
The comment that there 'is no love' in the Commandment has been made. It is surely love that causes them to be given, for surely it is a parent's desire that their children live well and are happy and at peace will all.

The place where love is not found is in the way we apply them to others (whilst usually excusing ourselves) and as a remedy to this I offer Galatians chapter six:

'Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ. If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, for each one should carry their own load. Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.'

The fourth Day of Christmas - Four Gospels

Continuing with the assumed theme of the 'Twelve Days of Christmas' and being day the fourth, we find ourselves stopping to draw breath with the Gospels and a challenge to me to find something to offer you. So here goes :

Gospel - the 'Good News' and taken to be eye-witness accounts.

We have three consistent 'eye witness' accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke and because of this we often refer to them as the 'synoptic' Gospels: (Same) 'syn' - 'optic' (sight) and use the shorthand // (meaning can be found in the other synoptics) and one of a different kind in John.

Each of the synoptics bear the name of their author - that's obvious innit?

Each of the synoptics was written for an intended audience and their assumed knowledge shapes the content of each of them.

Matthew - Written for a Jewish audience: Begins with genealogy to show Jesus fits the bill with regard to fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies and continues to defends his deity as the Christ.

Mark - Written for a Gentile audience. Explains Jewish customs and explains various terms. Quotes Old Testament less than Matthew or Luke.

Luke - Written for intellectual Hellenistic (Greek) Jews. Also writes the book of Acts - this is the 'home of the parable' and seeks to make sense of that 'which has been taught' - meaning to help the Jews understand that Jesus is the fulfilment of their hope.

And then there's the 'Good News':
John - Written for everyone, this is the theological and evangelistic  Gospel and is the first home of truly Christ centred (Christocentric) writing - the home of miracle and the  'I AM' statements (7 of each) - not a parable, genealogy or baptism to be found here!

There are loads of theories about how the synoptics came to be written - I grew up with the four source theory (I know, I know) and regardless it's a great place to start thinking about how our Bible came to be written. So in a nutshell (should that be a nutcase?):

There was a common source, 'Q' (from the German 'Quelle' - source) to which Matthew and Luke added their own observations 'M' & 'L' (a bit like someone reading something about the 1966 World Cup final and two comanpanions adding their reminiscences). Mark is a 'standalone' Gospel and so we have three Gospels looking at the same situation (birth, life, death, resurrection) coming out of four sources.

C'est voila - the four source theory diagram (and explanation)

My Fourth Day of Christmas gift to you :-)

Faith: 'Not as clear cut as you might think!'

had a most interesting conversation this morning, the pinnacle of which was the statement: 'Christianity is not as clear cut as you might think!' which provided me with plenty of food for thought. After all, I've always known that, as has any thinking and open Christian, so why the surprise? Probably because the issue under discussion was one that actually I considered to be pretty clear cut!

The conversation centred along the lines that the defining Bible passage for everything was the 'golden rule' - that we treat others as you'd we'd to be treated and this was the basis upon which every attitude and act was judged. That we just loved our neighbour as ourselves and
made real the words of Matthew Chapter seven's account of the sermon on the mount as we refrained from judging and accepted whatever others did, approving and affirming rather than rebuking or denying.

Apparently the key to removing what some consider to be 'sin' is to remove the label sin from it. What we need to do is accept that people are different and the 'one size fits all' approach of Christianity is flawed and doomed to fail from the start. Better to accept that we're all different and concentrate on the things we can agree on and agree to accept the things (perhaps ignore is a better term) we can't.

The Church is an evolving body of people and they are realising that what we believed in centuries past is no longer relevant or valid. People are apparently realising that these days 'we are not called to live and act' as they did before and 'happiness' is the universal indicator of the rectitude of such thinking.

Having heard what they had to say, I have to be honest and say that I thought their views to be flawed and not merely self-indulgent and approving but actually, if Christian is what we are as a breed, a terminal disease!

There are many good things to be found in this world and many that are obviously bad - or are they? After all, I hear more and more people proposing that we should act illegally to deal with people who act wrongly - so the old statement 'two wrongs don't make a right' has now obviously itself become wrong.

One of the joys of being Christian is that we have, or at least should have, doors, arms and hearts that are open to everybody - for Church is an 'inclusive' entity. The problem for many comes with the reality that it is not a 'permissive' entity.

So this morning, whilst I heard what was said I really couldn't agree with it because what was being demanded was that I put aside my views in favour of theirs in the name of some misplaced understanding of love. I was being told that the only way to be loving was to ignore those things I considered wrong in the name of unity and 'being kind'.

The stumbling block for me came with the parting shot in that the other party considered that what they were asking for was exactly what Jesus would have done.

Obviously not only a different theology on display here but a different Jesus too!

God, heaven and hell!

I find it just a trifle funny that considering the people I happen across who take time out to tell me that they don't believe in God almost all of them have some belief in an afterlife! These are generally the people who regard nature as some sentient entity ('Ooh, isn't nature clever - it knows when to make the snowdrops come up and the birds build their nests!' You know the sort of stuff) rather than see it as something that runs along previously laid tracks (which begets the question, 'So who laid them?').

Now some people are expecting nothing after this life and whilst they might not be disappointed, I have a theological understanding that says they will, for their is a heaven and a hell. Heaven is not going to be in a Viking long hall situated in Valhalla drinking, telling stories and wenching (all of which sounds like my rugger days) but will be what we call being in God's presence (and that's open to your own imaginings I guess - Angels, clouds, harps or Arsenal victories perhaps). Hell, for me at least, appears to be spending an eternity in the absence of God (and you can make up your own images for that too!).

Some, having a supposedly kindly God, have created a theology where those who don't make the cut at the final judgement are merely annihilated - they are zapped and it is as if they never were - which will please those who are expecting nothing I guess. But of course this troubles me for there's no separation from God, merely an extinguishing of them and that doesn't fit what I find in the Bible.

But the real challenge for me is the number of people who have an expectation of more and the fact that they all want to run away from 'hell' and want to think of their already departed loved ones all populating heaven and sitting around up there looking down benignly upon us that they invent the various theologies that open the doors to all.

Some take me to task because they see in their own professed faith (Christianity) an exclusive entity that exists to separate rather than welcome all in.  'What about those who don't come to Jesus,' they cry, 'Surely God being a god of love will welcome all in whether they know Him or not?' The problem is that life itself is exclusive - after all, only those born, adopted or married into a family are part of a family. Those who belong to a club are members and have the rights, privileges and opportunities that members have whilst, of course, those who aren't, don't - and yet few have problems with this do they (and if they do then they set about finding out how to join, don't they?).

Others tell me that we need to lower our standards and become 'more accepting'. This is really a call to put aside requirements in terms of mindset, attitude or lifestyle so that we might gain more members. The problem we have is that by changing the constitution we change the values as well as the shape and I'm not sure we can populate heaven according to our own standards even though friends suggest we might - my fear is that we could be supply fodder for the other place.

So here we are, some scribbles and a bit of a dialogue with the clanging contents of my brain for you to contemplate and as you do I leave you with this thought from a friend:

 'If there's nothing bad to be realistically saved from there's no need for a Saviour and there can be no salvation!'

And that's the thought to be taken up next time.

So what is my job? - Discipleship

A few days back I wrote:

'Those who are happy to come to the show and sing the happy songs and have their ears tickled - the day is coming when the battle will be engaged and you will find yourself 'not fit for purpose' - time to 'man up Church!

To which I received the following response:

'How much more emotional manipulation are you going to employ on your site to get people to be doing what you, Vic, think people should be doing?

This isn't your job, Vic - your job is to seek after God and put yourself at his disposal.  Be loved by him and then love others as you are loved.

Your job is not to guilt-trip, embarrass or intimidate people into conforming to your ideology... this is the fast-track to burn-out.

Come back to me on this one, and tell me why I'm wrong.'

The good thing is that I will indeed tell you - and will do it here so others might engage with the discussion here (or on the forum). It's going to be quick and dirty but hopefully will hang together enough to make some sense:

Now I don't have an 'ideology' as I understand the word (which I take to be socio-political and not theological) but I do have a 'theology' and that theology comes from the Bible (the book formerly known as 'authoritative') and it informs and enlightens me as to many things regarding many areas that conspire to build our (Christian) faith life, namely:

Discipleship

This is a word that is all too easily banded about and features large in the writings of so many people and small in the manifestation of same. I think that the real problem is that some people in church confuse discipleship with doing and employ some oddly twisted work ethic where salvation comes through work; this is something the Bible offers a corrective on in Ephesians 2.8-9:

'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.'

Salvation comes through faith in God, which means in (and by) the salvific and atoning act of Christ upon the cross - and is worked out in us by the enabling of God's Holy Spirit. You cannot work your way into heaven!

In fact all God wants us to do is sit on our backsides and love Him. That's the message in a nutshell - purely and simply put. Of course as we sit God expects us to find out about Him and to talk with Him and to grow together with Him - it's just like being in any relationship: Without dialogue and communication and a developing relationship a marriage would be a sham and any friendship run on the same lines would be little more than a nodding acquaintance.

So here we are, in love with another person (who in this example just happens to be God) and this love soon turns into something whereby we know what pleases Him and so we do that; because we want to please and bless those we love don't we (we do, don't we?)? Here's an example from real life:

Many years ago when I drove and my wife didn't, if I came home and realised she was out shopping (in the days before mobiles) and it was raining, I would get in the car and drive the route to the shops to see if I could find her and give her a lift. I didn't do this because I was commanded to but because it was an outworking of my love for her. Form out of our love comes action!

This is what discipleship is, for:

First, I want to be a disciple because it brings me and the focus of my love closer - after all, I WANT to be more like Jesus.

Secondly, doing what is right helps me to be the person God WANTS me to be - so I am be obedient too!

Lastly - becoming a disciple shows other people, by the difference I have from the world, that there really is something in the God stuff - it is incarnational and, just as God incarnate came to save to to do we, in modelling and being part of that incarnacy through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we can proclaim that 'the Kingdom of God' is near.

Now, having all done 'disciple' to death we all know that it is someone who follows a teacher and is much like being an apprentice - we aim to learn from the master and to become as much like Him and Jesus tells us how we can do this in Matthew chapter 16:

'Then Jesus told His disciples, 
"If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." '

Jesus is telling those who are His disciples to deny themselves (that is to not do the desires and wants) and to take up their cross (which is a burden of servanthood and potential suffering) and to follow (an active thing) Him. He is not saying come and be entertained and live lives that look like the world and live in their attitudes and see church as merely something to be enjoyed - He is telling them to get real and live life in the reality of the Christian faith seeking to be imitators of Him.

Now, whilst the writer of the comments above is right in that my call is to 'put myself at His disposal' it is also my calling to encourage others to do the same - and as I often hear myself saying - we need to be careful that we do not judge others (for as we judge, so too are we judged).

The call to discipleship is of of engagement for within the structure that is discipleship we find the call to 'love one another' and even more active is the call for us to 'love our neighbour as ourselves'.

There is also the call to 'go into ALL the world and baptising and teach others to obey God's commandments' - something that cannot be done by sitting in our comfort zones, living in the choices we wish to make and ignoring the call to be actively engaged. Of course, some seem to think that what God commanded is a moveable feast and this causes even more fun I guess - but it's good to have our challenges isn't it?

You see that whilst I seek to embrace the elements given above (and remember, this is a concise explanation) I have also to take on board the fact that I function as a believer and as one who has been called to 'shepherd the flock' too. I am also responsible for those under my care in that I encourage (for I never order) and attempt to lead by example.

But the bottom line is that, like a rowing crew I once used to see on the water, there are many who think that they are 'fit for purpose' but the reality is that once they to engage in the race, they will be devastated to find that they are soon 'rowed over' (that is to be left so far behind that it is like they were never there in the first place). My task is to ensure that we build a Church that conforms to the description in Ephesians chapter four:

'And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.'

What we have here is nothing more than a 'speaking the truth in love'  for just as 'inclusive' Church is not 'permissive' or 'liberal' Church, neither is the Church of Christ a place where we seek to put off discipleship (which means emulating Christ) and reside as children who need to be entertained lest they become bored. No, we are called to celebrate, emulate and admonish each other to work towards being Christlike in all the fullness that this implies - strong in word, faithful to the teaching of Christ and exercising good words - not because works bring faith but because faith without works is an empty and futile faith (if you don't believe me - take a look at James chapter two* and understand that:

'For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.'
So here we have part the first in my surrejoinder - there's more to come and I pray that within the haphazard and rushed nature of this response, there is something of reason and merit to be found.

Pax


*James 2. 14 - 26
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled”, without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!
Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 
“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” - and he was called a friend of God.
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.'

The Shack - is it really theology?

Working on the premise that wee can do our theological thinking using any book I have to add the caveat that whilst ALL and ANY book can challenge and shape my theology this does not make them 'theological'!

A brief conversation with someone who is studying theologically left me rather confused as they regarded the aforementioned tome as an authoritative theological voice on the Trinity. This for me was on a par with the 'darkness' offerings of Frank Peretti being regarded in the same light regarding Angelology.

Please don't think I'm knocking the books or the writers, I'm not. I can honestly say that having read them and enjoyed them to varying degrees my concern is that those who would consider themselves as students of that Queen of all sciences (Aquinus' term - not mine - Schleiermacher's too!) 'Theology' are in possession of such thinking.

More concern-making perhaps is the fact that the person on the other side of the conversation also thought that the 'Left behind' series was 'great theology' and a wonderful way to teach about the end times, after all (and I quote): 'It's easier to understand than revelation, isn't it?' 

It certainly is, but it is not the authority some might confer upon it!

I am becoming increasing aware that I am moving towards a similar position as that occupied by that wonderfully visceral and curmudgeonly old goat, and namesake, Victor Meldrew when I say:
'I don't believe it - and I wish you wouldn't either!' Perhaps it's increasing old age taking effect - but hopefully it's an increasing desire to see people shape, share and apply stuff that sits well with the Bible.

Mind you, gut feelings apart, I am struggling to think that there are people who see angels sitting around the church building giving demons the bird and members of the Holy Trinity as characters like Mr McHenry, zipping around sans tricycle!

Stimulation and analogous writings are great because they give us different ways of looking at things. Fiction can, as I have said, shape, inform and bring about responses in us, but we need to keep a weather eye on how far we let them take us - after all, those who take the King's shilling and  seek to serve Him in the ministry have a personal and a pastoral concern to be concerned over.

The Shack? It's a book - let's not lose sight of that?

Pax

Science? Merely a branch of Theology!

Today, as the Church of England commemorates the life and work of William of Ockham, Priest and Philosopher, it behoves me to (once again) point out that despite the erroneous posturing of many with their thinking over:

Evolution (Darwin)

Heliocentric theories (Copernicus and Galileo - neither of whom were persecuted for their theories by the way)

And many other myths (wait for it):

Science, Philosophy, rational and logical thought are merely little more than (comfortable) bedfellows with theology and people of faith (well some of them anyway!).

I have often regarded 'Ockham's Razor' as one of the handiest and sadly least used means of resolving difference and establishing fact.

In it we have the essence of empiricism and the practice of assuming that simpler explanations are, all other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones is the basis upon which much good, and long-lasting, science is done.

Yippee for William of Ockham - yet another brick in the wall of reality that shows scientific, rational thinking lives comfortably with theology (and people of faith) within the physical world.

Now if only some of those around us who have to invent complex explanations for the very things that are defined simply (but perhaps they might need them to remove their blinkers - theist and atheist).

Happy Wednesday

Explaining the Trinity

This most amazingly funny and informative video is the work of 'The Lutheran Satire' whom you will find on Youtube and many other places (well worth a visit and a vote).

Here were have the panacea to all those awful analogies you will be presented with on Trinity Sunday (but with something to make you smile too):

Enjoy

@LutheranSatire

Bread on water or pearls before swine?

That's one of the challenges that so often faces us when it comes to being and doing church.

How do we decide where (and upon what) to spend our cash in our attempts to 'build the kingdom'?

Do we plant new churches and engage in Fresh Expressions (FE) or do we invest in people?

I engage with people who are keen to try new things and some of them are wonderful, other quite weird and other are just plain wacky; yet each idea needs to be considered not just with human eyes, business plans and the like but with spiritual eyes too.

For me, whilst I know it is important, money is neither prime mover or reason for binning something, what I would have us think about are:

i. impact on the community,

ii. impact on the church, and (most important until last)

iii. The calling (what does God want you to be doing?)

I have seen stuff tried and failed majestically, sinking like the Titanic without the benefit of deckchair or band and yet it has been a success. How can that be (I hear you mumble)? Well, from the ashes has come a bunch of people who have bonded and risen from the depths to engage with something else that will be a success because adversity brings one of three things:

Increased resolve and coherence

Despair and dispersion

Confusion and apathy

The key to knowing the where (and what) of any church plant, FE or church engagement is to ask a few questions - a social audit or walk around your patch with a missioner or someone who will bring fresh eyes will pay dividends in helping understand what is needed.

For instance I often find people who have decided to start doing Messy Church just yards from another church who are doing the same thing. What is called for here is partnership but no, each does it's own thing and this not only dilutes the audience but, in one notable case, brought animosity (they're trying to pinch our people!') and caused despair (all set up and no one comes doesn't leave you with a spring in your step, does it?).

We need to be speaking of kingdom rather than 'our church' - seek to do what we can in partnership (especially in smaller locations where the population and place is small, limiting those we can reach) where we can - doing what we do alone where this is not possible.

When a church began a parent and toddler group in the centre of our town they were advised that such a work 'never' brings new people in. Their response was, 'Perhaps not, but we provide something that is needed and build relationships,' and that was a start - the issue was that that neither clergy or church members tried to engage with the people who came. For those who came, the people who ran the group were 'church' and the rest were strangers (and strange) and remained that, even after a visit to a service.

I meet, or hear of, people who are doing great stuff; things that the community really lacks and has need of. The problem is that when we seek to meet them, whose name do we do it in and what is the desired outcome?

It's not good enough to do stuff anonymously for fear that using the name of Jesus or using the word 'church' or 'God' or 'Christian' or any other perceived weakness or threat, will scupper or limit the work.  We go out in the name of Jesus the Christ the name above all names and if we can't, then we need to ask ourselves what we meet for and why we're considering looking at engaging with the community.

I have asked this and my (perhaps cynical and wrong) assessment of some of the responses is this:

1. If we tell them we are Christians they will think we're 'scalp hunting' 
but what, and how, we do what we're doing will some scupper, or confirm, that.

2. If we don't tell them we're Christians we can influence them more
because they think we are the same as them (and when they find we've 'conned' them - what will they think!

3. We don't label ourselves because we want to be socially active rather than do gooder Christians
for me there are two questions here:
so are you Christians in a secular project? if so, excellent - we need Christians in politics, secular projects and the like. My next question is, 'This is a secular project or partnership with a secular group, isn't it?' (And if it's not then surely you're denying Christ?
OR
are you merely people who gather together and do good stuff using the church building as a base? Where does Christ, the Gospel and our call to 'go into all the world . . .teach them to obey, sit with you?

So much more buzzing in brain but after this seven minute splurge (I feel better now) I know I'm leaving you with questions, challenges and perhaps some guidance and thought-provoking stuff for me in return.

Happy Wednesday - visits, service writing, tenebrae to print and Holy Week to contemplate (and then lunch :-) )

Pax

Christmas Card -2

I rather like this understated card design as it brings with it the opportunity to include inside a brief account of the journey toBethlehem, the birth and the babe who is Jesus, the Christ.

Not only that but it is a great change from the usual run of the 'trying to be clever' artworks in that it is visually enjoyable and theologically full of potential:

Pax

(Getting excited yet? We are having got the church building ready and all the spuds, brussels, carrots and the like ready for lunch tomorrow (no, wasn't me what did it) and it looks like we could have 55 coming tomorrow!).

The Rapture - What about the Cat?

I have received an email from a concerned cat owner who asks the question, "Will my cat be coming to heaven with us on the 21st May, or should we leave some milk and kibbles out?"

Well, this is an issue that really grounds the discusion regarding the discussion surrounding the 'rapture' (or as we we theological jocks like to call it, the 'Parousia') and whether or not animals are admitted. A local Vicar has gone on record that if his dogs aren't coming then neither is he! Of course many who know him were rather doubting he'd be making the trip anyway, but that's another topic for another day (and a different identity!).

So how will you know if you're dear liddle puddy ain't made it to heaven? Research shows that those who are left may well find a scene something like this greets them:

And just so you dog lovers don't feel excluded, a hint as to what might be happening with your pet on the the 21st May (if Harold's got his math's right!):

Mind you, as it the generally accepted view is that as we're not made in the image of dog and because animals don't have immortal souls, they don't make it to heaven anyway (which lets me off the hook with the local Vicar too. Phew!).

So, if you find you cat, dog or hamster (or any other pet) stuck to the ceiling, it's something other than the Rapture. Mind you, if you're still here I'd be worrying about the fact you haven't gone up with Christ and left the blinking thing there anyway!

Pax