Tamworth Hustings - 9 Days to go

And, according to the pundits, the battle is hotting up and the latest polls see it like this:

Conservatives 34%

Labour             33%

UKIP                13%

Lib Dems          9%

Green Party      5%

It's so close that people I've spoken for today were telling me that they didn't know who to vote for. The answer is simple:

Then candidate who answers the questions and says what you think is right!

Bt if you don't ask, you won't get to find out, so make sure you are in St Editha's, Tamworth on Thursday 30th @ 7.30pm and perhaps you'll hear an answer that convinces you (or turns you off).

And on a lighter note:

An MP dies and finds himself at the pearly gates before St Peter who tells him that the has two choices: Heaven or Hell (please note this is not a theologically accurate joke). 

To aid those who come to the gates unsure of where they ought to be, the powers that be have decided that the deceased can have five minutes viewing time in each of the two venues.

So our parliamentarian jumps in a lift and descends to take a look at hell. When the doors open he sees many of those he knows from Westminster and they are waving, cheering and in between sips of champagne and obviously enjoying the experience.

The the doors shut and he presses button for 'Heaven'. The doors open and before him is heaven and it's full of people singing Graham Kendrick songs, eating soggy biscuits and drinking weak tea (just like after the service on Sunday)! 

Before he has fully recovered from such awfulness the doors close and he's back in the foyer with St Peter who asks him, 'Which is it to be, heaven or Hell?'

Without a moments hesitation he chooses Hell and no sooner than the words leave his mouth he is taken back to the life and the button is again pressed. As the doors open he is met by something awful. The people there are screaming in pain as the flames lick their bodies and there's such an awful sound that it makes his blood run cold.

Then, seeing satan, the politician rushes over and asks him, "What's going on, it wasn't like this when I looked around earlier?'

'Ah yes,' says satan, 'But that was before you voted wasn't it?'

At the cross where I first saw the dark!

Of course the words of the Isaac Watts hymn are, 'First saw the light,' and yet it is surely the darkness, the fruit of sin harvested and made obvious in the separation that Father and Son experience, that illuminates! How odd to think that the darkness is the source of the light that dispels the darkness within us - a real conundrum.

William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, said:

'Most Christians would like to send their recruits to Bible college for five years. I would like to send them to Hell for five minutes. That would do more than anything else to prepare them for a lifetime of compassionate ministry.'

Many years ago I tried this by taking some Christians to Soho's red-light district and found, to my surprise, that the experience did not raise their blood pressure and enlist them to stand against the darkness against which we are called to contend. I tried it with Amsterdam's red-light district (a notch lower still and sure that this place where self-respect and cheapening of life combine to surely make us draw a line and determine to make a stand. And yet, even though distaste was found, there was no inflamed passion and no taking up of the King's shilling!

The news coming in from Iraq at the destruction of Christian communities has raised among many Christians a hearty, 'Oh dear!' I've seen more passionate responses from Christians over their football club's cup run or league place than I have over Iraq. Change the scenery and I can honestly say that I've seen more enraged, and engaged, passions from Christians over the right to be, or have, or do, than I have over the conflict between us and the result of sin.

It is at the cross where the pain of separation is made manifest. The problem is that the promise of eternal life overwhelms us and causes us to deviate from the real issue - that moment when the distance is made obvious - and rather than contend with sin (in us, in others) we look merely to the blessing that we 'deserve', that healing which 'by divine right' should be ours for the taking. We retreat into our own self-serving world and cling to the salvation Jesus (being the Christ) wins for us without ever being touched by the darkness of it.

Would that those around me who claim the label 'Christian' might find in the darkness of the cross the passion to live as befits the life we claim to live rather than the self-serving and hollow deceptions so often found.

The darkness is apparent and yet many Christians are more concerned with their own  blessings than the scene at the cross and the import of what happened there. They are blinded by the promises so much that they cannot see the road they take is wrong. The light dazzles and confuses rather than renders the darkness impotent and broken.

We look to Grace and forget discipline (but who liked the cabbage when they were young?); we look to eternal life and live each day unable to fly on God's breath. We hear the words of life and live by their sound and not the voice that spoke them.

Would that for one brief second we would understand that darkness that Jesus experienced for us on the cross - that we would, glimpsing hell, take up for ourselves a 'lifetime of compassionate ministry' rather than the self-serving religion we have made for ourselves as a parody of that which Jesus died to give us.

Lord, help me to live in the reality of the cross;

To look into the eyes of Jesus and to walk in His footsteps,

To walk in the light rather than be blinded by the promises.

To live a life of truly compassionate ministry.

Amen.

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.

Nominal Christians - Nominal Atheists

I often find myself reflecting upon the fact that I meet so many nominal Christians; you know the sort I'm sure - they're the people who might have been baptised but have never 'done' church in any shape, size or form.

I also meet a number of Atheists and find that whilst some will say they are 'Agnostic' the majority merely state that they are 'Atheists' and it is in this that I can find much humour and even more for me to take comfort in. The reasons for this are not mocking any of the groups but are rational and real (so the skeptics, agnostics and atheists can take joy too!) so I know I'm a crowd-pleaser today! ;-)

1. Some I meet are 'proper' atheists in that they have denied God (or gods) and have studied and formed a deep and (in their mind) rational and yet closed system to support their views. Some are willing to dialogue on level playing fields and engage in two-way street stuff, but this is (rather sadly) the exception to the breed. They are not only atheists but are also people with no religion and no beliefs in anything but the material and absolute.

2. Other I meet claim to be atheists but this is actually nothing more than a 'catch all' label to collect up their 'there is no god' stance and if there were perhaps a little more informed, or perhaps a little less lazy, would declare themselves to be merely 'agnostic'. These are the nominal atheists who hold beliefs in an eternity and life after death (but with who and why and what for?) and cling to some of the stuff that supports (and demands) a deity; the people who are rather 'just confused' and living under a flag of convenience. Perhaps best called 'syncretic unbelievers'!

3. The third group are people who are unhappy at being labelled 'atheist'; they are merely people who don't believe in a god. These people take the (most un-atheist like) position of 'whatever floats your boat!' 'You want to believe in a Creator God? That's fine as long as you don't expect me to have to do it too! You want to believe that there's nothing? Then for you there probably is, but don't try to drag me into your ways of thinking either!' The feel as aggrieved by fundamentalism whether it be theist or atheist (there's a cartoon on the blog about that from last month

4. I do meet some who make up a fourth (minority) group and these are true agnostics - they don't believe and want to wear the 'agnostic' badge with the subtext - 'so talk to me - I'm open either way!'

Now the interesting thing for me is that every now and then a nominal Christian, someone who has never had a church affiliation or been a member or can even tell you the stories, talk about Jesus and the like, comes to faith as an 'Atheist'. The 'no god' community tend to parade these people and yet, upon the most cursory of discussions it become clear that they are like a friend of mine who joined a political party a few years back so that they could resign their membership to make a point. Loads of gesture and yet no substance. The don't have a convert, they merely have a new member!

And the good news for me is that when I find a 'proper Atheist' coming to faith I find someone who has read, dialogued (and yet rarely openly discussed) and made a firm and conscious decision to take up that stance, putting it all aside to embrace the concept (and then for them the reality too) of their being a God! Now this is what the other side of the debate claim for every nominal and yet for the ersatz atheists and many of the agnostics too, this is not a defection but a taking up of belief (and when it happens the other way - and it does do that - the same applies too).

The good news is that I find more 'full on' atheists being convinced in our direction that I do the other way round and those I do meet who have become non-theists have rarely been theists- they just happened to be born in the UK and were baptised (or often these days not) and wore the nominal badge because they weren't Islamic, or Hindu or any of the other faiths. The 'Christian' was like a string of garlic to protect from other gods and labels!

So take heart: The many 'no faith' types are merely waiting to hear the good news from the Church or waiting to be convinced by the New Atheists and their disciples. The invitation is made, the challenge for people hearts and minds // minds and hearts is before us.

Who you gonna call?

What you gonna do?

Who are you going to affirm of deny today?

Annihilation - Love that ends?

I cannot move away from concept of eternal punishment and this punishment being separation. I understand the position of the universalists (more about them later) who have a Father Christmas like character who permits all to enter because they can’t bear the thought of a God who deals justly with His creation and who extrapolate this to enjoy the accommodation of a God who, if there must be some sort of punishment, gives the sinner 250mls of Euthatol and drops them in the bin (“Don’t worry madam, we gave Tiddles a dignified send-off!”).

I’m sorry people, but it seems that hell, Gehenna - the rubbish tip where the filth and the fires never cease to be, is pretty much something that is in the script. Not as some form of evening the scores or ‘getting pay back’ (as one really dodgy Christian put it), but because that’s what justice is about. Now, I hear some cry, what about grace?

Well grace exists and is there from the moment of cognisance to the moment just before the very last breath (looks like I don’t do predestination either, doesn’t it?) it is there before us. Jesus dies on a cross and sin, losing its power because death no longer works, is defeated – step right up and take a ticket, free and gratis won for you and yours by faith and through grace! If not you don’t just get what you deserve to have (which could still be considered cruel and wicked) but you get what you have made the conscious decision to have. So many people tell me that they have chosen not to ‘do the Christian thing’ but when the final bit comes I bet they wish they hadn’t (and I exclude secondary probabtion too, so there’s no hope once you’ve pegged it) when they get everything they said they wanted! Being zapped would be preferable to living separate, wouldn’t it?

So we have separation and punishment, which I see conveniently coalesce, and one further element which is the hope the annihilationists pin their hopes on, destruction. If hell is about justice and retribution rather than vengeance and revenge then the destruction that I read of from Paul is destruction of the God bit within us – the soul rather than the flesh bit and so this would cause annihilationists to have fallen short. But they continue because they can’t comprehend a God of love being a God of justice, perhaps those who vote for annihilationism should join the many other ersatz faiths that engage in such thinking and become universalist too?

Of course we can explain away eternal punishment by looking at the word ‘eternal’ and defining it as ‘in a future time’ which means that judgment is not for now but for some other time. The implication being that the punishment is not forever which satisfies the now and the imprecatory nature of things when it is assumed that this is what you get and getting to the end without being dealt with signifies victory. If I am to believe a lecture on this from way back, aionios could be used in this manner with pretty persuasive (and perhaps accommodating) results but it doesn’t remove the ‘eterna;’ element from everything else, does it, and if it doesn’t then why should the accommodation exist other than to support temporal (and temporary) caveats? A single act of judgment, punishment and then an eternity of continued presence or being as if you never were – all sounds a bit limp on one side and triumphal on the other, not balanced at all.

I have to apologise, but the quickly scribbled thinking from the top of my bonce and the depths of my heart coupled with the thin theological understanding I possess lead me to a place where I cannot see past what I believe in to a position where we make God frilly and sweet by avoiding giving the people what they want – life serving themselves and eternity separated from Him!

You pays your money and makes your choice – don’t say no one told you ;)

Pax

Annihilation?

I consider myself to be an Evangelical (of the open variety), which for me means that I believe in a triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and see the only way to relationship with the father as being won for me by the Son and that this is enabled by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is central to my life and belief and I uphold the orthodox, that is ‘traditional’ teachings and practice of the Church within the parameters of Scripture, tradition and reason (perhaps adding experience to have a quadrilateral)!

There are a number of areas that I struggle with and increasingly I find someone or other proclaiming that they are an ‘evangelical nnn’ (when nnn is usually something I struggle with accepting. So it was with a bit of surprise that I first encountered annihilationist thinking in an evangelical context from the late John Stott*. When he did there was much mumbling and accounts of great fallings out over it with certain well-known Christian figures. I struggled with it because I had always been taught that there were two parallel tracks:

Heaven – where God and His people were

Hell – Where those who were separate from God, were separate from God for eternity.

Not for me the eternal damnation and accordion playing that many think of when considering hell! Hell is merely eternal separation from God, and that is enough in itself to be terrible. In fact I abhor those who paint a picture of the terrors of hell in an attempt to peddle a ticket away from it. I seek to help people find true life with God through Christ not bring them into the boat because of fear!
But within the issue of hell are many pastoral, practical and theological issues. What if just as some thought the world to be flat the thinking on hell is totally skewed and there is doubt as to who is going to a ‘better place”? If the party never ends and the stores never close, what difference would an absence of God really make? Then again, if the accordion playing never stops and there are no Apple computers – could even the presence of God make such a place desirable?

I guess my thinking has been shaped not only by those who taught me but also by Keith Green’s ‘Sheep and Goats’:

In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
In as much as you've not done it unto the least of My brethren, You've not done it unto Me.
Depart from Me.
And these shall go away into everlasting fire. But the righteous into eternal life!
And my friends, the only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to this scripture,
is what they did, and didn't do!!

So here we have, in music, Matthew twenty-five’s telling that some will go into ‘eternal punishment’ while others will go into ‘eternal life’. Of course if there are two sides of the coin and one is eternal life then it is fair to assume the complementary state that is eternal death. But my problem immediately comes to the fore because the Bible doesn’t say that. What it tells me is that what awaits some is eternal punishment and this doesn’t fit the idea of some unconscious state. If one is annihilated it would be as it they have never been (one of the hallmarks of the Shoah) and so the person sins and then reaping their reward vanishes such that all they had was all there was for them and the humanist viewpoint is found to be valid.

In discussion I find some who claim that all will get a new body and come before the throne on the day of judgment and then, those who are condemned will be zapped and be no more. Sounds a bit like a story of a bloke on death row who spent many years battling cancer. When eventually the doctors gave him a clean bill of health and pronounced him fit the state executed him. Sound pretty cruel to me I don’t see God as cruel. Mind you, others tell me this is compassion and justice combined.

Some tell me that we will all have new bodies and those who are set for eternal life will live for eternity whilst them others will go to a place where God is not and the ravages of age, ill-health and whatever will come upon them (just like now) and then they will cease to be. Not just wacky but doesn’t sound eternal (how’s about having your liver eaten every day – might be fun?).

The problem comes in that nasty word ‘eternal’ being coupled with an even nastier one ‘punishment’ and is exacerbated by my need to have some Biblical and theologically joined up bits.
I am told that a God of love wouldn’t keep people in eternal punishment but would remove them from being rather than have them suffer. This is why a kind God would favour annihilation. A cruel God would keep them in a matchbox and shake it ever now and then.

Just the first volley in this topic - hope it stimulates and challenges and is seen as an invitation to dialogue.

Pax