Monday 29 June 2009

Invitation

I'm often sad that so many of my friends seem to have only a negative- or at best uninterested- view of the church and Christianity. They've come across things that have put them off. Or they can't understand things, or feel they cannot accept things, or feel excluded. So they aren't interested in the church, and pay no attention to it- or worse, consider everything relating to it and to faith in a negative light.

But I'd like to offer all of you an invitation. From the evening of Monday 6th July there will be a FREE cafe in my church, St Michael le Belfrey, next to the Minster. It's running during the day and evening during that week.

Monday 6th July: 8pm-10.30pm
Tuesday 7th- Thursday 9th July: 11am-4pm, 8pm-10.30pm
Friday 10th July: 11am-4pm with an evening youth event
and also in the Minster on Saturday 11th July between 11am and 4pm (all being well!).

You can come in for free tea, coffee, juice and homemade cake, or just for a sit down. No one's going to try to make you do, say or sing anything, it really is free, no strings attached. We just want to serve people, to give them something for nothing, as a gift. I should know what it's going to be like, I've been helping organise things. I'm your friend, you can trust me (hopefully!)

So please come!

Friday 26 June 2009

One of those personal posts

I woke up this morning in the same mood I went to bed in: somewhat melancholy and wistful. The reasons are complicated, and partly to do with an ongoing situation which I'm not happy with, but partly to do with what I was thinking about last night.

Friends had asked me to look after their hamster and water their vegetable plants while they're on holiday. I was quite happy to agree, but it was only afterwards that I was thinking that it was rather a grown-up request. He's a year or so older than me and she is a year younger, they've been married almost a year, and although I'm not suggesting that anyone's life is perfect, in some ways I can't help feeling a little jealous.

Sometimes I feel that I- and probably other people in a similar phase of life- have most of the responsibilities of adulthood- being expected to support and take care of one's self, and probably others to some degree; not being able to get away with things that people would excuse in children or students- you get the idea. But at the same time we don't get the benefits or rewards of being grown up. People still- at least in my case- refuse much of the time to treat me as a proper adult; because I look younger than I am and still have friends who are students, because I'm single, because I don't have a proper graduate job, because I share a house with other people rather than living alone or being married, which is of course the ultimate sign that you are an adult, apart perhaps from having children.

It's not really loneliness, I have some great friends who I know I can trust and rely on- much as I poke fun at some of them! It's more a sort of wistfulness for things I don't have and don't really expect to have, at least any time soon. And a feeling that in some ways, I'm missing out. When you've grown up, as I have, with older parents you can't ignore that at some point in your life you are going to need people close to you to help you, usually family. You also can't ignore the fact that while your contemporaries' parents will be there for them for a good while yet, yours are already approaching the stage where they are the ones needing help. Perhaps knowing that they won't be here forever is one of the things making me somewhat envious of those who have found someone who will always be there for them.

Working in a solicitors' where we see a fair number of people coming in to discuss care for their elderly relatives probably adds to the feeling, as does the sheer number of friends' weddings taking place this year. It's also something it's quite hard to talk about. When I say jealous, I don't mean resentful. I'm glad my friends are happy in that respect, and I recognise too that they have their problems and worries.

I like to try and resolve these posts and put something positive at the end. But I'm struggling here. It's not that I'm incredibly upset or anything about this, it's just a sort of background feeling that's occasionally brought to the fore by something, and makes me go quiet and thoughtful for a bit. In a way trying to rationalise feelings doesn't really work, because they're not completely rational. I guess I need to remember that I have got some great friends, even if they're not all as close as I would like, and that I have a lot to be glad about. And to avoid sitting in church feeling annoyed because certain preachers assume that everyone is (or at least soon will be) married.

P.S. And to continue the theme of the day... news that another baby will be joining my extended family. So come Christmas I'll be getting yet more of the 'when will it be your turn?' questions and looks. Ah well!

Wednesday 17 June 2009

Luxury or necessity?

I heard an item on the radio last night which annoyed me. It was one of those stories where they talk to people who are supposed to be suffering as a result of the recession. The lady they were talking to this time had lost her above averagely paid job a few months ago and hadn't been able to find another. Now, apparently she is struggling financially- to the extent that she can't afford foreign holidays or to replace a sofa.

Well, of course I'm sorry for her. Being made redundant isn't pleasant, nor is having to reduce your standard of living. But really, these kind of stories show how little some people know about who is really suffering- about who is really at the bottom of the ladder. Not being able to afford foreign holidays or new furniture isn't pleasant. But compared to struggling to pay your rent, or utility bills, it's a whole different territory. She bemoaned the fact that she was having to draw on her savings for her old age. While I can see her concern that she might be worse off in some years time as a result, at least she's had the kind of job where she has been able to build up savings. Some of us aren't that fortunate.

Sometimes I think we can forget that the things we consider a usual part of life are in fact luxuries. For many people across the world, even being able to have a solid roof over their head and enough food to not be hungry are more than they can hope for. Even in this country, there are people who struggle for basic necessities- who get to the end of the month not sure if they'll have enough for rent, or food. Compared to that, not being able to replace a sofa somehow doesn't seem to me to be important. It's like another radio item I heard some time ago where they gave an example of a 'low' salary of around £20,000 a year. While that may well be low compared to the likes of the BA boss's £61,000 a month, but compared to a full time minimum wage salary of around £11,000 a year it's still quite good money.

And talking of BA, and their asking their employees to work unpaid for up to a month or take unpaid leave- well, I can see why they've done it, and why many workers will probably take them up on the scheme. Better to earn a bit less money and still have a job than to quite possibly loose your job if the company struggles. And the chief executive is leading by example.

Except that the chief executive probably earns more in one month than many of his employees do in 5 years. So I don't really think it's really going to be much of a struggle for him. Whereas for some of them it could mean tightened belts- and fewer foreign holidays.

Perhaps rather than forgoing his salary for a month he should offer to take the salary of a baggage handler or check-in staff for a year- that might teach him a thing or two about managing!

Monday 15 June 2009

Transcendence

I spent yesterday evening parading around York minster, wearing a white robey-thing and gold embroidered collarey-thing (you can tell I'm not well up on vestments, can't you?) and carrying a candle, next to somebody carrying a cross and following someone else with a censor (smelly thing, rather than editing tool!)

I'm not someone who usually takes part in- or enjoys- the sort of worship (sometimes called 'high church') which these things are usually features of. But having been asked by a friend to help out at Transcendence, I was happy to say yes and try something very different to my normal style of worship.

I've been to Transcendence a couple of times. It's a monthly service in York Minster, run as a joint project by the Minster and the Visions community, which is attached to my church, St Mike's. Transcendence is a mix of old and new, of ritual and freedom: there are old chants and hymns set to modern dance beats; there's communion given by priests in vestments from the Minster's old silverware, while the words are projected onto big screens and some people are sat on beanbags. There's a procession to another part of the church where the gospel is read and a short talk given (holding the candle up during that was probably good for building up my arm muscles!) after which people can go off to different 'prayer stations' where there are interactive things to do or to look at to help you pray, such as kneading dough or placing shards of pottery on an outline of a cup.

What I like about it is the sense of history, the ability to connect somehow with all the people who've worshiped in this building before you, who've taken communion from these chalices, who've stood and gazed at these windows. There's space and time to think about these things and to pray. And it's good to have a change sometimes, to get away from what we're used to and learn to look at things in another light.

Transcendence (well, Visions) is part of the Fresh Expressions movement in the Church of England- a group which is exploring different ways of 'doing church' or 'being church' in an effort to connect with people. Church can often seem weird or unwelcoming, or people can struggle to concentrate through long sermons- so new types of service are being developed to help people who maybe aren't used to 'traditional' services feel welcomed and part of the church.

There's an article in the Telegraph here about this- it mentions Sue Wallace, who's the person behind Transcendence. Although the article is good, it's a shame that they've managed to find someone who obviously disagrees with the whole idea. I don't quite see why, it's not intended as a replacement for traditional services, just an alternative for those who find that they don't help them to worship. The point is to worship God, and to learn from him. If a service does that, surely it's doing the right thing?

As for his comment that "it'll make people think that we're eccentric and silly..." Well, I've got news for him. That's what most people think about the church now, precisely because it so often hasn't changed with the times. I would hope that he's willing to visit a Fresh Expressions service, and see that there's plenty of depth there, and that it's not silly and is attracting people to Jesus- which is, after all, what the church is supposed to be for.

So I'd encourage you to come along next time Transcendence is on (12th July and 9th August are the next two in York Minster) and see what you think. It's probably not what you're used to, but whether you're a regular churchgoer or not, then I think you'll find something to think about.

Thursday 11 June 2009

It seems I was right...

This post is a follow-up to last week's one on Pentecost. It's publishing has been somewhat delayed because of the European election results.

or at least, Paul agrees with me. "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." (1 Corinthians 14 vs 18-19). Because "how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?" (vs 16).

Verse 23 says: "So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" A bit harsh, perhaps, but I have to agree. I know of people who have been put off by this. Yet in verse 22 Paul says: "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers." So how do these two verses square up?

I've seen it suggested that the word 'sign' is meant negatively, that it's referring to people being excluded- as in, a sign that they're not part of what's going on. I don't know enough Greek to know if this is the case, but I think Paul's linking it with what he says about interpretation and prophecy.

Prophecy in this context isn't foretelling the future but speaking God's message to his people, pointing out what they're doing wrong and how they need to correct their lives, and encouraging them to follow God's ways. That's what the Old Testament prophets were mainly concerned with- warning the people of Israel of their disobedience and the consequences they could expect.

The point of this is that prophecy is relevant, and can touch indicidual lives: "and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare." (see vs 24-25) I think this may possibly be referring to the fact that we need to convince people intellectually as well as experientially- so they can believe with their mind and with their heart.

Paul doesn't want to discourage the Corinthians from speaking in tongues, and in verses 26-28 he gives them some guidelines for how to practice them: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God." It's a wonderful picture of everyone being able to contribute to the life of the church (verse 34-35 is probably a reference to irrelevant chattering rather than contribution).

Paul implies that tongues are mainly for use in private, mainly- as I often use it- to allow us to communicate with God when we have no words; because of grief and sadness, or because there are no earthly words to describe how great God is. So I'm not suggesting we should never have public use of the tricky gift of tongues in church, but that we should be careful how and when it's used- putting people off because we're scary or weird is the last thing we want to do to visitors to our churches! I think verses 39-40 of 1 Corinthians 14 sum it up:

"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

Monday 8 June 2009

Protesting against democracy?

Oh dear. The BNP have gained two seats in the European parliament, one in the North West and one in my own region, Yorks and Humber. It's not good- even UKIP are beginning to seem like moderates in comparison. Which in turn isn't good as it gets them more votes.

The historian in me isn't happy with the way they use 'British' in their title- I'm British, but my ideas of nationality are a long way from theirs. What is Britain, anyway? It's shape and people have changed over the years. What's so special about Britain? The historian in me isn't happy with the sickening claims of their leader denying the Holocaust. The historian in me isn't happy with their obvious lack of any knowledge of British history- we're a nation made up of immigrants, for goodness' sake! Why should people of Angle or Saxon or Scandinavian or Norman French (and the Normans were of Viking descent) immigrant descent have more rights than those of African, African-American, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese or other descent?

They say they don't hate people of other ethnicities, but by encouraging them to leave the country they are in effect saying that they are inferior to the ethnically British-if there is such a thing? What about the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish? And these countries are made up of different people groups too. Where do you draw the line? Do you force all people of Scottish descent to leave England, including the Prime Minister, presumably? Do you force Prince Philip to move to Greece, and the Queen to Germany?

I think I've made it clear that I disagree utterly with the BNP and deplore both their attitudes and the fact that they've won. But one of the many things that worries me about the BNP's victory is the reaction of some people who oppose them. Some of the tactics being used, advocated or suggested dismay me, and would/ will only inflame (quite possibly literally) the situation while loosing the moral high ground.

For example, party leader Nick Griffin's car was attacked as he tried- quite legitimately- to enter the building where the count was being held. Much as I dislike the BNP, they took part in this election legitimately. Violence against them will solve nothing and help no one. As soon as one side uses it, the other side can say they were defending themselves, and the whole situation will lead to escalation and violence. The BNP already use language calculated to encourage unrest and discord in the community. Playing them at their own game here only makes matters worse.

Not that all those campaigning against the BNP are encouraging or carrying out these sort of activities. I know it's only a small minority. But the danger is that in the eyes of the media- and of BNP members- they are all tarred with the same brush.

But the real problem I have is with the idea of campaigning against the BNP. Ok, campaign against their policies and the stupid things they say. But you can't campaign against them doing well in the elections. Little as I like it, the elections were free and fair. The electoral system might not be perfect but compared to many countries we can't complain that much. They've won, fair and square. We can complain but we can't say they haven't earned their seats or shouldn't take them up.

This puts me in something of a dilemma. On the one hand, I don't want to take the BNP's victory lying down, but on the other- it is legal. Protesting against an election result because it's not the one you would have liked is, from what I can judge, wrong. It defeats the point of democracy- that the country is run by the majority, not just those with a certain point of view. It's the first step on a scale that too easily ends with Robert Mugabe's refusal to accept that his country wants him out of power.

So I think we have to be careful about negative campaigning. Muck slinging between political parties and politicians attacking each other is one thing that contributes to turning people off politics- and contributes to the very problem under discussion. The BNP's share of the vote hasn't increased. What's happened is that fewer people have voted for the other parties, fewer people have voted overall; so that parties with a smaller number of votes have been able to gain seats. So surely the best way to stop this happening again- or to stop the BNP winning seats at Westminster, where they could do far more harm- is to encourage people to engage with political issues and to get out there and vote!

I have to admit I find it hard to understand the mindset of people who aren't interested in voting. Would you, as an adult, accept someone else deciding for you what to eat, what to do, where to go, because you didn't want to play any part in deciding yourself? I doubt it. Yet in a way that's what happens.

As a woman I'm always very aware that I shouldn't take the right to vote for granted. It's still less than a century since women gained the vote at all, let alone on equal terms with men. So I value my vote, my say in what happens in the country. Ideally that shouldn't be all our involvement in politics- I think we should at least try to have some understanding of the issues of the day so we can decide whether the people we have elected to run things for us are doing a good job- but voting- and not just in UK parliamentary elections, but European and local ones too- is at least a good start.

So I don't think we should spend time campaigning negatively against the BNP. If we treat them democratically I think they'll soon show their true colours and it will be obvious why they're not fit to govern. Instead we ought to be encouraging people of all ages, creeds, races to take an interest in politics and to get out and vote. Yes our politicians are a mess- but simply ignoring them and our constitutional duty isn't going to help anyone. Except the BNP.

The rise of the right

Last night's European election results underline an increasing trend towards the right that I've noticed across Europe over recent years. Even discounting the BNP, the rise of UKIP to second place overtaking Labour and the Lib Dems, and how well the Conservatives have done in these elections shows that this trend now includes the UK.

Perhaps UKIP's rise can be partly attributed to the fact that European elections are a time for protest voting, to the of anti-Europe feelings of many people who might not otherwise vote for a right-wing party, and of course to the expenses scandal that's damaged the three main parties. Being seen as a small party means you can avoid to some extent being tarred with the same brush. Now they've started to increase their share of the vote perhaps people will begin to expect more of them and to be more harsh where they fail- the same goes for the BNP.

I have to say that UKIP's griping that they lost out on votes because their party was at the bottom of a long ballot paper, and that because it was folded people couldn't find them really annoyed me. Do politicians really think that the electorate are that stupid? Or that they just give up because they can't be bothered to turn the page over?

Perhaps if that's how (some?) politicians think of us, it explains how they think they can get away with some of the things they've been doing lately. But perhaps it also gives us a clue how to solve the problem- we need to take an active, educated interest in what's going on, to actually look at the issues of the day rather than being guided by prejudice and what the newspapers say. We need to show them we're not stupid. As a former history student, you learn not to take anything you read at face value, a skill we all need to engage when we read the papers or listen to the news or anything politicians say.

The other thing that annoys me is their (UKIP's and Eurosceptics in general) claim that most of our laws (I heard 75% being quoted last night) are made in Brussels, mostly by unelected officials. From what I know, and despite having tried to do some research that's not a huge amount, I understand that yes, a lot of laws are passed but that the vast majority of them are fairly minor- food standards and safety, fishing rights. All important to some people, but really- I don't care whether someone in London or someone in Brussels decided if this or that additive is safe. What I want to know is that they're making the right decision, and that if they make the wrong one they are accountable to the electorate that put them there.

I think that touches on the real problem- the sense of disconnection with what goes on in Europe. People don't know what goes on, partly because it's not really reported much. The doings of celebrity popstars or footballers is much more interesting to the British public. The only European issue that gets coverage most of the time is the 'in-out' debate- which isn't even a question at the moment. A notable absence from this campaign has been anything to do with Europe. Partly this is because the whole campaign has been overshadowed by the MP's expenses scandal, but partly because people just aren't interested in how government actually happens. They base their vote (if they vote) to a large extent on who the media tells them to like. While of course politicians need to be able to communicate, we shouldn't be taken in by slick speeches and gimmicks but look at the policies behind them.

While there are things about the EU that I think need change or reform, I don't think getting out is the way to do it. The parties that complain most about the things that need reform are also the ones, I suspect, that do all they can to block changes on the grounds that we shouldn't be in the EU anyway. Well sorry, but at present we are, like it or not, so shouldn't we try to make it work? You can't eat your cake and have it.

In some ways, I can't help but feel sorry for Gordon Brown. The way politics are these days, he's under attack for not being able to manipulate people into believing in Labour's policies. But if public opinion has changed, if the country and indeed Europe as a whole is now more right-wing than 5 years ago (as seems to be the case) then is it really all his fault? True, some people will have been voting against Labour rather than for the other parties, but is it really all his fault? I don't think so. Yet I suspect he'll get the blame.


PS How can people still be voting for Berlusconi in Italy after everything that's happened recently?!
PPS My spellchecker just tried to get me to change Berlusconi to burlesquing. How appropriate.

Friday 5 June 2009

Is your God strong?

Another post inspired by WordLive coming up (if you've not looked at this site, I think you should. And not just because I'm part of the organisation which runs it!)

The article suggests that "For some people, the main question concerning the Christian message isn’t ‘Is your God real?’ but ‘Is your God strong?’" Can he help them, what can he do for them to make him worth following? Can you see what he's doing, what effect does he have? In other words, the question is not "is it true?" but "does it work?" Truth, in our postmodern age, doesn't seem to count for much- it's often implied that it's not possible to know what is true.

As Christians we believe that God is the truth, and I don't want to detract from that. But if truth isn't what people are searching for then perhaps we need to look at other ways of explaining God's greatness. Perhaps we need to be showing that God does 'work,' that he is strong.

I'm not sure exactly what. Perhaps it's up to us as Christians to show how God is real to us, how he is at work in our lives, what he's doing for us. That's where our personal stories, our testimonies, can be very helpful. They may not be as spectacular or impressive as the former gangsters or drug dealers who have found new hope through Christ and had their whole lives changed. But simple, everyday stories- an answered prayer, perhaps a healing, perhaps just explaining that the reason you're doing something is that you feel it's what God wants- are in some ways more likely to connect with ordinary people. These stories show that God is interested in our lives and cares about us- a way in for people to realise that God loves them.

But there's a snag...God doesn't always do what we want. To quote C.S. Lewis: "he's not a tame Lion." It doesn't always seem that he's answered our prayers, sometimes it's hard to see how he might be working in the situation we're in. So how can we say to people that he is s
trong, that he can help them? And how do we make sure we're presenting the whole gospel- including the less pleasant bits we perhaps wish weren't true, about the consequences of rejecting God's love?

I think we have to be honest. We need to show people that God loves them- that rather than judgement being a negative thing, he has rescued them from that if they choose to trust him. I think it can be hard for people to grasp the idea that God- not some remote Being but a God who cares about individuals- loves them. I find it hard sometimes. But once we trust that he loves us, and has our best interestes at heart, we can trust that even if things are tough or it seems that he's not answering our prayers, sooner or later things will be worked out in the best way possible- best perhaps not from our point of view but from God's. Once we are sure of God's love for us, then we can trust him with anything- with everything. It's not always easy- I know that- but we can.

Tuesday 2 June 2009

Would Jesus vote?

So, the BNP think the church should stay out of politics. They don't say why, although it would appear to be because the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have encouraged people not to vote for them.

On Sunday at church our vicar read out a letter from the archbishop which encouraged people to vote, and despite any reservations they might have over the current Westminster expenses scandal, to think carefully before voting for a party encouraging division rather than community unity and tolerance. The BNP wasn't named, although it was obvious what- or rather who- they were talking about.

According to the article quoted above, the BNP say that "The archbishops were trying to make themselves relevant." They say this as if it were a criticism! I've always thought that this was a good thing. The stance of the person quoted appears to be that the church is, and should stay irrelevant, that the church has nothing to say that still has a point in the twenty-first century world, that can still make a difference here and now.

If that were true, that the church was irrelevant, what would be the point of it continuing? In fact, if is irrelevant, why are the BNP scared of the archbishops' letter? Like it or not, you've got to admit that some people at least don't see the church as irrelevant.

And yet, at the same time, apparently, the "BNP has used an image of Jesus suggesting that he would vote for the party." Not very consistent, it seems.

I don't like the idea of the church telling people which party to vote for, and I think the archbishops went as far towards telling people not to vote BNP as they could before crossing this line. But I think they're within their rights to suggest to people that they consider what their faith, their beliefs say about political matters before voting, rather than just expressing their anger. Much of the stuff we've heard about 'Expensesgate' is morally unjustifiable. Yet compared to many other countries' politicians- Mugabe in Zimbabwe for example- we really have very little to complain about.

Some of the things the BNP talk about I find very hard to reconcile with a proper Christian attitude which emphasises loving one another, caring for the outcast and the stranger, helping those weaker than yourself. So I think it was right for the archbishops, as the leaders of the church of England- which is, whatever you think about it (and that's another debate), the established church- to draw this to the attention of voters, as well as encouraging them to vote.

So whichever other party you want to vote for, please get out on Thursday and vote!

Monday 1 June 2009

Pentecost

Yesterday was Pentecost, the least well known of the three major Christian festivals. It's the birthday of the church, the day we celebrate the gift of the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus to be a "Counsellor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." (John 14 vs 16-17).

The Holy Spirit is something- or someone- with whom a lot of people struggle with, both inside the church and out. God the Father- creator, lawgiver, even judge- fairly straightforward. God the Son- a bit more complicated, being both God and human, but still, a personality we can begin to understand. God the Spirit- rather more difficult. Something intangible, invisible, described in metaphor and simile: "like the blowing of a violent wind," "what seemed to be tongues of fire." Something which gets inside us, fills us, is God living in us, guiding, healing, revealing, power-giving. It's through the Holy Spirit within every Christian that we are enabled to live in God's way.

And yet the Spirit has been the subject of intense debate and division over the church's history, and even today differences of belief and practice of the gifts of the Spirit set apart churches and denominations. Some believe that the more 'supernatural*' gifts (for example speaking in foreign or heavenly tongues or miraculous healings) are no longer present in the church, while others see and use them as a regular part of modern worship.

As someone who grew up in a church where I don't remember these questions even being discussed- I don't remember much teaching on the Spirit at all- it was quite a shock to arrive, at 18, into a congregation where the practice of spiritual gifts was the norm, where services regularly included speaking or singing in tongues, messages people had felt God giving them and prayer for healing! It took a while to get used to, a while to accept too that I wasn't an inferior Christian because I hadn't done these rather odd things. A while to accept that God gives people different gifts, that some are given the power to heal, or to prophesy, while others have gifts of communicating well (teaching) or the gift of administration (yes, it's real, 1 Corinthians 12 vs 28.)

If that's how strange I found the gifts of the Spirit as someone who was already a Christian, as someone who accepts the existence of the supernatural and that it still affects the world around us, think what it must be like for someone who doesn't believe that (or isn't sure) suddenly coming into contact with the Spirit at work! No wonder the disciples were accused of being drunk on the first Pentecost!(Acts 2 vs 13. And when Peter said in verse 15 that they couldn't possibly be drunk because it was only 9am, he'd obviously never met the G&S society after a Crash!). I know that some of my friends who aren't Christians have said they find the idea of speaking in tongues weird, even cultish. And I can understand that. It's not an easy thing to explain. Either it's a bunch of deluded people making fools of themselves and doing really strange things, which is weird; or it's the 'supernatural'- God- breaking through into the 'natural,' which is scary.**

I'm someone who was rather sceptical about the whole thing and didn't particularly want to be able to speak in tongues until God decided I needed to and I was going to whether I wanted to or not! I thought it was both weird and scary, was worried about various things, (how do I know that it is a gift and not just me making up random words?) and would frankly rather have just ignored the whole thing. But I couldn't. I found the whole thing a lot more comfortable when someone said to me that God knows us and knows exactly what we're comfortable with, and although he may challenge and encourage us to move forward he won't give us any gift we're not ready for. It's still something I'm a little shy about doing in public, not least because I don't want to freak people out! It's the sort of thing that's fine to practice with other Christians, but perhaps ought to be avoided- or at least controlled- when there are non-Christians around. The church has enough of a reputation for being weird already!Check Spelling
But perhaps it's not as freaky as it sounds. These gifts may sound weird, but when you've actually experienced their use then actually they're generally not.


But the idea that the Holy Spirit is God breaking through into our world- that is scary. Scary but wonderful! Scary because it's a demonstration of the power of God, of his lordship over our world and ability and willingness to be involved in our lives. If you've seen that at work you can't avoid it affecting your life in some way.

So perhaps that's why those outside (and even maybe some inside) the church find it so hard to understand the Holy Spirit. As the passage quoted above says: "The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." Perhaps you can't just 'know about' the Spirit, in the same way you can know about Jesus or God the father. Perhaps the Spirit has to be experienced to be known. That doesn't necessarily involve scary or weird things like speaking in tongues, but it involves being open to the possibility of the reality of God and that he is at work in his people today, speaking to us, teaching, healing, leading, empowering, emboldening, helping us to live his way.



*For want of a better word, I mean the things that are the direct work of God without a earthly or human cause. Spectacular, obvious, if you get my drift. Outside the 'laws of nature,' the observed situation.

**I'm not sure you can separate 'natural' and 'supernatural' like that, but I think you get my point. The 'possible' and the 'impossible' maybe?