Two broadly positive posts in a week? Never! What, never? Well, hardly ever...but see!
One point I'd like to add to hers is that it's not just the, to quote, 'sharey-sharey' nature of the new testament, but the care for the individual. Jesus doesn't treat everyone the same. People are treated according to their needs, to who they are. For example, the man cured of leprosy (Mark 1, 40-45), a man who has been shunned and not been touched for years, is cured with a touch, and told to go and show himself to the priest so he can be accepted back into society. The servant of a Roman centurion, a man used to commands being obeyed, is healed without Jesus needing to go near him to show that Jesus has authority, just like the centurion (Matthew 8 5-13). The government welfare plans, like so much government policy, are designed to reduce individuals and families' complex needs down to a siple, easy to administer formula. Unfortunately a lot of people are likely to fall through the gaps because they have unusual or extreme needs that don't meet the formula, and low ranking officials won't have the time or the training to deal with them.
It's the bishops job to tell people- and in this case the government- how to behave better, both in terms of welfare policy and perhaps in their dealings with banks. While they have a voice in the Lords- and elsewhere, through the media- I hope they keep doing that.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 January 2012
Friday, 28 May 2010
Boldness and bubbling over
A Bible study guide I use contained this challenge yesterday: "Thank God that the electronic media have opened the floodgates for the good news of Jesus to travel ‘to the ends of the earth.' What could you do, say or write today?" I figured that it was about time for another post here.
Last Sunday was Pentecost, the 'birthday' of the church, the celebration of the Holy Spirit. So that's been the topic I've been thinking about a lot lately. It's also something I think many people, inside the church as well as outside, struggle to understand. For a long while I did, and even now I don't understand everything. But when my cell group this week were asked to describe their experirnces of the Spirit the word which cropped up again and again was 'gentle' and that made me think.
Because people often don't understand the Spirit, and often only see the more 'showy' aspects of his work, (such as people falling over when prayed for, or speaking in tongues, or giving prophecies), those- like me- who aren't used to this kind of thing can be a bit scared or disturbed by what's going on. But what I found most helpful was when, a couple of years ago, someone said something about God only taking you as far as he knows you can go. It reminded me of how God knows and loves each of us utterly. He wants to challenge us to grow with him, but he doesn't want to hurt us or scare us.
Those things are outward signs of what the Spirit is doing inside us, moving in and helping us become the people God longs for us to be. Not everyone has the 'showy' gifts, but every Christian has God's Spirit in them, part of their life, as guider and counsellor, as someone who comes along side to help and encourage us.
One of the things he does is to encourage us to put our faith first and to speak out about it. I've been reading about the healing of a lame man by the disciples Peter and John. They got into trouble for it with the same high priest and council who had put Jesus to death a few weeks before. Told they could go as long as they stopped talking about Jesus, they refused. They knew the danger they were in, but they couldn't stop. What they were talking about mattered more to them than their own lives.
I wish I had that enthusiasm, that 'bubbling over' with excitement. Sometimes it can misdirected and lead to insensitivity, but you often find that it's newer Christians, who still have that excitement, who bring new people in to the church. I hope I do have the same attitude as the disciples, to an extent, - I can't separate my faith from my life, if I had to stop living my faith- which includes sharing it- it would be to take away what makes me who I am. But I know I could use more boldness. And that's one of the things the Spirit is there for.
Last Sunday was Pentecost, the 'birthday' of the church, the celebration of the Holy Spirit. So that's been the topic I've been thinking about a lot lately. It's also something I think many people, inside the church as well as outside, struggle to understand. For a long while I did, and even now I don't understand everything. But when my cell group this week were asked to describe their experirnces of the Spirit the word which cropped up again and again was 'gentle' and that made me think.
Because people often don't understand the Spirit, and often only see the more 'showy' aspects of his work, (such as people falling over when prayed for, or speaking in tongues, or giving prophecies), those- like me- who aren't used to this kind of thing can be a bit scared or disturbed by what's going on. But what I found most helpful was when, a couple of years ago, someone said something about God only taking you as far as he knows you can go. It reminded me of how God knows and loves each of us utterly. He wants to challenge us to grow with him, but he doesn't want to hurt us or scare us.
Those things are outward signs of what the Spirit is doing inside us, moving in and helping us become the people God longs for us to be. Not everyone has the 'showy' gifts, but every Christian has God's Spirit in them, part of their life, as guider and counsellor, as someone who comes along side to help and encourage us.
One of the things he does is to encourage us to put our faith first and to speak out about it. I've been reading about the healing of a lame man by the disciples Peter and John. They got into trouble for it with the same high priest and council who had put Jesus to death a few weeks before. Told they could go as long as they stopped talking about Jesus, they refused. They knew the danger they were in, but they couldn't stop. What they were talking about mattered more to them than their own lives.
I wish I had that enthusiasm, that 'bubbling over' with excitement. Sometimes it can misdirected and lead to insensitivity, but you often find that it's newer Christians, who still have that excitement, who bring new people in to the church. I hope I do have the same attitude as the disciples, to an extent, - I can't separate my faith from my life, if I had to stop living my faith- which includes sharing it- it would be to take away what makes me who I am. But I know I could use more boldness. And that's one of the things the Spirit is there for.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Easter responses: Thomas
It's my blog's second birthday! So to celebrate, another post in my series on responses to Easter, this time thinking about the apostle Thomas.
Thomas is known as 'the doubter,' but is this really fair? Although on several occassions in the gospels he is recorded as being cautious and possible sceptical about whether something really can or has happened he also makes one of the braver statements that came out of the apostles: "Let us go also, that we may die with him" (John 11, v16). Jesus, against the advice and warnings of his friends that the religious establishment were out to get him, was determined to set out for Jerusalem and Bethany, knowing what was eventually in store for him and determined to obey his father's will. Thomas is the one who voices the disciples' intention to stay with their teacher through thick and thin. Perhaps it shows his trust that Jesus is the one who will save them.
Of course, it didn't happen, and the disciples were scattered, frightened and ashamed. The first news of the resurrection must have just confused them more, adding to the uncertainty they felt. What were they to do now? Were they safe? Was they journey Jesus had led them on over? Had he failed?
Then he appeared to them, and they believed. He had not failed, he had risen. Their doubts and fear were swallowed up in joy- for now. But Thomas was not there, he missed it. He remained sceptical. Understandably, really. How hard do you find it to believe that someone you have seen killed has risen from the dead? Even if your friends tell you it's true? If you are a Christian, think how hard you would find it to believe this if you weren't, and maybe you'll be a bit closer to understanding how hard some people find it to comprehend the resurrection.
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." We often think this reprove applies only to Thomas. Yet the other disciples also believed because they had seen. Surely it applies to them as much as to him.
But Thomas and his doubt perhaps can help us see how Jesus responds today to those who have real doubts. Perhaps those of us who already believe forget quite how hard it can be to accept the truth about Jesus for the first time. Jesus sees that Thomas wants to believe, sees what is in the way of this belief- presumably his logical thinking that no one who was dead could be walking around alive*- and reaches out to him with a personal, even physical, response.
Today a lot of people still struggle to accept that the gospel account of Jesus' death and resurrection can be true, struggle with thinking that it's not logical, that it doesn't make sense, that it is against reason. And it is, except for one thing; that this is God we're dealing with, and God doesn't obey the same natural laws as the rest of us. But often- perhaps always- the only way for people to realise this, to overcome their logical reasons, is for God to step down into our world, as he did with Thomas, and meet them. Maybe not a physical encounter like with Thomas, maybe through a sense, a feeling, an experience. Maybe through a friend, a church service, a book, or a song. Something that makes you realise God is there, and that he's real. Perhaps you won't understand how it's real, but you'll know it is.
*Even though Thomas had presumable seen Lazarus raised from the dead. The disciples seem to have had quite short memories- but then would you or I do any better in the trust stakes? I don't think I would!
Thomas is known as 'the doubter,' but is this really fair? Although on several occassions in the gospels he is recorded as being cautious and possible sceptical about whether something really can or has happened he also makes one of the braver statements that came out of the apostles: "Let us go also, that we may die with him" (John 11, v16). Jesus, against the advice and warnings of his friends that the religious establishment were out to get him, was determined to set out for Jerusalem and Bethany, knowing what was eventually in store for him and determined to obey his father's will. Thomas is the one who voices the disciples' intention to stay with their teacher through thick and thin. Perhaps it shows his trust that Jesus is the one who will save them.
Of course, it didn't happen, and the disciples were scattered, frightened and ashamed. The first news of the resurrection must have just confused them more, adding to the uncertainty they felt. What were they to do now? Were they safe? Was they journey Jesus had led them on over? Had he failed?
Then he appeared to them, and they believed. He had not failed, he had risen. Their doubts and fear were swallowed up in joy- for now. But Thomas was not there, he missed it. He remained sceptical. Understandably, really. How hard do you find it to believe that someone you have seen killed has risen from the dead? Even if your friends tell you it's true? If you are a Christian, think how hard you would find it to believe this if you weren't, and maybe you'll be a bit closer to understanding how hard some people find it to comprehend the resurrection.
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." We often think this reprove applies only to Thomas. Yet the other disciples also believed because they had seen. Surely it applies to them as much as to him.
But Thomas and his doubt perhaps can help us see how Jesus responds today to those who have real doubts. Perhaps those of us who already believe forget quite how hard it can be to accept the truth about Jesus for the first time. Jesus sees that Thomas wants to believe, sees what is in the way of this belief- presumably his logical thinking that no one who was dead could be walking around alive*- and reaches out to him with a personal, even physical, response.
Today a lot of people still struggle to accept that the gospel account of Jesus' death and resurrection can be true, struggle with thinking that it's not logical, that it doesn't make sense, that it is against reason. And it is, except for one thing; that this is God we're dealing with, and God doesn't obey the same natural laws as the rest of us. But often- perhaps always- the only way for people to realise this, to overcome their logical reasons, is for God to step down into our world, as he did with Thomas, and meet them. Maybe not a physical encounter like with Thomas, maybe through a sense, a feeling, an experience. Maybe through a friend, a church service, a book, or a song. Something that makes you realise God is there, and that he's real. Perhaps you won't understand how it's real, but you'll know it is.
*Even though Thomas had presumable seen Lazarus raised from the dead. The disciples seem to have had quite short memories- but then would you or I do any better in the trust stakes? I don't think I would!
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Easter responses: Mary
I get cross when people say that women weren't important in the early church; the very first person to see the risen Christ was a woman (and one with probably something of a shady- in the eyes of the religious establishment- past). I've heard that under Jewish law at the time the testimony of a single woman was not valid- yet it mattered to Jesus that the first people to see him were women.
The accounts given in the four gospels differ slightly in their accounts of who was there. Matthew says it was Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary,' probably the one Mark and Luke describe as the mother of James, (one of the twelve). Mark adds in a woman called Salome, Luke ommitts her but includes a Joanna. All agree, however, that a group of women who had been followers of Jesus went to the tomb early in the morning on that first day of the week, to check on Jesus' body and to annoint it with spices as was the custom of the day, but which they hadn't been able to do before because of the Sabbath. They were grieving, probably afraid of the authorities- the male disciples are described as basically hiding- but they were devoted enough to risk danger to do this last service for their dead leader.
Matthew tells us how the women are greeted by an angel who tells them that Jesus is not there, he has risen! "Afraid yet filled with joy" they run off to find the disciples when they are met by Jesus himself. He comforts them, accepts their worship, and gives them a new task, to give the disciples a message. Luke tells us that the disciples thought their words seemed like nonsense. Well, they would to you, if someone told you that the person who you knew had been killed was now alive. The women were excited, joyful, so different to the grief and fear of a few hours before.
John gives an account which is slightly different from the others. He shows us an encounter between Mary Magdalene alone and Jesus, where she does not at first recognise who he is because of her grief. Not until he calls her by name does she recognise him and respond, "Teacher!" Again her grief and fear give way to joy. It's a beautiful little scene, and the detail of his calling her by name reminds me of the loving care God has for each individual.
Mary is willing to accept the evidence of her experience, to believe that Jesus really has been raised from the dead. She knows that this is a special person, someone who she was devoted to in life and someone who she was willing to take risks for by going to the tomb. He had healed her in life (Mark 16 v9) and now he had done far more than that- although probably she didn't realise that yet- by dying on the cross. She responds to the resurrection in wonder, with excitement, with joy, with love, and above all with belief.
Do we ever feel these emotions when we think about the resurrection? Or are we so used to the idea that it has lost its wonder? How often do we get excited about what God has done? And how often do we respond with joy and with love and praise? I know I don't always. That's something to think about this Easter.
The accounts given in the four gospels differ slightly in their accounts of who was there. Matthew says it was Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary,' probably the one Mark and Luke describe as the mother of James, (one of the twelve). Mark adds in a woman called Salome, Luke ommitts her but includes a Joanna. All agree, however, that a group of women who had been followers of Jesus went to the tomb early in the morning on that first day of the week, to check on Jesus' body and to annoint it with spices as was the custom of the day, but which they hadn't been able to do before because of the Sabbath. They were grieving, probably afraid of the authorities- the male disciples are described as basically hiding- but they were devoted enough to risk danger to do this last service for their dead leader.
Matthew tells us how the women are greeted by an angel who tells them that Jesus is not there, he has risen! "Afraid yet filled with joy" they run off to find the disciples when they are met by Jesus himself. He comforts them, accepts their worship, and gives them a new task, to give the disciples a message. Luke tells us that the disciples thought their words seemed like nonsense. Well, they would to you, if someone told you that the person who you knew had been killed was now alive. The women were excited, joyful, so different to the grief and fear of a few hours before.
John gives an account which is slightly different from the others. He shows us an encounter between Mary Magdalene alone and Jesus, where she does not at first recognise who he is because of her grief. Not until he calls her by name does she recognise him and respond, "Teacher!" Again her grief and fear give way to joy. It's a beautiful little scene, and the detail of his calling her by name reminds me of the loving care God has for each individual.
Mary is willing to accept the evidence of her experience, to believe that Jesus really has been raised from the dead. She knows that this is a special person, someone who she was devoted to in life and someone who she was willing to take risks for by going to the tomb. He had healed her in life (Mark 16 v9) and now he had done far more than that- although probably she didn't realise that yet- by dying on the cross. She responds to the resurrection in wonder, with excitement, with joy, with love, and above all with belief.
Do we ever feel these emotions when we think about the resurrection? Or are we so used to the idea that it has lost its wonder? How often do we get excited about what God has done? And how often do we respond with joy and with love and praise? I know I don't always. That's something to think about this Easter.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Easter responses: Peter
Peter is a disciple that many people find it easy to identify with. Certainly that's something I feel. Perhaps it's because he often doesn't get things right. One moment he's being told he is the rock on which the church will be built, the next he's being told 'get behind me, Satan!' He promises that he won't abandon Jesus, but before morning he's already denied his Lord three times. Like I said yesterday, it's all too easy to condemn the disciples without knowing how we would react to if we were in danger because of our faith. And Peter's story is one that can give us hope.
Peter's impulsiveness led him to be the first to make connections and declarations of loyalty, but it also got him into trouble. He fails Jesus on the night before his crucifixion, despite his earlier confidence in himself. He starts off well, daring to follow Jesus to the high priest's house, but once people notice him and start asking questions that could lead to his being arrested too he falls to pieces. (John 18, v15-18 and 25-27.) Matthew tells us that Peter "wept bitterly" when he realised what he'd done. I know there have been times when I've said or done something that denies Jesus' lordship of my life, and sometimes I've realised afterwards and deeply regretted it.
And yet Jesus forgives Peter and reassures him that he is still part of his plan. In John 21 we have a description of an encounter where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him, mirroring the three times Peter betrayed him. And each time Jesus gives him a commission to care for his 'flock,' for the church. And he hints at how Peter will serve him in the future. Peter, who had denied Jesus to save his own skin, would eventually be executed for continuing to spread the good news of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.
This encounter follows on from yet another miracle, (as if Jesus' appearance wasn't miracle enough!) that is reminiscent of one Jesus performed when he first called Peter. Perhaps it hints at a new beginning and a reminder of that first call to become 'fishers of men;' at how far the disciples have come and yet how far they still have to go. Perhaps it hints that from now on they must rely on God to provide for them, and at the presence of the Holy Spirit who will soon come to them and strengthen them. It is because they have the Spirit helping them that the disciples are able to achieve all that is done in spreading the gospel, and through the Spirit's help that many of them, including Peter, are able to stand firm in their faith and by martyred. His self-confidence had failed him- he knew now that he needed God's help.
It's through the Holy Spirit's help that even the most timid of us (and that's me!) can dare to serve Jesus, can dare to take risks to spread his good news. Risks in giving our money to charity or the church, risks in inviting friends to come to church or in talking to them about our faith, risks in practical service. In some parts of the world Christians still risk their lives just by believing. In this country we might be risking our reputation- our friends may think we're weird religious freaks, even that we're dangerous. But after what Jesus did for us, shouldn't we try to take those risks? But the best thing is to know that when we fail, he will, like with Peter, help us get up and start again.
Peter's impulsiveness led him to be the first to make connections and declarations of loyalty, but it also got him into trouble. He fails Jesus on the night before his crucifixion, despite his earlier confidence in himself. He starts off well, daring to follow Jesus to the high priest's house, but once people notice him and start asking questions that could lead to his being arrested too he falls to pieces. (John 18, v15-18 and 25-27.) Matthew tells us that Peter "wept bitterly" when he realised what he'd done. I know there have been times when I've said or done something that denies Jesus' lordship of my life, and sometimes I've realised afterwards and deeply regretted it.
And yet Jesus forgives Peter and reassures him that he is still part of his plan. In John 21 we have a description of an encounter where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him, mirroring the three times Peter betrayed him. And each time Jesus gives him a commission to care for his 'flock,' for the church. And he hints at how Peter will serve him in the future. Peter, who had denied Jesus to save his own skin, would eventually be executed for continuing to spread the good news of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.
This encounter follows on from yet another miracle, (as if Jesus' appearance wasn't miracle enough!) that is reminiscent of one Jesus performed when he first called Peter. Perhaps it hints at a new beginning and a reminder of that first call to become 'fishers of men;' at how far the disciples have come and yet how far they still have to go. Perhaps it hints that from now on they must rely on God to provide for them, and at the presence of the Holy Spirit who will soon come to them and strengthen them. It is because they have the Spirit helping them that the disciples are able to achieve all that is done in spreading the gospel, and through the Spirit's help that many of them, including Peter, are able to stand firm in their faith and by martyred. His self-confidence had failed him- he knew now that he needed God's help.
It's through the Holy Spirit's help that even the most timid of us (and that's me!) can dare to serve Jesus, can dare to take risks to spread his good news. Risks in giving our money to charity or the church, risks in inviting friends to come to church or in talking to them about our faith, risks in practical service. In some parts of the world Christians still risk their lives just by believing. In this country we might be risking our reputation- our friends may think we're weird religious freaks, even that we're dangerous. But after what Jesus did for us, shouldn't we try to take those risks? But the best thing is to know that when we fail, he will, like with Peter, help us get up and start again.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Easter responses: the disciples- and us.
This is the first of a series of posts on the responses of different people to the events of Easter- to Jesus' death and resurrection. Hopefully thinking about how the different actors in the story responded will help us think about our own response.
It's easy to condemn the disciples. They were with Jesus continuously for about three years, heard him talk, saw his miracles, and yet when it came to the test, they failed. Badly. All of them.
They sat at the last supper, listening to Jesus' talk of what would happen to him without understanding. They followed him to the garden of Gethsemane, but they fell asleep. They talked big about their loyalty to Jesus- but ran away when the authorities turned up to arrest him.
It's easy to condemn the disciples for their stupidity, their lack of action. But would we be any better? I don't think so, really. Maybe some of us would. I'm not sure I want to find out what I would do in a life or death situation. But I'm no hero.
The difference now is that we know what happened next. Jesus didn't stay dead, he rose! Knowing that, we have less excuse than the disciples for not doing what we know we should for Jesus because we know that he won. And we have the holy Spirit to help us.
And yet the disciples were forgiven, were accepted back into Jesus' friendship and given the task of building the church. Even Peter (more on that tomorrow). Despite their failure (and presumably the knowledge that they might fail again) they were still willing to take risks for Christ. In the same way God forgives us for all the times we let him down, all the times we pass up on an opportunity to stand up for him. Thank God for that!
It's easy to condemn the disciples. They were with Jesus continuously for about three years, heard him talk, saw his miracles, and yet when it came to the test, they failed. Badly. All of them.
They sat at the last supper, listening to Jesus' talk of what would happen to him without understanding. They followed him to the garden of Gethsemane, but they fell asleep. They talked big about their loyalty to Jesus- but ran away when the authorities turned up to arrest him.
It's easy to condemn the disciples for their stupidity, their lack of action. But would we be any better? I don't think so, really. Maybe some of us would. I'm not sure I want to find out what I would do in a life or death situation. But I'm no hero.
The difference now is that we know what happened next. Jesus didn't stay dead, he rose! Knowing that, we have less excuse than the disciples for not doing what we know we should for Jesus because we know that he won. And we have the holy Spirit to help us.
And yet the disciples were forgiven, were accepted back into Jesus' friendship and given the task of building the church. Even Peter (more on that tomorrow). Despite their failure (and presumably the knowledge that they might fail again) they were still willing to take risks for Christ. In the same way God forgives us for all the times we let him down, all the times we pass up on an opportunity to stand up for him. Thank God for that!
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Work and the church
"Work is not a necessary chore but a divine calling."
I came across that today in a WordLive reading. For people like me who have jobs that aren't particularly satisfying, those words are enough to make me feel ashamed. My job doesn't feel like a divine calling. The part of my job that appears to be the most useful to God is the uses I put my interet access too when there is no work to do, and that's not exactly part of my job! It makes me feel that I have failed, that I have got something wrong. Is that the job itself? Well, I believe God was clearly involved in the circumstances that got me the job. So is it my attitude that's wrong? Probably.
The passage itself is one I've thought about a lot. A few years ago, about the time when I was a few months out of university and utterly depressed because I couldn't even get a job in a shop, I heard a sermon on this passage (I think it was this one, or at least a very similar one) that really made me angry.
The speaker was very insensitive in the way he approached the passage, and what he said (I can't remember exactly how it was phrased) blamed people who- for whatever reason- didn't have a job. I thought this was quite insulting, and certainly not what Paul meant. The problem, I suspect, was that this was a middle-class church with a middle-class vicar. Unemployment was not something (in those days before the recession) was not something most of the congregation had to fear. But even so, I felt that it was wrong to condemn everyone who didn't have a paid job.
In my case- and that of many others- I wanted to work, but couldn't find a job. Was that my fault, as I was made to feel? It's hard enough that the benefits system makes you feel that you are a worthless person who is to blame for your own problems, without the church joining in- I would have thought that the church should be helping and supporting people in this situation, not making them feel worse. And what about the other situations that prevent people from having a job? Is someone to blame if they can't work through illness? What about parents who stay at home to care for their children? Is that wrong? Or people who have retired after many years of hard work?
One of the areas that the WordLive reading looked at was that of how work is shared out within the church. It's a well known saying that 10% of the people do 90% of the work. It certainly feels like that's true. Some people just seem to relax and let others do their share, while others just can't sit back and watch- if something needs to be done, they feel they have to do it. I know I'm in the second group. But as this video shows, neither is really right. People like me shouldn't do everything, otherwise we 'burnout' and miss out. But if not everyone is doing their fair share, it's inevitable that some people (often the clergy) will be doing too much.
Perhaps this is more what Paul is talking about. Because there's a difference between having a job and not being idle. In fact sometimes I think I'd be less idle if I didn't have a job (or at least this particular one...) When I was unemployed I spent a lot of time volunteering for my church, and doing other voluntary work. I may not have been contributing financially to the community, but I was giving a lot in other ways- time, effort, prayer. Paul condemns in this passage people who don't contribute to the community but simply take from others and sit back. Many people don't contribute to the church community as much as they could, either financially or with their time and gifts. They need to be encouraged to do so. Others do more than their fair share, and should perhaps be encouraged to rest. But to class all those who don't have paid jobs as 'idle' and say they are sinning is, I believe to misinterpret the passage. Cheerfully doing unpaid work and coping with the pressures of unemployment seems to me to be perhaps more honouring to God than having the security of a job- even a boring one- and continually grumbling about it. And I know I do that. So now I've had time to think about this, if I ever hear a sermon like that again I will challenge it.
If, of course, I have time, in between all the service rotas and mission planning...
I came across that today in a WordLive reading. For people like me who have jobs that aren't particularly satisfying, those words are enough to make me feel ashamed. My job doesn't feel like a divine calling. The part of my job that appears to be the most useful to God is the uses I put my interet access too when there is no work to do, and that's not exactly part of my job! It makes me feel that I have failed, that I have got something wrong. Is that the job itself? Well, I believe God was clearly involved in the circumstances that got me the job. So is it my attitude that's wrong? Probably.
The passage itself is one I've thought about a lot. A few years ago, about the time when I was a few months out of university and utterly depressed because I couldn't even get a job in a shop, I heard a sermon on this passage (I think it was this one, or at least a very similar one) that really made me angry.
The speaker was very insensitive in the way he approached the passage, and what he said (I can't remember exactly how it was phrased) blamed people who- for whatever reason- didn't have a job. I thought this was quite insulting, and certainly not what Paul meant. The problem, I suspect, was that this was a middle-class church with a middle-class vicar. Unemployment was not something (in those days before the recession) was not something most of the congregation had to fear. But even so, I felt that it was wrong to condemn everyone who didn't have a paid job.
In my case- and that of many others- I wanted to work, but couldn't find a job. Was that my fault, as I was made to feel? It's hard enough that the benefits system makes you feel that you are a worthless person who is to blame for your own problems, without the church joining in- I would have thought that the church should be helping and supporting people in this situation, not making them feel worse. And what about the other situations that prevent people from having a job? Is someone to blame if they can't work through illness? What about parents who stay at home to care for their children? Is that wrong? Or people who have retired after many years of hard work?
One of the areas that the WordLive reading looked at was that of how work is shared out within the church. It's a well known saying that 10% of the people do 90% of the work. It certainly feels like that's true. Some people just seem to relax and let others do their share, while others just can't sit back and watch- if something needs to be done, they feel they have to do it. I know I'm in the second group. But as this video shows, neither is really right. People like me shouldn't do everything, otherwise we 'burnout' and miss out. But if not everyone is doing their fair share, it's inevitable that some people (often the clergy) will be doing too much.
Perhaps this is more what Paul is talking about. Because there's a difference between having a job and not being idle. In fact sometimes I think I'd be less idle if I didn't have a job (or at least this particular one...) When I was unemployed I spent a lot of time volunteering for my church, and doing other voluntary work. I may not have been contributing financially to the community, but I was giving a lot in other ways- time, effort, prayer. Paul condemns in this passage people who don't contribute to the community but simply take from others and sit back. Many people don't contribute to the church community as much as they could, either financially or with their time and gifts. They need to be encouraged to do so. Others do more than their fair share, and should perhaps be encouraged to rest. But to class all those who don't have paid jobs as 'idle' and say they are sinning is, I believe to misinterpret the passage. Cheerfully doing unpaid work and coping with the pressures of unemployment seems to me to be perhaps more honouring to God than having the security of a job- even a boring one- and continually grumbling about it. And I know I do that. So now I've had time to think about this, if I ever hear a sermon like that again I will challenge it.
If, of course, I have time, in between all the service rotas and mission planning...
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Advent 09- The Bible
A book that's sold more copies than even Harry Potter, yet vast numbers of those copies remain mostly unread. A book that's been argued over more than any other, which people have been banned from reading in many countries and at many times- even countries that profess to be Christian. Probably the most translated book in the world- some language groups have even had to have alphabets invented so that it could be translated. What book am I talking about? The Bible.
Sadly it's also a book that probably more than any other has had bits of it misused and taken out of context. The problems of translation also don't help. But misuse of a text doesn't have to mean the text itself is to blame, or looses all validity. Even if you don't believe the claims of Christians that the Bible is God's message to us, you can still respect it as a book that has had a tremendous impact on Western culture- both from its' content, and from the post-Reformation focus on the printed word.
But I do believe those claims. I do believe that the Bible is a collection of books* given to us by God through the inspired writing of human individuals across several centuries to act as a guide and help book. It tells us what our priorities should be:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength,"
"Love your neighbour as yourself," Mark 12 v29-31
"And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6 v8
It gives us advice on how to do this, through practical teaching in Paul's letters and stories of how the early Israelite leaders did- or didn't- do the right thing. It gives us reasons why and examples how we should praise God.
And perhaps most importantly it tells us about God's big plan for his creation. His plan that would bring back to him all people who believe in him, that would destroy the power of sin and death, our selfishness and disobedience. It tells us how humans- all humans, represented by Adam and Eve**- turn away from God because we think we know better, but that he does not give up on us and works through first chosen individuals (Abraham, Moses) and later a whole nation (Israel) and its leaders (judges, kings) and prophets to bring this about, culminating in Jesus the Messiah, both God and human, who was born, lived, suffered and died and rose again in the compelling blow that freed us from our mistakes; and going on to tell us about how this good news was spread out through Jerusalem and Judea, and all the nations. I think that's a Good Thing. Do you?
*Talking about a book is actually misleading. There are many books in the Bible, and several different styles, from poetry to history to prophecy to letters. There are, however, no science textbooks!
**I think the Adam and Eve story is probably metaphorical. If you think differently, fine. It still works.
Sadly it's also a book that probably more than any other has had bits of it misused and taken out of context. The problems of translation also don't help. But misuse of a text doesn't have to mean the text itself is to blame, or looses all validity. Even if you don't believe the claims of Christians that the Bible is God's message to us, you can still respect it as a book that has had a tremendous impact on Western culture- both from its' content, and from the post-Reformation focus on the printed word.
But I do believe those claims. I do believe that the Bible is a collection of books* given to us by God through the inspired writing of human individuals across several centuries to act as a guide and help book. It tells us what our priorities should be:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength,"
"Love your neighbour as yourself," Mark 12 v29-31
"And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6 v8
It gives us advice on how to do this, through practical teaching in Paul's letters and stories of how the early Israelite leaders did- or didn't- do the right thing. It gives us reasons why and examples how we should praise God.
And perhaps most importantly it tells us about God's big plan for his creation. His plan that would bring back to him all people who believe in him, that would destroy the power of sin and death, our selfishness and disobedience. It tells us how humans- all humans, represented by Adam and Eve**- turn away from God because we think we know better, but that he does not give up on us and works through first chosen individuals (Abraham, Moses) and later a whole nation (Israel) and its leaders (judges, kings) and prophets to bring this about, culminating in Jesus the Messiah, both God and human, who was born, lived, suffered and died and rose again in the compelling blow that freed us from our mistakes; and going on to tell us about how this good news was spread out through Jerusalem and Judea, and all the nations. I think that's a Good Thing. Do you?
*Talking about a book is actually misleading. There are many books in the Bible, and several different styles, from poetry to history to prophecy to letters. There are, however, no science textbooks!
**I think the Adam and Eve story is probably metaphorical. If you think differently, fine. It still works.
Friday, 16 October 2009
A short history of Bible translation
Recently I've come across several things about certain groups of American conservative Christians who believe that the King James Version is the only trustworthy and reliable translation of the Bible, and that all other translations or versions have a 'liberal' bias. Ignoring that much of what they describe as 'liberal' most people would describe as 'sane,' does this claim make any sense?
Time for a history lesson. The King James version was a translation made in the early seventeenth century (under the sponsorship of James I- or VI, if you're Scottish). It followed on from a conference he'd called to try and sort out the English church, which was splitting between those who put more emphasis on style and ceremony, and the Puritan element which focused on preaching. The Puritans hoped that James, coming from Scotland where the church was more to their liking, would reform the church along their lines, but the king didn't want to abolish bishops or relinquish his own control over the church. He agreed to sponsor a new translation of the Bible as compensation to keep the Puritans within the church 'onside.'
The KJV was not (as some conservatives seem to believe) the 'original' English version. English translations of the Bible had begun circulating in manuscript in the later middle ages due to clergyman John Wycliffe and the Lollard movement. William Tyndale's translation was printed abroad and smuggled into early Tudor England. And in 1539 Henry VIII authorised the King's Great Bible, the first legal translation.
Before that, the version of the Bible commonly used throughout the Catholic church was the Vulgate, St Jerome's 5th century Latin translation. Around the end of the middle ages, more of Europe's learned classes had begun to study Greek and Hebrew, and had discovered many inaccuracies in the Vulgate. This, along with the desire to make the Bible available to ordinary people in their own 'vernacular' language helped bring about the Reformation. Martin Luther's German Bible, for example, was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts, but Luther 'Germanised' it by using words and similes that his congregation would be familiar with- translating by the 'sense' of the passage rather than the exact words. This, presumably, is something the conservative Christians would not approve of, but provided it is well done it can often be a lot more helpful than a text which is word-for-word accurate, but where the sense of the words is lost (for example because it includes on Hebrew euphemisms that we no longer understand).
The conservative American Christians seem to believe that the older the text they are using is, the more reliable it is. But as any historian will tell you that's not always the case. Older texts often have more mistakes because they have been copied (or reprinted) more times, while newer translations have the advantage of advances in scholarship. For example, since the KJV was made new manuscripts of some of the Biblical texts have come to light which have influenced scholars' opinions of what certain sections mean. So in fact more recent translations, incorporating these finds, are probably more accurate to the original sense of the writers.
What about the supposed liberal bias? Well, sometimes it just seems to boil down to verses they don't like or find awkward, which conservatives say can't possibly be authentic.* Or to using a different meaning (where a word may be translated with more than one meaning) which suggests policies the conservatives dislike (eg socialism, feminism). Perhaps I'm looking at this too much as a historian, but much of this perception of 'liberal bias' seems to me to be a result of some conservatives trying to fit the text to their beliefs, rather than their beliefs to the text. That's a trap historians have often fallen into.
On the other hand, what these Christians have got right is the need to try to understand the Bible. But we need to look at it in the light of what it meant to its original audience as well as to us, and as far as possible without bias, liberal or conservative. Every translation of the Bible has a different 'slant:' some may be more faithful to the early texts than others, some use different words to make the text more easily understood.
*I am in no way intending to suggest that only conservatives do this kind of manipulation of the text, much of it is true just as much of all shades of Christian opinion.
Time for a history lesson. The King James version was a translation made in the early seventeenth century (under the sponsorship of James I- or VI, if you're Scottish). It followed on from a conference he'd called to try and sort out the English church, which was splitting between those who put more emphasis on style and ceremony, and the Puritan element which focused on preaching. The Puritans hoped that James, coming from Scotland where the church was more to their liking, would reform the church along their lines, but the king didn't want to abolish bishops or relinquish his own control over the church. He agreed to sponsor a new translation of the Bible as compensation to keep the Puritans within the church 'onside.'
The KJV was not (as some conservatives seem to believe) the 'original' English version. English translations of the Bible had begun circulating in manuscript in the later middle ages due to clergyman John Wycliffe and the Lollard movement. William Tyndale's translation was printed abroad and smuggled into early Tudor England. And in 1539 Henry VIII authorised the King's Great Bible, the first legal translation.
Before that, the version of the Bible commonly used throughout the Catholic church was the Vulgate, St Jerome's 5th century Latin translation. Around the end of the middle ages, more of Europe's learned classes had begun to study Greek and Hebrew, and had discovered many inaccuracies in the Vulgate. This, along with the desire to make the Bible available to ordinary people in their own 'vernacular' language helped bring about the Reformation. Martin Luther's German Bible, for example, was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts, but Luther 'Germanised' it by using words and similes that his congregation would be familiar with- translating by the 'sense' of the passage rather than the exact words. This, presumably, is something the conservative Christians would not approve of, but provided it is well done it can often be a lot more helpful than a text which is word-for-word accurate, but where the sense of the words is lost (for example because it includes on Hebrew euphemisms that we no longer understand).
The conservative American Christians seem to believe that the older the text they are using is, the more reliable it is. But as any historian will tell you that's not always the case. Older texts often have more mistakes because they have been copied (or reprinted) more times, while newer translations have the advantage of advances in scholarship. For example, since the KJV was made new manuscripts of some of the Biblical texts have come to light which have influenced scholars' opinions of what certain sections mean. So in fact more recent translations, incorporating these finds, are probably more accurate to the original sense of the writers.
What about the supposed liberal bias? Well, sometimes it just seems to boil down to verses they don't like or find awkward, which conservatives say can't possibly be authentic.* Or to using a different meaning (where a word may be translated with more than one meaning) which suggests policies the conservatives dislike (eg socialism, feminism). Perhaps I'm looking at this too much as a historian, but much of this perception of 'liberal bias' seems to me to be a result of some conservatives trying to fit the text to their beliefs, rather than their beliefs to the text. That's a trap historians have often fallen into.
On the other hand, what these Christians have got right is the need to try to understand the Bible. But we need to look at it in the light of what it meant to its original audience as well as to us, and as far as possible without bias, liberal or conservative. Every translation of the Bible has a different 'slant:' some may be more faithful to the early texts than others, some use different words to make the text more easily understood.
*I am in no way intending to suggest that only conservatives do this kind of manipulation of the text, much of it is true just as much of all shades of Christian opinion.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Modern day Josephs?
I've been looking at the story of Joseph in Genesis lately. It's a well-known story, so well-known it's tempting sometimes to mentally tune out, thinking that we already know all it has to teach us. But today, looking at Joseph interpreting Pharoah's dreams, something struck me in a different way. The WordLive notes talked about how Joseph, having learnt through his experiences to trust God and give all credit to him, is then set up as second in command of all Egypt.
Not only is this a rapid rise for someone who had begun the day a prisoner, and who had come to Egypt as a slave, but it is interesting that Joseph was an outsider in Egyptian culture and politics. His trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob marked him out. It marked him out as the only person who had any idea what Pharoah's dream was about, but also marked him out as the one who wanted to follow and act on what God had to say.
What I like is that Joseph, for all we think of him as a dreamer, a person focused on the spiritual, is also actually very practical, immediately coming up with a plan to store a fifth of Egypt's produce in the good years to distribute in the famine. I wonder if perhaps he was hoping that Pharaoh might pick him when he talked about finding a "discerning and wise man?" Probably he realised that this could be his only chance to get out of jail.
Whether he had himself in mind or not, Pharaoh is wise to pick him. Not merely because it seems that Joseph is good at his job (his experience as Potiphar's administrator and in jail must have helped there) but because he is able to listen in to this mysterious God who helped him interpret the dream. Joseph, a stranger and outsider, sheep farming nomad by birth, is put in charge of running the ancient world's superpower! A person who worships some foreign God is to be second in command in a country where the king was seen as a god!
All a bit surprising, isn't it? Of course, we don't know what Joseph did, besides the rationing system. But he certainly didn't hide himself away with whatever people also worshipped his God, and avoid any contact with government or those who worshipped the Egyptian deities or Pharaoh himself. As the WordLive writer says, "Joseph was able to implement righteous systems within an unrighteous society."
Perhaps modern Christians should seek to do the same. I don't mean trying to impose a theocracy or using the sort of language some American politicians are fond of to suggest our country is God's chosen land. I mean that Christians should be willing to get involved in government at whatever level, and to seek to stand up for God's values of justice, righteousness, peace and love in a society that struggles with these things. I know many people mock political leaders who display their faith, and I find it sad. Because those values are the ones that most people would want in leaders, rather than corruption and hunger for power at any price. We are in the world, and we can't be wholly removed from it. We can't make it perfect, but we can make it better.
Oh, and you might find this interesting. Thanks to Greg for drawing it to my attention.
Not only is this a rapid rise for someone who had begun the day a prisoner, and who had come to Egypt as a slave, but it is interesting that Joseph was an outsider in Egyptian culture and politics. His trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob marked him out. It marked him out as the only person who had any idea what Pharoah's dream was about, but also marked him out as the one who wanted to follow and act on what God had to say.
What I like is that Joseph, for all we think of him as a dreamer, a person focused on the spiritual, is also actually very practical, immediately coming up with a plan to store a fifth of Egypt's produce in the good years to distribute in the famine. I wonder if perhaps he was hoping that Pharaoh might pick him when he talked about finding a "discerning and wise man?" Probably he realised that this could be his only chance to get out of jail.
Whether he had himself in mind or not, Pharaoh is wise to pick him. Not merely because it seems that Joseph is good at his job (his experience as Potiphar's administrator and in jail must have helped there) but because he is able to listen in to this mysterious God who helped him interpret the dream. Joseph, a stranger and outsider, sheep farming nomad by birth, is put in charge of running the ancient world's superpower! A person who worships some foreign God is to be second in command in a country where the king was seen as a god!
All a bit surprising, isn't it? Of course, we don't know what Joseph did, besides the rationing system. But he certainly didn't hide himself away with whatever people also worshipped his God, and avoid any contact with government or those who worshipped the Egyptian deities or Pharaoh himself. As the WordLive writer says, "Joseph was able to implement righteous systems within an unrighteous society."
Perhaps modern Christians should seek to do the same. I don't mean trying to impose a theocracy or using the sort of language some American politicians are fond of to suggest our country is God's chosen land. I mean that Christians should be willing to get involved in government at whatever level, and to seek to stand up for God's values of justice, righteousness, peace and love in a society that struggles with these things. I know many people mock political leaders who display their faith, and I find it sad. Because those values are the ones that most people would want in leaders, rather than corruption and hunger for power at any price. We are in the world, and we can't be wholly removed from it. We can't make it perfect, but we can make it better.
Oh, and you might find this interesting. Thanks to Greg for drawing it to my attention.
Monday, 12 October 2009
Yokes part 2- personal thoughts
This is a follow on to this post. It isn't something I've written about before as it's a tricky subject and I don't want to offend any friends- Christian or not. So please, don't either condemn me as a liberal or attack me as a religious weirdo without reading my reasoning and thinking about it. Remember, I don't pretend to tell you that you should do what I do. This is just my own thoughts on a subject I've thought about a fair bit, and I think I've seen enough from my experiences with friends to know what I'm talking about.
Possibly I'm protesting so strongly about the whole 'do not be yoked to unbelievers' thing for selfish reasons- because some of my closest friends aren't Christians. Perhaps I just want to avoid having to change something I'm happy with, or because of a hint of guilt. But this is something I've thought and prayed about a lot, and these are the conclusions I've come to.
I don't think Christians should avoid having friends who aren't Christians. It's well known that most people who come to faith are introduced to it by a friend. Hiving the church off from the world into some parallel universe of its' own making isn't being salt and light. That's not what being distinctive means.
I think it's a question of balance. It isn't necessarily the relationship that's wrong, but the negative effect it can have on that person's faith.
I do have close friends who are not Christians. I know that in some things they different priorities and values from my own. That doesn't stop me being their friend. I respect where we differ on things, and rejoice where we agree, and if I can sensitively challenge someone to rethink where I believe they have got their priorities wrong, I try (and usually fail). Because as a friend they respect me too, they accept that, and perhaps reciprocate. My faith's strong enough to deal with that.
But I know that there is a big part of my life that a friend who's not a Christian can never share. They can't fully understand why I do everything I do, or what it means for me to be who I am, a child of God. They don't have the same priority in life- to praise God and serve him. I have to remember that, and to watch and consider my actions to make sure they reflect that priority rather than those of the world around me. That's how I can avoid becoming 'yoked' to anything that would distract me from my purpose- to follow Jesus.
So what about the usual interpretation of "do not be yoked to unbelievers," the context of romantic relationships and marriage. I suppose the key thing is whether or not forming such a relationship with a non-Christian is going to become something which prevents you getting closer to God. I've seen couples where this kind of relationship has worked, and I'm happy for them. But I've also seen couples where it hasn't worked, and has caused tension and a weakening of faith. And my faith is such a massive part of who I am that I don't think I would feel right not being able to share it with my partner, or that it would be fair to them to make them conform to my priorities and principals when they don't share them.
Possibly I'm protesting so strongly about the whole 'do not be yoked to unbelievers' thing for selfish reasons- because some of my closest friends aren't Christians. Perhaps I just want to avoid having to change something I'm happy with, or because of a hint of guilt. But this is something I've thought and prayed about a lot, and these are the conclusions I've come to.
I don't think Christians should avoid having friends who aren't Christians. It's well known that most people who come to faith are introduced to it by a friend. Hiving the church off from the world into some parallel universe of its' own making isn't being salt and light. That's not what being distinctive means.
I think it's a question of balance. It isn't necessarily the relationship that's wrong, but the negative effect it can have on that person's faith.
I do have close friends who are not Christians. I know that in some things they different priorities and values from my own. That doesn't stop me being their friend. I respect where we differ on things, and rejoice where we agree, and if I can sensitively challenge someone to rethink where I believe they have got their priorities wrong, I try (and usually fail). Because as a friend they respect me too, they accept that, and perhaps reciprocate. My faith's strong enough to deal with that.
But I know that there is a big part of my life that a friend who's not a Christian can never share. They can't fully understand why I do everything I do, or what it means for me to be who I am, a child of God. They don't have the same priority in life- to praise God and serve him. I have to remember that, and to watch and consider my actions to make sure they reflect that priority rather than those of the world around me. That's how I can avoid becoming 'yoked' to anything that would distract me from my purpose- to follow Jesus.
So what about the usual interpretation of "do not be yoked to unbelievers," the context of romantic relationships and marriage. I suppose the key thing is whether or not forming such a relationship with a non-Christian is going to become something which prevents you getting closer to God. I've seen couples where this kind of relationship has worked, and I'm happy for them. But I've also seen couples where it hasn't worked, and has caused tension and a weakening of faith. And my faith is such a massive part of who I am that I don't think I would feel right not being able to share it with my partner, or that it would be fair to them to make them conform to my priorities and principals when they don't share them.
That's my personal decision, based on what I've observed and experienced. I don't say it's right or that it's what everyone should do. Each person has to find their own limits and their own balance, to judge when something begins to get in the way of their faith. It's not always easy. Sometimes it seems like I'm taking risks that will cause me pain. Sometimes the fact that the people I'm close to don't understand or don't believe really hurts me. Sometimes I expect I get things wrong. For everyone, finding that balance is different, and maybe takes experimentation and mistakes. But that's ok. God sees our hearts, when we try to put him first in our lives, and forgives us.
Monday, 5 October 2009
Yokes part 1- general thoughts
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers." A verse that strikes fear and dread into the heart of many Christians, and probably many youth leaders and church leaders who have to speak on it or deal with it pastorally too. But what does it actually mean to be 'yoked together with unbelievers'? I'm used to the common interpretation which uses it to justify Christians only marrying or going out with other Christians, but something I read recently seemed to extend it to all close friendships too. That was something I hesitated to accept, and which got me thinking.
I've never been entirely comfortable with a blanket ban on all Christian- non-Christian relationships anyway. What if you become a Christian after marrying someone, or going so far with them (emotionally or physically) that it seems wrong to pull back? What if your partner appears to loose their faith- your dumping them is hardly going to help get them back on track, is it? It may help you, but isn't that rather selfish?
And if this is to be extended to a ban on all close relationships with non-Christians, what does that mean, for instance, for relationships with family members who you may have grown up with, but who don't share your faith? Surely the same God who decreed 'honour your father and mother' wouldn't want us to become estranged from them by following him? God the Father wouldn't want us to abandon our children if they decide they don't want anything to do with church. Of course, we are to put God first (Mark 10 vs 29-30) but that doesn't absolve us of earthly responsibility.
Perhaps there are some clues in the verses surrounding this passage that can help us understand what I think Paul meant by writing it. Paul, in the passages surrounding it, is talking about witnessing to those outside the church. It's clear that you can't witness effectively to people unless you know something about them, unless you meet them where they are. But it's also clear that if you are indistinguishable from them then you can't be an effective witness either. We are called to be salt and light, to stand out from the crowd, not to go along with what they think is important but to praise God and put him first always.
Oxen are yoked together. Where one goes, the other has to go too. If we are 'yoked' to unbelievers it means that we are forced to conform to their movements, to take their priorities as our own, to do as they do. That means we can no longer stand out from the crowd, we can't put God first. Very often we end up putting the person (or people, or values) we're yoked to first instead. I don't think it's just about relationships, more a call to keep God first in our hearts and our priorities. Friendships and relationships are one of the many things that can distract us from this, just as keeping to over-restrictive rules can, if we're not careful. I think that holds true for relationships between Christians as well as between Christians and those who don't believe.
P.S. It's also been suggested that this passage says Christians shouldn't work with or for non-Christians. Now I don't know about you but that seems rather impractical- especially in an urban society- and rather isolationist, designed to create a closed community of the 'clean' and 'holy'. It's not exactly the sort of thing one would expect to come from the same Jesus who directly went to the outcasts and unclean of his society. I may be wrong, but I don't really think that's what the passage says. If you want more info on what it might be about, see here before going off on a "Christians/ the Bible are away with the fairies" rant.
I've never been entirely comfortable with a blanket ban on all Christian- non-Christian relationships anyway. What if you become a Christian after marrying someone, or going so far with them (emotionally or physically) that it seems wrong to pull back? What if your partner appears to loose their faith- your dumping them is hardly going to help get them back on track, is it? It may help you, but isn't that rather selfish?
And if this is to be extended to a ban on all close relationships with non-Christians, what does that mean, for instance, for relationships with family members who you may have grown up with, but who don't share your faith? Surely the same God who decreed 'honour your father and mother' wouldn't want us to become estranged from them by following him? God the Father wouldn't want us to abandon our children if they decide they don't want anything to do with church. Of course, we are to put God first (Mark 10 vs 29-30) but that doesn't absolve us of earthly responsibility.
Perhaps there are some clues in the verses surrounding this passage that can help us understand what I think Paul meant by writing it. Paul, in the passages surrounding it, is talking about witnessing to those outside the church. It's clear that you can't witness effectively to people unless you know something about them, unless you meet them where they are. But it's also clear that if you are indistinguishable from them then you can't be an effective witness either. We are called to be salt and light, to stand out from the crowd, not to go along with what they think is important but to praise God and put him first always.
Oxen are yoked together. Where one goes, the other has to go too. If we are 'yoked' to unbelievers it means that we are forced to conform to their movements, to take their priorities as our own, to do as they do. That means we can no longer stand out from the crowd, we can't put God first. Very often we end up putting the person (or people, or values) we're yoked to first instead. I don't think it's just about relationships, more a call to keep God first in our hearts and our priorities. Friendships and relationships are one of the many things that can distract us from this, just as keeping to over-restrictive rules can, if we're not careful. I think that holds true for relationships between Christians as well as between Christians and those who don't believe.
P.S. It's also been suggested that this passage says Christians shouldn't work with or for non-Christians. Now I don't know about you but that seems rather impractical- especially in an urban society- and rather isolationist, designed to create a closed community of the 'clean' and 'holy'. It's not exactly the sort of thing one would expect to come from the same Jesus who directly went to the outcasts and unclean of his society. I may be wrong, but I don't really think that's what the passage says. If you want more info on what it might be about, see here before going off on a "Christians/ the Bible are away with the fairies" rant.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Digital Gospel
Those who read my last post will know that last weekend I was away at a conference of Scripture Union, an organisation which resources and works with the church to help them reach out to the community, particularly among children and young people. Over the last couple of years SU has felt a particular calling to investigate ways of using 'technology' (ie the internet) to do this, and a lot of money and effort has gone into digital projects like WordLive, designed to help individuals engage with the Bible; and LightLive, which provides resources for youth and children's leaders.
During one of the meetings one of the members of the council expressed a concern that these days technology moves on so fast that we could end up investing in something only to find that by the time it was complete it would already be obsolete. For example, are books going to be made obsolete by ebooks? Could something like GoogleWave render ways of communicating by email, skype and social networking sites useless?
I thought about this, and wondered if actually we should be concerned about something slightly different. In the past, there was generally only one method of doing things- if you wanted to speak to someone you telephoned their landline, if you wanted to send them documents you used the postal system. Today, there are many ways to communicate- you can speak to someone by landline or mobile, via skype, or send them a text message, IM or email, or send a message via a social networking site like Twitter. If you want to share a document you can use the post, fax, email, or upload it to Google Docs where you can collaborate on it instantly.
Perhaps we can look at the entertainment market for an example of what communication might look like in the future. When TV began to become widespread there were fears that it might kill off radio and cinema. It didn't. Radio and cinema changed the way they did things, but they survived. VCR recorders and tapes have survived long past the introduction of DVD's because they possessed something DVD's didn't- the ability to record and wipe- and are only now being supplanted by DVD recorders and hard drive recorders. DVD's are in turn under threat from BluRay, but are likely to be around for some time yet.
So rather than one thing directly replacing another, it seems to me that what we're looking at for the future is a multiplicity of methods of communication. That presents a different kind of challenge, as we have to work out how to communicate in many ways without increasing the costs or risking decreasing quality by spreading ourselves too thinly. The alternative is to risk loosing touch with many users by only focusing on one or two methods, and potentially being trapped into servicing a diminishing market share.
So perhaps there is a need for caution. But it's also an opportunity to potentially reach new users and to develop new ways of getting the message across. Being too cautious is risky too.
P.S. If you have any thoughts on this subject, I really would be interested to hear them.
During one of the meetings one of the members of the council expressed a concern that these days technology moves on so fast that we could end up investing in something only to find that by the time it was complete it would already be obsolete. For example, are books going to be made obsolete by ebooks? Could something like GoogleWave render ways of communicating by email, skype and social networking sites useless?
I thought about this, and wondered if actually we should be concerned about something slightly different. In the past, there was generally only one method of doing things- if you wanted to speak to someone you telephoned their landline, if you wanted to send them documents you used the postal system. Today, there are many ways to communicate- you can speak to someone by landline or mobile, via skype, or send them a text message, IM or email, or send a message via a social networking site like Twitter. If you want to share a document you can use the post, fax, email, or upload it to Google Docs where you can collaborate on it instantly.
Perhaps we can look at the entertainment market for an example of what communication might look like in the future. When TV began to become widespread there were fears that it might kill off radio and cinema. It didn't. Radio and cinema changed the way they did things, but they survived. VCR recorders and tapes have survived long past the introduction of DVD's because they possessed something DVD's didn't- the ability to record and wipe- and are only now being supplanted by DVD recorders and hard drive recorders. DVD's are in turn under threat from BluRay, but are likely to be around for some time yet.
So rather than one thing directly replacing another, it seems to me that what we're looking at for the future is a multiplicity of methods of communication. That presents a different kind of challenge, as we have to work out how to communicate in many ways without increasing the costs or risking decreasing quality by spreading ourselves too thinly. The alternative is to risk loosing touch with many users by only focusing on one or two methods, and potentially being trapped into servicing a diminishing market share.
So perhaps there is a need for caution. But it's also an opportunity to potentially reach new users and to develop new ways of getting the message across. Being too cautious is risky too.
P.S. If you have any thoughts on this subject, I really would be interested to hear them.
Monday, 21 September 2009
The pain that becomes a pleasure
I read somthing today which is a great encouragement to me. It was this comment on 2 Corinthians 6 vs 3-13: "Paul...would have us value, and find the validation of our ministry in, pain and suffering. Purity, patience and kindness stand alongside beatings, riots and sleepless nights." (WordLive 18th Sept 09).
Monday, 24 August 2009
Bananas, Bibleman and banging my head against a brick wall.
Why are Christians (or some Christians) so bad at communicating their message? I mean, it's not as if it can't be communicated simply. Take John 3.16 for example: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." That's at once simple and incredibly deep, but even small children can understand it (on one level).
So why do some Christians make such a mess of trying to communicate the message? Ok, I admit that it's not always easy to explain what we believe, and I'll admit to having made a mess of it myself on occasion. But some attempts, rather than just failing to get the message across, can do actual harm to people's understanding of Christianity.
Channel 4's "You have been watching" last week looked at religious broadcasting as part of the programme. British broadcasting got off pretty lightly- a quick giggle at Songs of Praise in a semi-affectionate way, then moved on to what's on US TV. Oh dear.
I'm sure not all Christian TV programmes are as bad as the ones featured. But really, you have to wonder who they think is watching them.
A couple of weeks ago they showed a puppet show, with some hideous puppets that would be guaranteed to frighten off any children that could have withstood the shows' moral tone without feeling slightly sick. This week it was the turn of "Bibleman." A bloke, encased in plastic armour and a superhero suit that would look more at home at a kids party rather than on TV, running around helping kids with spiritual or moral problems and destroying comic-book bad guys by quoting the Bible at them.
Now, the idea itself isn't necessarily a particularly bad one. Children's workers and publications use similar things all the time. But it was so badly done all I could do was cringe. Even more than I usually do at kids work. Apart from that, giving kids the idea that all they have to do is memorise bits of the Bible and spout them at bad things and it'll all be ok is rather deceptively simple. You have to learn how to apply that particular bit of scripture and what it is actually telling you to do. You can't just quote it and sit back. The devil is quite capable of using the Bible for his own purposes (see Matthew 4 v6).
Then the programme looked at a kind of chat show presented by two cheerful guys of the type who do their best to perpetuate myths such as that religion the enemy of reason, and that it is impossible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.
For example, did you know that the ergonomic design of the banana proves the existence of God beyond doubt? No, I didn't either. Apparently the fact it fits in your hand so well proves that God designed it to be of use to humans. I was actually pleased when someone pointed out that it fits just as well in an ape's hand. You know, the apes the same people say we didn't evolve from.
They also claim (on their website) to be able to prove intelligent design over evolution in 3 minutes, and to show you a "biblical" way to convert your friends by bypassing their sense of reason. I must say, I haven't watched the videos that teach you this. It would just get me too frustrated, angry and sad.
I hate it when my brothers and sisters in faith are mocked for their beliefs. It makes me very, very sad to see what they consider essential to their faith. But really, you can't help but cringe and laugh at some of the things they say. It makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall when I see that somehow, the church has managed to be its own worst enemy when it comes to communicating the gospel message. Satan must be very happy.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
The Church and the world
As I try to work out how my faith relates to the world, one question constantly reoccurs to me. That is how far faith is a personal matter, and how far it is a public one. I don't mean whether I should keep it to myself or go around shouting it from the rooftops- the answer to that is simple. I can't keep it to myself, and I don't want to, and I don't think I should. Although I don't think shouting from the rooftops is going to do much good- especially if it's me doing it- my faith affects other people from the way I talk, and live, and act, so I cannot keep it purely to myself.
What I often ask is how far I (and/ or the church) am justified in imposing my view of right and wrong on the whole of society, whose views of what is or isn't wrong may be significantly different. Just because I believe that x is wrong, does that give me the right to try to force people who do not share my beliefs not to do it? In a democracy, the majority decide (at least in theory) what is or is not illegal. Why, if the church is a minority in society, as it sadly is, should we expect the rest of society to do what we say?
That's not to say that the church should conform to society's norms and standards of what is acceptable. Far from it. The church, in its early days, was not connected to the state in any way. They did not expect governments to do as they requested. Quite the opposite- they were the ones who were often outside the law, and prepared to defy society's behavioural norms to obey God. For example, Paul in his letters has plenty to say warning the Christians in Corinth not to get dragged into the demeaning sexual practices which were associated with pagan idols.
Reformer and theologian Martin Luther recognised that even in a 'Christian country' not everyone could be ruled in the same way, and developed his 'Doctrine of the two kingdoms' to explain what the relationship between church and state should be, in his opinion. Without going into too much detail (much of which I can't remember offhand) he recognised that some people would obey God's laws through choice, while others, who do not, cannot be coerced into doing so against their free choice. While I would probably disagree with Luther in some points, I think there's a lot of truth in that. Of course, if everyone agreed to follow God's laws (always supposing they could agree on what that meant!) the world would be a better place. But being realistic, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Another point, and one which the church- often with some justice- is accused of, is of presenting what is merely culture or tradition as an article of faith. For example, the debate around women's leadership in the church has a lot to do with this, and debates over how the biblical passages referring to it are to be interpreted in the light of the culture they were originally written in and to are sadly not likely to go away any time soon.
That's not to say I don't think that leaders of the faith community, such as the archbishops of Canterbury and York shouldn't speak out, (see here) or that the church shouldn't express it's views of what's going on in the country. That's part of our duty to be salt and light to and in the world. We can state what is right and wrong. But can we expect those who don't believe to follow the same standards of behaviour as we do if they don't believe they are right? I'm not sure we can.
Monday, 20 July 2009
What's your role?
I heard a sermon at the weekend that I thought was good. As well as a good point to the talk- about our calling as a church- the preacher (Dave Magill, a youth worker at my church) said some interesting things about how we interpret the Bible.
The Bible, he pointed out, was written to us as a people. In the Old Testament, that would have been the People of Israel, while today it's the Church, God's 'people,' in the world. Not everything is applicable to us as an individual, but perhaps if we look at whether it applies to us as a people, as a church, we will understand better what it is saying to us. It can make more sense.
Within the people of God, we all have individual roles. The apostle Paul has a lot to say about being a people where everyone has different skills and gifts- some to be teachers, some to be prophets, some to do the administration. And some, he says, to be evangelists.
Apparently about 10% of the church* are gifted as evangelists, and are called to exercise this gift. That in itself is a reassuring figure- it can explain why, no matter how hard we try, nothing seems to happen. But it doesn't let the rest of us off the hook. We are not all evangelists, but we are all witnesses.
Dave used the analogy of a courtroom to explain how this works. In a court case, it's the barrister who does most of the talking and questioning. An evangelist, like a barrister, is perhaps someone skilled at explaining the gospel in a way that makes it clear to the hearers. But behind the barrister is a solicitor (or more than one) who is responsible for gathering the evidence and working out what's important, doing all the paperwork and background work. And there are clerks and legal secretaries and others in the background who all contribute to the barrister being able to stand up and speak, and hopefully win the case.
And then there are the witnesses in the case, ordinary people without perhaps any special training or big role in the church, but people who, by the way they live their lives, give evidence to what is true. People like you and me. It might seem that what we do in our lives- office or shop work, chatting to friends, getting on with the business of life- doesn't have much to do with evangelism, but perhaps it does. Just the way you respond to an event may be a witness to someone- perhaps you don't kick off and swear at someone pushing in front of you in a queue; perhaps you're willing to help clearing up after a meeting when everyone else rushes off; perhaps in a conversation about a news item you have a different perspective from other people. And last but very far from least, there are the people who pray.
Small things, and so often it can seem like they don't make a difference. I'm certainly no shining example when it comes to all of this. It's so easy to get discouraged, to become envious of those who are 'evangelists' and who see many people coming to faith- perhaps because of the groundwork done by someone else. Especially when some of those evangelists don't seem to understand that it's not as easy for everyone else as it is for them. Of course I'm glad when people come to faith- but there's always that bit of sadness too.
So how do we find out what our role is? I guess, to an extent, by experimenting, by considering what you'd like to do and seeing if you can do it. It can be hard when sometimes churches want to fit us into whatever they need extra help with, like running cafes, or helping with kids' work- both of which are excellent things- when perhaps that's not where you feel you're gifted. I'm still not sure where my role is, although I'm probably more of a solicitor than a barrister. But when we find that role where we can use all the gifts and talents which God has given us, that's when we and the work we are called to can really flourish.
*I'm afraid I have no idea where this figure comes from, although I've heard it quoted several times. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
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!
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?
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!
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?
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
"It's religion, it doesn't have to make sense!"
Posts at the moment seem to be focusing on things I don't like. Possibly because it feels like there's a lot of them just now! But anyway, here's another thing about people's attitudes which saddens me. It's the way people seem to equate Christianity- and again, many of these arguments probably apply to other faiths too- with what you might call intellectual laziness.
There's a perception that, as a friend said to me the other day "it's religion, it doesn't have to make sense!" Well excuse me, but I rather think it does. The clue here is probably what you mean by"sense"- if you accept the idea of the supernatural then things may make sense to you that someone who doesn't accept that won't see as making sense.
What they meant, I assume, is that if a religion- or religious leader- says something is right then all the people who follow that religion unthinkingly obey.
I have to agree that if this was indeed what faith is all about, I wouldn't be involved. It's a model that probably was once the case- or at least official sources, for example of the the Roman Catholic church would like us to think so, although as a historian who specialised somewhat in the reformation and church history I rather doubt their control was as complete as many liked to think! And I'm not going to deny that some denominations and congregations today still seem to have the attitude that their leader is right and that they should do what they say unthinkingly.
But this certainly isn't true of your average Christian today. One of the things I valued about the church I grew up in was the variety of different preachers we had. Many of them were not of a high standard, but the experience taught me to think for myself and to consider whether what I was hearing fitted with what I knew of God, with what I read in the Bible. And I don't think that the idea of absolute obedience to church leaders is a very Biblical model of church leadership*. Nor did Martin Luther, one of my historical heroes, who developed the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers" according to which all believers are equal and have an equal right to interpret the faith as long as they can prove it is consistent with God's word in the scriptures.
God gave man a rational brain, which allows him to think and to reason. What would be the point in that if he didn't intend us to use it? What would be the point of his giving us free will, the power to choose to do the right thing or not, if he didn't want us to think and choose? So the idea that faith is just an excuse not to think for oneself is just plain wrong, as far as I can see. Following a leader is no excuse for doing or saying or thinking things which are plainly wrong. And exploiting people's belief to gain power for oneself is an abuse and misuse of authority, for which the exploiter will be answerable to God (see Ezekiel 34 for God condemning the priests to whom spiritual leadership of Israel had been entrusted and who had led the people astray). Good leaders should seek to encourage the people they lead to study the Bible and learn to decide what God is saying to them through it themselves, rather than relying solely on others to interpret it for them.
That doesn't mean leaders or authority are a bad thing. We are told to respect our leaders and pray for them, because they have a difficult job. From experience, I can say that when I'm interpreting the Bible for others it can sometimes be hard to know what's from God and what's from me. As long as what's from me is in line with what's from God, that's not much of a problem, but leaders need prayer for wisdom and discernment. And if leaders don't have the respect of those they lead- and respect isn't the same as unthinking obedience, it might simply mean discussing a matter you disagree on in private with them rather than undermining them in front of others- it becomes very hard for them to lead at all. Some of the stories of churches and their leaders in Acts and Paul's letters show what happens when churches have weak or erroneous leaderships.
So faith isn't an excuse for people to get power and make others follow them. Abuses that may have happened or still be happening are just that, abuses. Our Lord is Christ, and no other. Human leaders can help us**, but once they loose their humility or claim never to make mistakes they're stepping outside God's plan, in my opinion. Nor is faith an excuse for not thinking. In fact it can make for some very hard thinking, as I often struggle to see how something that is happening can possibly fit in with my faith. It saddens and indeed offends me when people think of Christians in this way as unable to think for ourselves because of our faith. Just because we're called sheep doesn't mean we can't think!
* See, for example, 1 John 4 v1 where we are told to "test the spirits" of those that speak in churches so that we're not lead astray by false teaching. And verse 10 is a pretty good example of what we need to be looking at to see if the things we're being taught fit with God's will: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
** The Biblical depiction of church leaders as shepherds is a good one, as it is not only mirrors Jesus' description of his leadership of the church but also reminds us of the caring, sacrificial, loving element that a shepherd showed for his flock.
See also this article and this for more on a similar subject.
There's a perception that, as a friend said to me the other day "it's religion, it doesn't have to make sense!" Well excuse me, but I rather think it does. The clue here is probably what you mean by"sense"- if you accept the idea of the supernatural then things may make sense to you that someone who doesn't accept that won't see as making sense.
What they meant, I assume, is that if a religion- or religious leader- says something is right then all the people who follow that religion unthinkingly obey.
I have to agree that if this was indeed what faith is all about, I wouldn't be involved. It's a model that probably was once the case- or at least official sources, for example of the the Roman Catholic church would like us to think so, although as a historian who specialised somewhat in the reformation and church history I rather doubt their control was as complete as many liked to think! And I'm not going to deny that some denominations and congregations today still seem to have the attitude that their leader is right and that they should do what they say unthinkingly.
But this certainly isn't true of your average Christian today. One of the things I valued about the church I grew up in was the variety of different preachers we had. Many of them were not of a high standard, but the experience taught me to think for myself and to consider whether what I was hearing fitted with what I knew of God, with what I read in the Bible. And I don't think that the idea of absolute obedience to church leaders is a very Biblical model of church leadership*. Nor did Martin Luther, one of my historical heroes, who developed the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers" according to which all believers are equal and have an equal right to interpret the faith as long as they can prove it is consistent with God's word in the scriptures.
God gave man a rational brain, which allows him to think and to reason. What would be the point in that if he didn't intend us to use it? What would be the point of his giving us free will, the power to choose to do the right thing or not, if he didn't want us to think and choose? So the idea that faith is just an excuse not to think for oneself is just plain wrong, as far as I can see. Following a leader is no excuse for doing or saying or thinking things which are plainly wrong. And exploiting people's belief to gain power for oneself is an abuse and misuse of authority, for which the exploiter will be answerable to God (see Ezekiel 34 for God condemning the priests to whom spiritual leadership of Israel had been entrusted and who had led the people astray). Good leaders should seek to encourage the people they lead to study the Bible and learn to decide what God is saying to them through it themselves, rather than relying solely on others to interpret it for them.
That doesn't mean leaders or authority are a bad thing. We are told to respect our leaders and pray for them, because they have a difficult job. From experience, I can say that when I'm interpreting the Bible for others it can sometimes be hard to know what's from God and what's from me. As long as what's from me is in line with what's from God, that's not much of a problem, but leaders need prayer for wisdom and discernment. And if leaders don't have the respect of those they lead- and respect isn't the same as unthinking obedience, it might simply mean discussing a matter you disagree on in private with them rather than undermining them in front of others- it becomes very hard for them to lead at all. Some of the stories of churches and their leaders in Acts and Paul's letters show what happens when churches have weak or erroneous leaderships.
So faith isn't an excuse for people to get power and make others follow them. Abuses that may have happened or still be happening are just that, abuses. Our Lord is Christ, and no other. Human leaders can help us**, but once they loose their humility or claim never to make mistakes they're stepping outside God's plan, in my opinion. Nor is faith an excuse for not thinking. In fact it can make for some very hard thinking, as I often struggle to see how something that is happening can possibly fit in with my faith. It saddens and indeed offends me when people think of Christians in this way as unable to think for ourselves because of our faith. Just because we're called sheep doesn't mean we can't think!
* See, for example, 1 John 4 v1 where we are told to "test the spirits" of those that speak in churches so that we're not lead astray by false teaching. And verse 10 is a pretty good example of what we need to be looking at to see if the things we're being taught fit with God's will: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
** The Biblical depiction of church leaders as shepherds is a good one, as it is not only mirrors Jesus' description of his leadership of the church but also reminds us of the caring, sacrificial, loving element that a shepherd showed for his flock.
See also this article and this for more on a similar subject.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Hello again
Sorry there's been a bit of a delay and irregular posting recently. I've been having a bit of a creative fit and started a new blog (afraid the story won't make much sense to anyone who doesn't know the University of York Gilbert & Sullivan society- and even then making sense isn't guaranteed!)
To add to that, the last two weekends I've been on conferences, the first with the Council of Scripture Union, an organisation I've been involved with for quite a few years now (I'm finally no longer the youngest on the council; however despite being second youngest I've also been going to meetings for a lot longer than many of the others! It's a bit strange...). SU, as you may know, do lots of stuff to resource churches and youth leaders, producing kids and youth club materials, publishing Christian books and Bible reading notes, running holidays for children and young people, doing work in schools and lots of other stuff you can find out more about here. One of the most exciting things we (ie, SU) have done over the last few years is the development of WordLive (sorry, I do seem to go on about this a lot, but it is great), a free website designed to encourage Christians (and any other visitors) to look at what the Bible can say to them. We're now looking at how we might be able to use electronic communication to reach even more people, young and old, with this message.
Then this last weekend was my church's weekend at home (like a weekend away, only it was held in York to allow more people to come and reduce the cost). The speaker this year was Elaine Storkey (those Today listeners among you may recognise her from Thought for the Day. Being told that John Humphries was "such a sweetie" was an amusing start to the weekend! And discovering she did a Phd in Philosophy at York). She is a fantastic speaker, in my opinion- not many people could hold over a hundred adults attention for over an hour on a Saturday morning, talking about sociological trends in our culture and how this affects the church. All her talks were highly interesting and she was able to make the theory relevant to us and what we were doing.
The challenge of thinking about and discussing these topics at both weekends has made a pleasant change from my normal routine (although the trip down to Coventry was less pleasant). It's interesting to see the links between the two- the church (or large parts of it, at least) waking up to how far out of public favour it has fallen and considering what it can do to win itself a fair hearing in modern culture. This was reflected in discussions on social networking sites and on the anniversary of Darwin.
The challenge for the church seems to be to work out how can it persuade people to listen to and consider the message it has, a message that can transform an individual life as well as the world. I won't say we came up with definitive answers at either weekend, but there were lots of ideas and stuff to think about and make part of our daily lives.
Now back to normal- but hopefully with some much-needed encouragement to keep going, to keep loving even when it seems nothing much is happening spiritually in those I care about. God know what he's doing. Even though I'm tired and looking forward to a weekend off (mid July I think is the next one I've got totally free. Maybe I should do something about that, considering what Elaine said yesterday about rest and refreshment!) I'm glad I went.
To add to that, the last two weekends I've been on conferences, the first with the Council of Scripture Union, an organisation I've been involved with for quite a few years now (I'm finally no longer the youngest on the council; however despite being second youngest I've also been going to meetings for a lot longer than many of the others! It's a bit strange...). SU, as you may know, do lots of stuff to resource churches and youth leaders, producing kids and youth club materials, publishing Christian books and Bible reading notes, running holidays for children and young people, doing work in schools and lots of other stuff you can find out more about here. One of the most exciting things we (ie, SU) have done over the last few years is the development of WordLive (sorry, I do seem to go on about this a lot, but it is great), a free website designed to encourage Christians (and any other visitors) to look at what the Bible can say to them. We're now looking at how we might be able to use electronic communication to reach even more people, young and old, with this message.
Then this last weekend was my church's weekend at home (like a weekend away, only it was held in York to allow more people to come and reduce the cost). The speaker this year was Elaine Storkey (those Today listeners among you may recognise her from Thought for the Day. Being told that John Humphries was "such a sweetie" was an amusing start to the weekend! And discovering she did a Phd in Philosophy at York). She is a fantastic speaker, in my opinion- not many people could hold over a hundred adults attention for over an hour on a Saturday morning, talking about sociological trends in our culture and how this affects the church. All her talks were highly interesting and she was able to make the theory relevant to us and what we were doing.
The challenge of thinking about and discussing these topics at both weekends has made a pleasant change from my normal routine (although the trip down to Coventry was less pleasant). It's interesting to see the links between the two- the church (or large parts of it, at least) waking up to how far out of public favour it has fallen and considering what it can do to win itself a fair hearing in modern culture. This was reflected in discussions on social networking sites and on the anniversary of Darwin.
The challenge for the church seems to be to work out how can it persuade people to listen to and consider the message it has, a message that can transform an individual life as well as the world. I won't say we came up with definitive answers at either weekend, but there were lots of ideas and stuff to think about and make part of our daily lives.
Now back to normal- but hopefully with some much-needed encouragement to keep going, to keep loving even when it seems nothing much is happening spiritually in those I care about. God know what he's doing. Even though I'm tired and looking forward to a weekend off (mid July I think is the next one I've got totally free. Maybe I should do something about that, considering what Elaine said yesterday about rest and refreshment!) I'm glad I went.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)