Inconveniences and Opportunities

It's been an interesting week for the Church of England, to say the least.

On Thursday the Archbishop of Canterbury - Justin Welby, revealed that he had plans for the Church of England to back credit unions in a bid to compete payday loan companies out of existence. It was a move that for once saw widespread backing come in from outside the Church, rather than criticism or condemnation... even among hardened atheists. Yet even as the platitudes came in, the archbishop was about to discover all too personally... what a difference a day makes.

The very next morning news broke that the Church of England itself indirectly invested in Wonga, causing much embarrassment and irritation on the part of the Archbishop.   Many of the voices that had been so supportive just 24 hours previous, were now numbered among the mockers and scoffers who relish any opportunity to point out the Church's faults and failings.  Even Wonga themselves hit back with a parody of the 10 commandments in a new marketing campaign.

In truth it's not the first time the Church has been in trouble with where it invests money. I remember as a teenager being extremely disappointed when reading a story that the Church had investments in a subsidiary of the arms manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. Someone had told me a few years ago that this had been rectified and yet as Welby himself admits... where the Church decides to invest its money is a murky area simply for the fact that a hotel chain may seem an innocent enough investment, but it might choose in turn, to sell pornography to its clientele - something that an outside investor seemingly has little control over.

These facts may appear at first glance to be a major inconvenience and yet I can't help thinking that the recent turn of events has a precedent in the Old Testament. In approximately 640BC Josiah acceded to the throne of the kingdom of Judah. His father Amon had been an idolater but Josiah had not followed in his footsteps but instead chosen to try and follow God. 18 years into his reign, Josiah decided that he wanted to refurbish the Temple in Jerusalem.  He probably thought he was doing a noble thing and yet very soon after he began the venture, Hilkiah the High Priest shattered his illusions by walking into the royal court with a copy of the long neglected Law that he had discovered.  Josiah was so distressed by what he had read, that he tore his robes.

King Josiah and Justin Welby share this in common - they both started out on a godly venture only to be confronted by the shortcomings of their respective factions.

I find that often it is during the times we express a desire to serve God, that he tosses a grenade into the room to test our resolve and commitment to the cause. It is messy, it hurts, it is infuriating and it is embarrassing.  How we respond when faced with these inconveniences and difficult emotions defines whether or not we are truly called to the path of action.

How did King Josiah respond to his embarrassment and humbling?  Quite simply, he committed himself and his people to a series of reforms the like of which had not been seen before. His legacy is remembered fondly in the book of 2 Kings:

"Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the Lord as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses."

2 Kings 23:25

So I think that over 2,500 years later Justin Welby finds himself in good company and can take solace from the fact that inconveniences like these.... are actually divine opportunities in disguise. What matters now, is where he and we go from here. Do we succumb to our embarrassment or do we, like Josiah redouble our efforts and go much, much further with our commitments than we originally imagined.  Early indications seem to suggest that this is exactly what the Church of England is priming itself to do and scrutinising more closely where the Church's money is coming from and going to is the first step on this path.

Similarities between Justin Welby's and King Josiah's trials

This encourages me and I think with a little imagination and some savvy alliances with a few pressure groups (such as the people behind No More Page3), we might be able to do something about hotel chains selling pornography to clientele as well. Maybe we won't eliminate it... but we could perhaps persuade a chain to abandon the practice and get them endorsed by pressure groups if they do so.

• How would you like to see the Church of England respond to the Wonga episode?
• Would you support a wider campaign of reforms within and outside the Church?

Of Samaritans and Appointments

About this time last year, several of my talks at Church had centred around the prophet Samuel and his relationship with Saul and David.  I felt quite drawn to the Old Testament passages and strongly believed that God wanted to use them to impress upon the church the difference between his criteria and our own.  This seemed especially relevant as the time began to draw near for Canon David Capron (then Rector of our minster), to retire... and many of my sermons then were aimed at preparing the congregation (at my church at least), for that time and the time to come.

 

A year has passed since then and now our minster is about to come to the climax of those times - the recruitment process for David's replacement is in full swing and the interview process takes place over the next two days.  From a human perspective if I'm honest, I'm fairly anxious about what/who comes next and worry about the process and all those involved. From a heavenly perspective, I know that God is in complete control and that he knows what/who comes next and why... so in some ways I'm conflicted.

 

Now last week I found myself responsible for prayers in the service. When I do the prayers I never completely script them, I make a few notes as to what I'm praying about... but I like to leave it as free and flexible as possible... in case anything crops up in the service (especially the readings or sermon), that inspires me in my petitions. Last Sunday was one such occasion as I felt God speak to me pretty clearly through the Parable of the Good Samaritan: 

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

"What is written in the Law?” he replied. "How do you read it?” 

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’" 

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live.” 

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’" 

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” 

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” 

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise."

Luke:10:25-37

What particularly stood out for me, was how well the images and characters from the parable translate to the idea of a recruitment process. In the story, the two men who are on paper the most qualified servants of God, walk on by. Now it can be understood that those men were acting  in accordance with the law as they understood it (at the time, touching a dead body would make them ritually unclean... and so they were playing it safe... thinking that their ritualistic duties were more important.  But the Samaritan brushed all this aside... even ignored the mutual disdain between his two peoples, to make sure the needs of the wounded man were addressed.

The question "Who is my neighbour?" for those in Alcester Minster is equivalent to "Who is our leader?"

I strongly believe that what matters in choosing a new leader, is not the background and churchmanship. We should not be looking for the person who is most priestly on paper or in appearance. It doesn't matter if they don't  have the same attachment to tradition or pattern of worship as a certain clique within the church. What matters is that the person who comes, sees the needs of the churches and respective communities... and addresses them.

Going back to my preaching last year and I'm reminded that the same theme is picked up when Samuel anoints David.  Samuel is pretty confident that all of Jesse's text book hero sons are going to be God's choice of new king... and yet God ignores and rejects all of them... instead choosing the gingery runt of the family.

God makes it explicitly clear that our choices are not his choices and we need to recognise his sovereign wisdom when making appointments in the Church.

"The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

1 Samuel 16:7b

I believe we need to look for the neighbour... not the priest. We need to look for a person who is a wellspring of Christ's grace and mercy,  not a champion of ritual; and tradition. My prayer is that God grants the wisdom however subconsciously, to those interviewing on Tuesday

"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings."

Hosea 6:6

Everything Changes?

Happy Easter everybody - He is risen!

 

I have a confession to make...

From a personal perspective, I'm a little disappointed in the Church of England's choice of hashtag to promote its Easter tweets - #everythingchanges.

Now let me make it clear, I'm not going to be aggressively snarky about it, I'm absolutely grateful that the C of E bothers to engage on Twitter and has actually put some thought into a campaign at all. I also completely theologically agree with what I perceive to be at the heart of that statement. Easter is a game changer; as the sun dawned on that fateful first century Sunday morning, humankind went from being outcast... to family member, darkness... to light, death... to life. The hashtag absolutely reflects themes that prevail throughout Easter.

So what exactly bugs me about it?

Well for me, it is primarily an aesthetic thing. I don't like to think of myself as fundamentalist and in fact if anything, in a broad church I've turned running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds into something of art form. However #everythingchanges aside from being culturally reminiscent of a cheesy Take That song, feels a little vague and understated to me. Without something tying it into the events of Easter Sunday, it's easy for people who are not tweeting on topic to come in and subvert it (either accidentally or purposefully). This aside, we live in a world of constant flux... everything changes all the time; you might not think it if you look out of the window and still see snow and frost, but everything - the weather, our position in time and space and the fundamental elements that drive our universe - matter and energy are in a constant state of change.

When Jesus happened (I'm not sure I even wish to describe it as "what happened to Jesus" because He was the catalyst), it was an event like nothing ever seen before. People had been raised from the dead before (3 by prophets in the Old Testament and 2 by Jesus himself), but in those cases it was merely a case of the odometer being set back a few notches. Those people lived out the lives that had been given back to them... but in time, death would return to claim them.

 

Christ's resurrection was very different:

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

John 10:17-18

 

Jesus was resurrected by his own authority he didn't just temporarily survive death... he went beyond it, travelling through it and coming out on the other side:

 

"Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.  For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.  The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God."

Romans 6:8-10

 

Death no longer has mastery over him.... and the amazing thing is that Romans tells us  in that same excerpt that His death covers the cost of the wrongs we have committed... and that we have the unconditional offer to live his risen life. 1 Corinthians tells us that death has lost its sting... yes it still claims us from this life, but its effects are only temporal and not eternal.

 

So yes the rules, the game, the very nature of humankind's destiny have changed. Yet the changes are so much immeasurably higher, wider, deeper and truer than anything our humanity could conjure, ask or imagine... that to just say everything changes feels somewhat like living in a world where Apollo 11 is blasting off for the moon in the days of the cavemen... who as they celebrate the invention of their stone tools and wheels and fire, categorise the wonder they have just witnessed piercing the clouds in the same bracket.

 

So yes I'm sure that #everythingchanges will be a numeric success and I pray for it and wish it well in terms of outreach.

 

But let's remember that the resurrection of Christ is a concept so mind blowingly wonderful, with such a powerful message... that we need to make every effort to convey it in terms that do justice to its concept.

Cheesus.... or Jesus? A Response to Giles Fraser.

I entered pretty late into the furore surrounding Giles Fraser's latest article for The Guardian, only picking up on various exchanges about it on Twitter, yesterday evening. Nevertheless, having now read the article I decided to make a couple of observations.

 

First off, let me point out that I have no axe to grind... I respected the moral principle behind his resignation from St. Paul's Cathedral and I'm sure we have our differences on the theological spectrum... but in a broad church you take those things on a case by case basis... or at least,  I believe spiritual maturity requires us to do so.

 

I believe Fraser was attacking the superficial spirituality and language of cliché that sometimes plagues the Church. Quite why he singled out the evangelical wing of the church on this issue is beyond me... perhaps *he* had an axe to grind, perhaps not. Nevertheless I think his article comes across as portraying a syllogistically flawed argument, something like this:

Some Christians are evangelical

Some Christians are clichéd and superficial

Therefore all evangelicals are clichéd and superficial.

 

As a teenager, the youth group I was a member of had a pretty evangelical outlook. As we grew in faith and maturity... we recognised that some of the terminology was clichéd and a little alien to the outsider: Terms like "saved", "washed in the blood of the lamb", "slain in the Spirit", were among these. Whenever a brainstorming chart was being used in a seminar/preaching session, you could bet your bottom dollar that among the first responses would be "Jesus", "the Bible" or "peer pressure".

 

Never once would I have said that all my contemporaries were superficial Christians. It is just that sometimes, just sometimes if you hang around the same people often enough you pick up the trappings of a language. This is true in all walks of life.  It doesn't invalidate the principles behind the terminology, it just means that sometimes the terminology is unhelpful.

 

Fraser takes issue with the term "personal relationship". I get where he's coming from on this... the term is used so very often that it has become a bit of a cliché. However it is not like the word "Inconceivable" in The Princess Bride. In most cases people who invoke the term know *exactly* what it means and how important it is.  What is important though, is that the principles behind what a personal relationship with God means, and why it is so vital in Christian development are equally covered.

 

I dare say I have an evangelical outlook, I try not to use the terminology when I preach or talk... but I hope to God I get the principles across.

 

I don't like the idea that Fraser implies that I see Jesus as "buddy Christ". Yes I, do see him as the closest companion in my life journey... but if that truly means anything it has to have an effect on us and not just be a term. It leads to some pretty strange emotional places. For the apostle Paul it meant contemplating the desire to lose his own salvation if it  meant that others would gain it (he obviously knew that was not a place he would or even could go to, but it was a feeling he was expressing). For a friend of mine (and indeed myself), it sometimes means getting worked up when seeing a representation of The Passion - yes, theologically you know the crucifixion is the absolutely essential and inescapable destiny of Jesus... and you know that your own salvation (and that of others), depends on it happening... but as a developed Christian one who truly has a "personal relationship" with Christ... you kind of get pretty upset when you see someone representing him suffering.

 

This week, on Maundy Thursday... I'll be making my annual midnight pilgrimage up a local hill. I go there every year because I remember that on the night he was betrayed, Jesus's friends fell asleep and left him to suffer in anguish on his own... as he awaited the inevitable fate that awaited him. 2,000 years after the event, this does not sit well with me. There's precious little I can do but that which I can... I do. So just for an hour I try and get myself as close to the events as I can. I head out onto a remote hill overlooking town - in the cold... alone and vulnerable, and I read through the gospel accounts and I pray for Jesus.

 

As I said... "personal relationship" when genuine can lead you to strange places.

 

And as a Christian I have to say, I know how shockingly poor and bankrupt a Christian I can be sometimes... I know how dependent on God's grace I truly am. I have no place or time to patronise people because I know only too well how pitiful I am. I'm just as broken and in need of God's compassion as everybody else on this God favoured planet.

 

But this was not all Giles Fraser said and its not the part that upset most people I conversed online with.

 

He went on to suggest that the evangelistic position is one that somehow hardens a person against empathy towards the suffering of others.... but this is utterly wrong. I'm not saying this is not a possibility... but I will say that in my experience most evangelicals I know are most passionate about the concept of personal relationship because of tragic cost - always the tragic price that Christ paid and often the tragic cost of personal circumstances that the nearness of Christ's presence helped them through in a very real way.

 

Fraser suggests that the newly enthroned Archbishop of Canterbury - Justin Welby may be "inoculated" against evangelical cheesiness because he has suffered the bitter blows of personal tragedy, yet in the same paragraph expresses the fear that this merely masks a latent evangelism picked up from Welby's theological heritage.

 

I am greatly encouraged by Justin Welby (not least after meeting him last week). Aside from Fraser's comments, he's not without his critics in the evangelical wing either and personally I see this as a good thing. He strikes me as a man willing to listen and share the concerns of all those he is pastorally responsible for, not least those he theologically disagrees with. He seems assertive about his own beliefs and doesn't fall into the pitfalls of aggression or passiveness. This is what the church needs - to openly talk about its disagreements in a frank uncondemnatory way... and I suspect Welby may have a gift for this.

 

I'm reminded of the parable Jesus told a Pharisee named Simon, after receiving his criticism for being anointed by a "sinful" woman. The point that Jesus drove home was that the amount of affection we display is a response to the amount we realise we have been forgiven. This isn't just about sin though, is it? Jesus does not merely promise forgiveness... but life in abundance. When we are in the midst of the fiercest storm and the deepest spiritual need... He is there. When we have known times in our lives where clinging to that promise has meant absolutely everything to us... it fundamentally changes us and makes us more loving to those on the outside.

 

I know that thus far, I have by God's grace avoided the most tragic of personal circumstances... but I also know that there was a very long, dark time in my life when I felt trapped in a situation and had nobody I could talk to about it. In those times I know God did not give up on me and I know in the fullness of time it was He who directly delivered me out of that place. That experience and the knowledge of the patience and love of God for me during all that time changed everything for me... and having been faced with the insufficiency of my own ways, I know that my debt to Christ is immeasurably supermassive and that tempers any illusions I might ever had of being somehow superior.

 

In conclusion, it is not our various theological positions that define the depth of our relationship with God and our compassion towards others... it is our understanding of how dependent we are upon the vast storehouses of all that God provides in the harshest and fairest of seasons alike.

 

One more thing. Giles Fraser expressed fears for Justin Welby on the basis of his spiritual history with Holy Trinity Brompton. Let me redress the balance by reminding you of another part of his history.  For many years, Welby was on the frontline of the Ministry of Reconciliation at Coventry Cathedral. Perhaps then, it is fitting that following the fallout this article has caused... whatever our views, we contemplate together the litany of reconciliation... and remember that when we judge one another we mar God's image within us and need to be reconciled to one another... and to Him:

 

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God...

The hatred which divides nation from nation, race from race, class from class,

Father Forgive.

 

The covetous desires of people and nations to possess what is not their own,


Father Forgive.

 

The greed which exploits the work of human hands and lays waste the earth,

Father Forgive.

 

Our envy of the welfare and happiness of others,


Father Forgive.

 

Our indifference to the plight of the imprisoned, the homeless, the refugee,


Father Forgive.

 

The lust which dishonours the bodies of men, women and children,


Father Forgive.

 

The pride which leads us to trust in ourselves and not in God,

Father Forgive.

 

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.





If you wish to read more of what others have contributed, I am adding links below that I have discovered on the topic that provide additional commentaries:

God and Politics UK
Peter Ould
Hannah Mudge
alwaysperhaps
 

Of Fathers and Unexpected Choices.

The last time I preached at church I felt quite awkward, I felt there was something in the air that resisted the topic I was talking on... so much so that it made me pretty tense and I rushed my talk. Thankfully this morning was an altogether different experience, which is just as well given that I stuck with a similar message as one of my central themes.

The passage I chose to preach on was 1 Samuel 15:34-16:13. It relays the story of how Samuel (still grieving over God's rejection of Saul),  travelled to Bethlehem to anoint the king's eventual successor - David.

Seeing as the Olympic Torch is due to pass through my town in matter of weeks, I decided my talk would carry an Olympic flavour to it. The first question I posed was this:

What connects these people?

The answer is that they have all been chosen to be Olympic torch bearers. The first two  (Diana Gould of London and Dominic McGowan of Birmingham), are the oldest and youngest people to have been chosen respectively; the latter four (Holly Parker of Redditch, Sandra Lopez of Miami, Youssou N'Dour of Dakar and Sophie Witherford of Malvern), are the torch bearers who have been chosen to run through my own town of Alcester on Sunday, July 1st. Of these, the most well known is going to be Youssou N'Dour (although many in my congregation had not heard of him), as he is is probably the most famous living musician to come out of Africa and for his work as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations.

However the important thing about their selection is that it has nothing to do with athleticism. The people who have been chosen to participate in the Torch Relay are those who have been perceived as community heroes of some description. Between them, the people above (and the myriad of others), have clocked up a huge amount community work & voluntary service between them. The criteria for selection was not based on their levels of fitness... indeed there have been some torch bearers who have been running entirely on prosthetic limbs.

Well that in essence is what the passage today was all about. When Samuel was called to visit the household of Jesse in Bethlehem, he was presented with an impressive procession of young men. To my imagination, it must have resembled the conveyor belt from The Generation Game. Samuel saw their strength and stature and was clearly impressed by all of them.. and yet he was surprised to discover that God did not share his enthusiasm.

In the same way that the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), used completely different criteria to what we might expect, God did exactly the same with regard to his choice of king. Who is it that God chooses? He chooses the runt of the family... the ginger (yes David's physical description says he had red hair), in short... exactly the kind of person who might get picked last by his peers in a school football line up.

The crux of what was happening here is found in verse 7:

"But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

There's an important parallel and lesson here for us both nationally and locally; The Church of England and the Alcester Minster will shortly be due to choose a successor to their current leaders. As touched upon in my previous post, there is a heated debate going on with regard to who the next Archbishop of Canterbury should be. You see people advocating candidates on the basis that they are "liberal", or "traditional" or "evangelical". All the time it seems to me that they are looking for their candidate and not God's. As a character on Babylon 5 once put it:

"Sometimes we stand in front of the light and assume that we are the centre of the universe. God looks astonishingly like we do!"

G'Kar - Meditations on the Abyss

Aren't we all a little guilty of that from time to time? If we are honest (as we are called to be), aren't we?

The choice between a liberal candidate or a conservative candidate is a FALSE choice. In the wake of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, there was a debate on Newsnight as to whether or not the Papal choice should have been liberal or conservative. A woman was arguing strongly that the cardinals had let the world down by electing an ultra-conservative pope. Yet a Roman Catholic priest came back with a very valid comment. He argued that the duty of a pope isn't to be liberal or conservative, that shouldn't even come into the equation when choosing a new pope. A pope should be chosen because he is faithful to God.

That is God's criteria... while we stumble around looking for a candidate who scratches our particular theological itches, we should actually be hoping, praying and seeking out a man of God who is faithful to the will of God... our views and the views of the public aren't nearly as important as that. i can't state it enough.

However God's choice isn't just about people in positions of religious or secular authority. It is about us too. As unseemly as we may think we are, we too have a calling. We too (those of us who choose to accept it), have been chosen.

We stumble... we stagger and sometimes we fall, but it is at those times that God's grace shines so brightly in our lives and maybe that is a major reason why he calls us:

"Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."

1 Corinthians 1:26-29

How can God nullify the world's standards of success by using our weakness? Well perhaps on Father's Day, I can offer you a poignant illustration. In the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, British athlete Derek Redmond was preparing to run the race of his life; he was tipped for a medal in the 400 metres. The race began normally enough, but 150 metres or so into the race, Derek felt a twang in the back of his leg and a searing pain. He collapsed to the ground in agony as the rest of the racers sprinted towards the line. Broken and defeated, Derek had every reason to give up.

He didn't.

Redmond picked himself up off the ground and hobbled along the track like a lame chicken towards the finish line. As he did so, the officials and stewards ran up to him and tried to stop him... but he insisted he wanted to carry on. Suddenly from out of the stands, a short, stock built older man ran out and head for Redmond. Stewards tried to stop him too... but he shrugged them off. As he reached Redmond he told him that he didn't have to finish the race... he'd done enough. Redmond insisted that he needed to cross the line. The man put a hand on Redmond's shoulder and reassured him "then we are going to finish it together".

That man was Derek Redmond's father - Jim Redmond.

The two of them walked to the finish line and received a standing ovation from 65,000+ onlookers in the stadium. I can't watch the footage of that race without welling up, it speaks more to me of the Olympic spirit than even the largest medal haul of any athlete or nation. Furthermore I can't tell you who won that race... I can't even tell with certainty who went on to win the gold medal in the final... but I can tell you that I'll remember what Derek Redmond did until the day that I die.

 

That is what God can do in our lives with his grace. When we struggle or even fail, we have the cosmic assurance that 2,000 years ago a God came down to Earth to atone for our mistakes and make us whole again... and that every day he is with us in the power of the Holy Spirit... not content to watch from the stands, the Father draws near to us and brings us home, to his glory.

How deep the Father's love for us... how vast beyond all measure.

The Voice

I'm not a big fan of reality TV and don't tend to watch any of them unless I am with other people who are watching it, or find myself extremely pushed for something to do. That said in recent weeks I've stumbled on the odd performance on the BBC 1 show, The Voice.

If you aren't already aware, the show's initial twist/hook is that in the opening rounds, the judging panel didn't get to see the hopeful contestants. The idea being that they could not make preconceptions on a person based on their appearance or any back story... but solely on vocal talent. This sets it apart from its main rival on ITV (Britain's Got Talent), where judges form their opinion on who to take forward with other criteria.

It got me thinking about preconceptions in the church, especially as in recent months the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives on such matters as women bishops, gay marriage and the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury has become more and more amplified. It is a matter that may also strike particularly close to home because early next year, the minster I worship in will be looking to appoint a new vicar/head of ministry.

To be honest I'm fed up with it all... I'm exasperated!

Those who are most vocal on either side of the divide seem so sure of its own position in matters of theology and scripture and community. Each tries to either batter the other side into submission using rhetorical blunt force trauma, or wrong foot them by concocting elaborate schemes. 

While outspoken liberals and conservatives bicker, the rest of the Church suffers

When did we become so sure of what God wanted... that we decided we'd make His decisions for Him? I think there is a severe, ever present danger in each one of us - the danger that we mistake the reflection of our own ego and its preconceived ideas, as being God's. Or perhaps it is a lack of spiritual confidence/maturity. We are so scared that if we don't speak for God, there will be awkward silence and nothing will happen... and we will look foolish. I don't believe any one of us is truly immune to these threats, because each and everyone of us carries within us the potential to be selfish and insecure; each one of us plays host to a sinful nature that even though it has been crucified (for those of us who accept Christ's sacrifice), constantly craves to put "self" on the throne of our hearts either as a result of hubris or insecurity.

I think our fear of losing control directly feeds into this danger and I think that we rely so much on our own convictions that we neglect or lose sight of the most important factor in the guidance and direction of the Church...

... The Voice.

No, I'm not talking about Sir Tom Jones, I'm talking about allowing God the room to intercede and intervene directly in our debates. I think we get so wrapped up in our own earthquakes, winds and fires, that we become deaf to what God is saying. I want to share two passages that I believe demonstrate his willingness to intercede directly in changing the direction of his Church. The first is from the Old Testament. It is quite lengthy so I won't be pasting it, instead you can read the passage by following this link.

In summary, Elijah challenged his opponents to demonstrate to the watching people through an act of power, that their god was worthy of following. Despite all their chants and efforts (even cutting themselves), no such demonstration was forthcoming. After rolling around on the floor and laughing at them, Elijah then made it impossible for his own altar to catch fire... and then called upon the The Lord.

What followed was the biggest barbecue in history.

The god who answers by fire - he is God.

But that's Old Testament... surely I'm not suggesting God is in the business of burning up people at Church who get it wrong? Am I?

No I'm not. But I do still believe God answers by fire.

Which brings me to the second passage:

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they travelled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”  The apostles and elders met to consider this question.  After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.  God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.  He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.  Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

  “‘After this I will return
   and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
things known from long ago.

“It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

Acts 15:1-21

Again it is a slightly lengthy passage but I think it makes the point eloquently. It demonstrates that God does still answer by fire - the fire of the Holy Spirit. When the Church hit a wall, a deep theological divide that threatened to split it or create a two tier system, they did not just argue amongst themselves and rely on their own understanding of God's Word... they left room for the Holy Spirit. Peter recounted his experience in the household of Cornelius, where the baptism of the Holy Spirit first came to Gentiles. Following this, Paul and Barnabas shared their similar experiences of the Gentile Christians they had encountered en route to Jerusalem... and how the Holy Spirit had been present then also.

There is a place for personal conviction... but it must take its place alongside the authority of scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. We need to soak our churches in prayer... clothe ourselves in the Spirit and avail ourselves of all the fruit, blessings, gifts and tools God has to offer. As much as our humanity gets us into these situations... it is God's gracefully given divinity that will get us out of them. Conservatives who object to liberal attitudes need to remind themselves that you can't expect people to be refined by the Holy Spirit if you make it difficult for them to encounter him... by shutting the door to God's storehouses firmly in their face unless they change before they are convicted. Liberals need to be prepared to be honest and accept and respond to the Spirit's conviction if they find in their relationship with God that he is calling them to abandon something they otherwise understand or accept to be okay. We all have to do that sometimes... none of us "like" it, but spiritual maturity accepts God's discipline.

So all I'm saying in essence is that before we make any decisions about what God wants; let's open the floodgates and allow him free reign to make us into his people.

Liberal? Conservative? Let us not get hung up on these worldly positions, let us instead give God the floor. For when God answers... there is no longer any debate.

• How do you think the Church of England should resolve its issues?
• Have you seen the Spirit been poured out supernaturally in liberal/conservative churches?
• Share what happened if you are willing.

ABC... Easy as 1 2 3?

After reading about the Church of England's decision to allow open online consultation over the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, and having read reactions from Vicky Beeching and the tongue-in-cheek folks at Ship of Fools, I felt inspired to write up my own "unique" look at some unusual alternative candidates who it might be worth considering.

Who Will succeed Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury?

If you are a regular follower of my blog... I think you know what to expect. A poll will follow at the end, which I would be honoured if you would please vote on... and remember it is just for fun. :)

Candidate 1: Gandalf the White (The Lord of the Rings)

As you are probably aware, throughout his tenure as existing Archbishop of Canterbury (and possibly even prior to this), Rowan Williams picked up the affectionate nickname of Gandalf. I even joked a few weeks ago that after his resignation, Rowan would return to the role as Rowan the White. However let us consider for a moment the possibility that the ACTUAL Gandalf inherited the role of Primate. Having one of Tolkien's Istari on board, would come in extremely handy. Apart from demonstrating powerful magical abilities, effective combat against the forces of evil and dispensing wisdom to the the peoples of Middle Earth, as Archbishop Gandalf would guarantee a world beating display of New Year fireworks along the Thames during his tenure. Oh and he already has a handy stick.

Candidate 2: Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)

If beards are your thing and you want an alternative to Gandalf, why not choose old Ben? In an illustrious career only slightly marred by one pastoral failure with an apprentice (although... true, it did lead to the subsequent near extinction of his order), Ben Kenobi would be a great choice for a Church of England seeking to reach out to a generation yearning for action and purpose, that feels forgotten and trapped in a bleak environment. Furthermore if anything nasty should befall him, he'll just return with an eerie blue glow and hand out even more inspirational advice to the Anglican Communion.

Candidate 3: Ambassador Kosh Naranek (Babylon 5)

Perhaps an outside choice in science fiction circles, Kosh might just prove to be an important bridge between a church that is sometimes perceived as distant and disconnected from society. The Vorlons faced similar accusations (Kosh himself didn't help by implying they took no interest in the affairs of others), however to the very contrary they had a finger in every single pie and were very involved in the affairs of others. The Vorlons in general were bastions of order... but Kosh demonstrated a genuine care and compassion for the aliens he encountered that was unique. It is true that half the things he said would confuse even the best cryptic crossword solver, but you can't doubt his motives or his achievements.... and although shy and retiring... when he comes out of his shell his actions can be perceived to be angelic.  However... be very wary of the guy who follows after him.

Candidate 4: Spock (Star Trek)

Spock would surely have to be the logical choice.  Although half human and capable of emotion, his unswerving devotion to the merits of logic would ensure that personal feeling would not compromise any theological debates. Also... let's not forget that Spock himself has a certain level of insight into the meaning of great personal sacrifice and resurrection which are surely invaluable. However, it should be noted that whilst logic and theology have their place and might endear him to some traditionalists, a lack of emotion might equally isolate him from charismatics and liberals... and this should be borne in mind.

Candidate 5: The Doctor (Doctor Who)

"It's a mitre. I wear a mitre now. Mitres are cool!" He's defended the planet Earth from hostile forces an innumerable amount of times, he has gone face to face with demons and even the Devil himself. Having been compared to a god on several occasions, could the beloved time-travelling wild old man of the universe have a realistic role in shaping the Anglican Church of the future? It is certainly true that Christians should be like the TARDIS (living lives that are bigger on the inside than on the outside), however churches should definitely be the other way round - bigger on the outside (in the community), than on the inside (within its walls). The Doctor would probably take issue with forms of worship that didn't get congregations to think about and engage with what they believed in... he'd be very much against anything that lulled people into what he perceived as a mindless conforming pattern like the Cybermen. However The Doctor would be excellent at travelling across the entire length and breadth of the Church of England with his TARDIS (only missing important appointments by a couple of years every now and then), and he could offer something unique that other candidates could not - a personal pilgrimage to see events from the Bible as they happened. Some might question whether a Time Lord who is difficult to tie down in any place and time is fit for permanent office, but let's not forget he held the Presidency of the High Council of Gallifrey for a time.

So there are my amusing alternatives. Please do vote and if you have any other alternatives or serious suggestions, please do get in touch and comment below... I'd love to hear what you have to say...

Who Should Be The Next Archbishop of Canterbury?

Back to Church Sunday: The Prayer Book Society

I stumbled across a letter that was published in today's local paper and I felt a need to respond to it. It seems to have been sent as a press release across the country, so you are bound to have your own version of it. Before I comment on the letter, I must first quote it's contents in full:

THERE are of course many and various reasons why some people stop going to church, but for thousands of people across the West Midlands the problem is that they can no longer find familiar services at a convenient time on a Sunday.

Research shows that many people gave up attending church regularly when modern services started to replace the traditional.

Back to Church Sunday, on September 28, is the perfect chance to re-connect with the rich tradition of our church’s heritage.

At the Prayer Book Society we work to promote the Book of Common Prayer which dates from 1662 and is still the bedrock of our nation’s church.

I hear from many people who really miss the Prayer Book services they know and love. However, in fact there are a lot of cathedrals and churches still using them, and our website is a good place to find those in a particular area. The online directory is available at www.pbs.org.uk

Prudence M Dailey (Miss), Chairman, Prayer Book Society, The Studio, Copyhold Farm, Lady Grove, Goring Heath, Reading RG8 7RT

I agree with Miss Dailey's initial point, many church services do seem to have been put on at odd, inconvenient times; this does not reflect the needs of modern society.

However, that is where she and I will now part company.

She claims that churches go into decline when modern services replace traditional ones... she refers to research but doesn't quote her sources. In fact, there is probably some truth to what she says... but I hardly think the research to which she refers, backs up her argument. Older churches are in a period of decline... but people aren't just disappearing off the radar. Many people seek out churches that they find are more relevant to where they are. The relevance they seek can be in terms of worship style, times of services, the kind of fellowship offered by the churches in question and the kind of teaching and pastoral care that the churches offer.

Back to Church Sunday is next Sunday... but it is NOT merely a "perfect opportunity to re-connect with the rich tradition of our church’s heritage".

It SHOULD be the perfect opportunity for the People of God to go out and find out what they can do for their communities. How can they help the back-slidden, the lost or those in hardship. I strongly criticise anyone who intends to use the occasion as an attempt to assert their own ideas of what church should be about on others. This should not be political.

I also strongly question what Miss Dailey actually is claiming the rich heritage of the church is. She points to the Book of Common Prayer as the "bedrock" of our church. With respect I would make the counter claim that the bedrock is actually The Bible. Anything of worth within the Book of Common Prayer, finds its roots in God's Word.

I am not attacking the Book of Common Prayer and I don't deny that there is some beautiful language and theology inside it. I also understand that it is Miss Dailey's job as Chairman of a society that champions the book, to defend it. However the simple truth is, that if the Book of Common Prayer completely fell out of usage, it would not be the end of Christendom. The source of everything Christianity holds dear is found within the Bible. Every piece of litany, every word of liturgy, every song, every doctrine every poem every hymn that has any worth or value within our churches... finds it's roots in scripture.

That is not something that is restricted to a single 17th century book. We have 2,000 years of books and expressions in other media to explore... and most importantly we have the Bible.

Dailey claims that Book of Common Prayer services are generally marginalised to early morning services. This may be true, but it is my personal experience that the people who value these services most... are the only people actually capable of being up at the crack of dawn anyway.

It is extremely important for Christians to make their faith their own. They need to claim it for themselves and make it active. I love some traditional hymns and even some traditional services, there is a time for them. The reason I love some of those older traditions is precisely because I had the freedom to explore my faith with language styles and cultural references I held dear. If you force people to accept your own idea of how God should be worshipped and don't give them room to breathe... you choke them.

I totally accept that some people need structure and routine in order to get fed... but we need to maintain variety. If we build the church in our own image, we commit idolatry. We need to make sure people who don't respond to heavily formatted services that are full of litany; have THEIR opportunity to be fed. That doesn't mean banning Book of Prayer services, it means making sure we are diversified enough to reach out to everyone who is willing to come.

Again, I must stress that I am not attacking the Book of Common Prayer... I am attacking the idea that worship should be constrained to a particular format. Naturally, I am younger so my bias is towards more open worship... but in fairness it must be said that I would not wish to force my own brand of worship on everyone else. I recognise that my preferences are as limited as the next persons.

So what is my conclusion at the end of this?

I believe that if you are reading this and you are a Christian... have a good think about what you can do to make your own church community more responsive to the needs of the people around it. How can you make it more accessible for others? Can you hold informal services or "drop in days" during the week for people who aren't comfortable with a formal service? Can you invite someone who you wouldn't normally expect to find in church... someone who isn't in one of your usual cliques?

If you are reading this as someone who has lapsed in their faith, has no faith but is curious, or has a need that maybe should be taken before God in confidence, then seek out a church. If you find it's not to your taste, don't just give up and assume they are all the same... have a real good luck -find one that suits who you are. If you are really stuck, maybe you could try these websites:

http://www.achurchnearyou.com/
http://findachurch.co.uk/home/home.php

I hope when next Sunday comes, it is a blessing to you... whoever and wherever you are.

Conservative or Liberal?

You’ll notice that as of yet on this blog I have not made a big thing of the current divisive issues being fought over within the Church of England and the wider Anglican Church (principally the role of women and gay priests).

This is by no means an accident, for I do not intend to. This blog is called a Sanctuary for a reason. It’s a port of call, home away from home for diplomats, hustlers, entrepreneurs and wanderers...

oh no... wait a minute, that’s Babylon 5.

All joking aside, I designed this site to be a place of peace: a relatively benign entity in cyberspace; a place where people could come and share their feelings and thoughts, without harm of persecution. When you chance upon these pages you come to a place that honours the ancient traditional rite of asylum. I may disagree with you, but I will never bite you for what you say.

I have left my political views equally ambiguous on my Facebook profile as well. If we must invoke concepts of conservatism or liberalism to describe our position, we had better gain a proper understanding of what they are, or we are all going to become unstuck.

I’m going to use the ancient art of sword-making as an analogy.

Sound pretty bizarre?

Bear with me.

Through the ages, the design of swords have changed and evolved to suit particular needs. Some civilizations favoured a curved blade with a soft edge which was excellent for cutting, but it wasn’t very hardy and if you tried to repeatedly block your opponent’s attacks with the blade, it would soon deteriorate and break. The reverse was true of other civilizations who favoured a hard edge and a straight blade. The weapon was extremely hardy and good for defensive parrying, but it was not as efficient on the attack as it lacked a cutting angle.

Then, the Japanese made a major breakthrough -the sword of the samurai.

A Samurai Sword

This weapon was refined and folded many times over and it also had another unique feature... a blade that was soft at the front and hard at the back. It took the best of both concepts. Today, if you shoot a bullet directly at the cutting edge of a samurai sword held in a clamp, the bullet will split in two leaving the blade with the slightest of nicks, ready to be used again.

I believe the same applies to the principles of conservatism and liberalism. If you dedicate your personal doctrine solely to conservatism, you won’t get very far. Defensively you’ll have a strong moral foundation that can withstand the fiercest assault. However, if you try to evangelise using the hard edge of conservatism, people who deep inside themselves already feel lost or condemned will feel awful and become defeatist... they will walk away from the gospel feeling judged. Jesus was rightly critical of the Pharisees for this very reason. On the other hand, those who are confident of their own moral compass will shut their ears to any positive message you may have and stir up nothing but trouble... denouncing you as self righteous.

Similarly, if we choose to use liberalism as our sole doctrine, our message may well be appealing and crowd pleasing, but it will fail to be challenging. There is a very famous saying... God loves us as we are but refuses to leave us that way. If we broaden the boundaries of what is acceptable in God’s site, without his consent... how will people be convicted? How will they be able to sense their personal hunger and thirst for righteousness?

I’ve always favoured an alternate view... but it is not centrist, or at least I do not consider it to be, Rather than mix conservatism or liberalism together, I prefer to take the best from both camps.

Righteousness might be our protection, but it is love that is the soft cutting edge, it is love that is our offensive weapon... and what a weapon.

I prefer to try and live my own personal life along the lines of a fairly conservative outlook (and I am by no means a success at this).

With regard to others, I try to use every opportunity to demonstrate God’s love and grace in a liberal way ( I am by no means a great success at this either).

I think I’m right in saying that Jesus always demonstrated his love, always fulfilled a need, always forgave... before telling any person not to sin any more.

And this is my point. If we aren’t liberally loving people (irrespective of what we might think of what they do), we are shutting the door to the Kingdom of Heaven in their face. Likewise if we aren’t at least trying to live our own lives in a way that aims to be pleasing to God... we fail as Christ’s ambassadors to let our light shine before men.

We should preach the good news, we should preach salvation... and demonstrate the fruits and benefits of righteousness by living in the Spirit... but there’s a catch there isn’t there? It is far, far easier to tell someone how to live... than it is to demonstrate through your own life; which is precisely why Jesus taught us the importance of removing logs from our own eyes before removing the specks from others.

Our priority should be introducing people to God - the Holy Spirit is a far better force for conviction than you or I. Sure, people will always need strong pastorship... but we need to make sure they have a relationship that warrants pastorship before we dare encumber them with attitudes and principles that we know are impossible to live by without the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Let me put the attitude I think we should be demonstrating another way. The French playwright Albert Camus once described friendship in these terms:

“Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Just walk beside me and be my friend.”

I think that’s my attitude to faith and evangelism. We don’t boss people about and forcibly lead them where they will not go by choice, nor do we compromise on what we believe God lays on our hearts in terms of righteousness and lag behind.

No.

We owe people our honesty and we owe them God’s love.

We need to have the assertiveness of Joshua that says you can go your own way, but I’m going to serve God... and then we love them regardless of who they are, where they’ve been, or what our own prejudices tell us about them. We don’t just need to love people; we need to genuinely love them with abundance.

I think one of the best summaries I have ever heard for living with a Christian attitude, is a phrase uttered by the American preacher Tony Campolo who has stated that he believes we should be as conservative as God’s Law and as liberal as God’s love.

I could go on with regard to some of the issues raised at the moment, my feelings towards what I regard as inadequate descriptions by the media of where various groups stand... or even a cautionary tale about what happens when people from any particular camp start imposing their own will on God’s church... but I’ve said quite enough and do not wish to detract from anything that has gone before.

Not On My Watch.

I don't intend this to be huge post... I've got other things I feel I need to write about, but as it's Pentecost... I felt that there was a need to respond to an article I had read in The Times this week about the apparent decline in Christianity in Britain. I want to look at a couple of quotes:

"Church attendance in Britain is declining so fast that the number of regular churchgoers will be fewer than those attending mosques within a generation, research published today suggests.

The fall - from the four million people who attend church at least once a month today - means that the Church of England, Catholicism and other denominations will become financially unviable. A lack of funds from the collection plate to support the Christian infrastructure, including church upkeep and ministers’ pay and pensions, will force church closures as ageing congregations die."

I don't believe that Christianity is dying in this country... I think that it is going through a God driven restructuring. I believe that if the organised church crumbles in this nation, it's passing will only be mourned as much as the butterfly laments over it's chrysalis. What I mean by that, is that the emergent Church will be stronger, more beautiful and closer to what it should be. Most people I mix with, who have an active church life within the Anglican Church, are frustrated that so much money gets pumped into infrastructure. Congregations are crippled by the upkeep of crumbling buildings that are not as central to our faith as they were when they were first built. Take away the overheads and the money from tithing/collections, would flood into the parched areas of the Church where it is needed. At the time of the early church, money was used to look after widows, orphans and the poor.

During the last recession, a church in a fishing village in Scotland found it's numbers had dwindled; the village was crippled and unemployment was rife. The core group at the church had a radical idea. Where employment was lacking, they used what resources the church had... to employ the villagers in the community who were without work. They paid money for them to repair fences etc. The church numbers began to rise... this was nothing to do with preaching or people being coerced by "bribery". People started to come back first as a show of gratitude for the support the church had shown and out of curiosity. However, having had their physical needs taken care of... they began to discover that their spiritual needs were also being catered for.

If you look in the Bible, this is exactly how Jesus and the early apostles handled things. preaching often followed healing. The light you demonstrate in your actions and attitudes towards others, is the key to evangelism. The Bible says that if we preach and prophesy without love... then we are a sounding gong or a clashing cymbal. What better way to demonstrate Christ's real, unconditional love, than to actively look after the needs of the people around you who are in need. Some commentators (notably Martin Luther) have criticised the Epistle of James for running counter to the idea of salvation by grace through faith. In fact, what i believe James is actually saying in his letter, is that if we don't demonstrate faith by our actions and attitudes, then people will never truly see it.

It's true that God can move in a really dynamic way, perhaps through a powerful sermon... or by timely words... or just by divinely pouring out his Spirit on an unsuspecting community... but if we aren't reflecting the fruit of the Spirit in our lives, if we aren't responding to the Holy Spirit in our own walk, then people will pass by and maybe miss the moment. If people see us slaving laboriously with religion, they are going to cross the road and walk on the other side of the street very quickly. However, if we are living in a way that shows we actually understand the freedom Christ gives us, in our own daily lives... we are being active and faithful witnesses.

The article also makes a very bold conclusion that the report "makes it clear that Christianity is becoming a minority religion". This is slanted and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of modern Christianity in the western world. The Church of England and Methodist Church responded by pointing out the popularity of the Fresh Expressions movement.

The church is adapting... it is learning that you can't be conceited and sit on yesterday's laurels, you have to go to where people are... and this is what Fresh Expressions is all about... heck, for that matter it's one of the main reasons I blog.

Ministers might be in decline... but theological colleges are bursting, young people are deciding to reinterpret what ministry means in new and exciting ways.

Buildings may close but house groups are becoming a more and more important of church life.

Is Christianity dying out in the West? No way, not on my watch.

It's Pentecost and I'll let you into a little something I know...

The Holy Spirit is the church's best kept secret. More and more people are discovering the Spirit on their personal journey... and that's worth more than a thousand churches or ministers. A Spirit filled people... will light the way for others.

Come Holy Spirit.

In Defence of Bishops

It isn't very often you find me leaping to the defence of bishops in the wake of some of the eccentric political statement s they are prone to making.

However, as I was heading out for church in the morning I caught Gloria Hunniford on "The Heaven and Earth show" referring to a news article from the week regarding the bishops of Carlisle and Liverpool, who apparently claimed that flooding and disaster were God's judgement being poured out on our society for its sins.

Naturally just a day after I posted my own thoughts on climate change, it seems an especially relevant topic to discuss.

In attempt to clarify the bishops' position, a spokesman was quoted in the Church Times as saying the following:

“The Bishop of Carlisle did not say that God ‘sent’ the floods. He and the Bishop of Liverpool did point out what environmental campaigners have been saying for years: that the floods are a consequence of global warming, which is a lack of restraint and lack of care for our planet.”

The Bishop of Liverpool also pointed out that we live in a world of consequence... where our actions for good and ill, have effects on others. What they were apparently trying to point out was that if we live selfishly and with out regard to other people and God, there are going to be negative consequences... because that is how the world works... and that one example of this is man's influence on climate change. If we buy a menagerie of electrical appliances and leave them running 24 hours a day, and if we jet set around the world regardless of the damage we know it does... and then don't bother to clear up the mess we make... the natural consequences of our actions are going to come back to haunt us.

As a Christian I of course believe God is sovereign. However I do often wonder if some of the apocalyptic "judgements" that appear in the Bible are actually God pronouncing the consequences of our own sin... things we have brought on our selves, as much as or rather than him being wrathful.

Take for example the Fall of Man... I have sometimes wondered whether it is whether it is the truth told in a compacted narrative format. Mankind partakes of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil... and becomes more intelligent, able to reason between right and wrong. You might understand why God increases the pains of childbirth for women... as a consequence of our increased intelligence, we would have proportionally bigger brains... making for proportionally bigger babies - much harder to squeeze out. I am also convinced that the reason man is told he will work by the sweat of his brow until the day he dies.. is in some ways a direct consequence of our separation from God. By becoming aware of good and evil, we come to thinking we know best.. and become reliant on our own efforts rather than God's gracious provision. If this were not true, then why does God graciously pour out his provision to people who in the Bible are desperate and at their wit's end? It is because they recognise at that point that they need him, that they can't go on alone.

So I wonder if we should consider this for some of the stuff in Revelation? A third of the earth scorched and waters poisoned? Well we are certainly having a decent crack at engineering those conditions!

Something to think about.

The Return

I returned to my spiritual cradle on Sunday.

My father is coming to the end of his year of being the town mayor (for the second time). It is customary for the outgoing mayor to hold a civic service (according to whichever belief or non-belief the mayor follows), where local dignitaries from around the town, district and even county are present. In the case of my dad, the service was held at the Anglican church of St. Nicholas.

My dad is a family orientated man and being such, wanted my sister, her boyfriend and myself to play a role in the service. For Charlotte and Ron, this meant playing music... and for my part, I was asked to read the Old Testament reading.

St. Nick's is an interesting place for me; as it was the family church, it was there that I first became aware of the concept of God... it therefore marks the beginning of my spiritual journey. However, at a certain age I realised the place was not good for me and if I was to have any hope of blossoming spiritually, I needed to find my own way and so I left. I'm very wary of the place given the spiritual history of the town, the influence of Freemasons and the lack of spiritual nourishment I tend to feel on the odd occasion I do go at Christmas or Easter.

Waiting for the service to begin, I was a little nervous... because I didn't know whereabouts on the page, my reading would be. This feeling soon dissipated however as the organ resounded for the first hymn (Guide Me O, Though Great Redeemer). I really felt inspired to belt out the tune as loud I could. I feel it is a gift I have... not to lead in worship, but to sing in such a way as to enable others to lift their own praises higher.

The time came for my reading and I had NO fear, memories of past oppression did not even cross my mind. I just got up and delivered the scripture to the people. I just wanted it to read like Jesus would... more than that, I just wanted Jesus to read it through me. I kind of felt like I was making a statement of intent. A taste of things to eventually come. The town has been spiritually famished for some time... but many folk are just not aware of it. I'll tell you more about the actual passage in another post.

I continued to be moved by my dad's excellent choice of hymns (they may have been old, but they were certainly classic). Something that touched my heart was when the prayers were read. At first I thought one of them had been written by someone in the church prayer book, bu it became apparent that it was in fact a poetic prayer written empathetically in the first person, with regard to different individual groups and their various needs. I was especially touched by the prayer for/from the single person. I fall into this group and it is a group that is shamefully neglected in the prayers of many churches. I'm not saying we want to be at the top of the list, prayed for every week. I am saying that the occasional acknowledgment that sometimes the single path (whether it be by sovereign/personal choice or circumstance), can be a painful and lonely one to walk, wouldn't go amiss.

Ron played a Malawian folk song in the Chichewa language. It was a very fitting choice. It is about a town which is suffering from sickness and the people all blame an old man and make him a scapegoat, believing him to be a witch doctor. If you are interested in listening to more of Ron Nkomba's music, or finding out more about him, you can visit his Myspace profile, it is well worth a listen.

Like, the song Ron played, I believe my hometown is spiritually sick... and various groups of people blame various other groups for why that is. However, only a fool accuses the flower or the fruit as the source of wrong... but neglects the root, from which both flower and fruit draw their nourishment.

I've attached some pictures of the party after the service, I've been told I "scrub up quite well":

Regards

N