Forces Awaken

I'm very excited.

We are so very near to two big events in the calendar - one secular, the other religious. The first is the release of the new Star Wars film this week (I've got my tickets for a 3D showing on Wednesday (going solo... Han Solo), and a 2D showing with friends on Thursday. Here's a fan re-edit and mash up of the trailers:

The second of course is Christmas... the time of year when Christians like me celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the new hope that the law and prophets spoke of in the Old Testament.

I've been thinking a lot lately about what links these two very different events personally, in my own mind. I've found it very interesting and poignant that all through the promotional months we have seen precious little of the main protagonist of the original trilogy - Luke Skywalker.  Fans have been getting very anxious about it, some are worried it means that Luke has turned to the dark side, others think he won't be in it much at all... still others have come up with the (crazy) idea that Adam Driver's character (Kylo Ren), is actually Luke and the casting of Driver is all part of some big conspiracy. I share the anxiety but not the fear. We've all become hung up on the question of "Where is Luke Skywalker"?

However, I keep going back to what J.J. Abrams said about accepting the job of director for Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. He said that originally he was not going to take the job on, but then he was told the synopsis by Star Wars producer Kathleen Kennedy. It was a single question - "Who is Luke Skywalker?" That single concept turned him around 180 degrees... and he was on board from that moment on. He has since been quoted in interview as saying:

“The idea that Luke Skywalker now, nearly 40 years after the movie came out, I started thinking he would be as good as of a myth to people who are 19, 20 years old. The idea of a new group of young people, not knowing who he is or who any of the characters were, is the beginning of what became the story of the film.”

And there in a nutshell is what for me is connecting the release of the new Star Wars, with Christmas. Let me adapt that Abrams quote and alter the subject... because I actually think it says something quite important about the subject of faith:

“The idea that Jesus Christ now, nearly 2,000 years after his public ministry, I started thinking he would be as good as of a myth to people who are 19, 20 years old. The idea of a new group of young people, not knowing who he is or who any of the characters were, is the beginning of what became the story of the film.”

You see therein lies the heart of the matter.  As Christians we get so hung up about demanding "Where is Jesus?" in the festive celebrations... but that's defensive and about fearing what we care about will be ignored by others.  True evangelism isn't driven by the fear of rejection... it's driven mutually by the love of the subject  and the love of the uninformed audience. We actually need to move the question on.  We need the question to be "Who is Jesus Christ?".

One of the main trailers for the Force Awakens has a line of dialogue between Rey and Han Solo, it literally made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. Rey is talking to Han about the history of the Rebel Alliance and mentions that there are stories about what happened. Han's response is brief and to the point:

"It's true. All of it. The Dark Side, the Jedi. They're real."

That it is Han Solo who speaks this way of the Force is deeply significant; after all in the first movie he appears in, his view on the Force is very different, telling the young Luke Skywalker:

"Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. 'Cause no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense."

That's quite some turn around.

It may well be that Han's concept of the personal significance of the Force isn't much different, but for him to have come forward as a kind of reluctant evangelist and state "it's real", is immensely powerful.

The changing views of Han Solo

For the record, I'm not saying in any way that Jesus is a myth... I'm saying quite the opposite. I'm merely saying that if we want to stop people seeing Jesus as a myth, we need to move on from repeating stories to them that they already know (when they know them), and show the reality of Christ in how we live.

Often people get hung up on dressing Christianity up, be it with the bells and smells of tradition or an explosive light show that would put even Michael Bay to shame; but actually if we took a step back we'd see the simplicity.  It all boils down to conviction - a person or a group of people stepping forward and demonstrating with sincerity that it happened... that Jesus was, is and always shall be real and has had a tangible presence in their life.

Han Solo is not a Jedi... in fact he was (and almost certainly still is), a bit of a rogue. He can't levitate X Wing fighters and furniture and he can't perform mind tricks... but what he can do is be honest about his loyalties and the things he has seen.  I think what I'm saying is that for Christians, it doesn't matter how the Holy Spirit has gifted us in relation to things like prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, leading, teaching and the like... we might think we are fairly lacking in any or all of those areas, but God still speaks through our everyday lives and we should not underestimate the power, relevance and importance of our own day-to-day testimony. It's because Han Solo has known Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance that he is able to speak with total conviction about their reality. Likewise because we have known the presence of Jesus in our own lives we too can speak of him with conviction:

"It's true. All of it. The sinful nature, the Saviour. They're real." 

Over to you:

• What excites or worries you most about the forthcoming Star Wars film?
• What excites or worries you about Christmas?
• Is Christmas true for you? All of it? Is it real?

Necessary Diversions

I've been thinking a lot about how some diversions can be incredibly important, even if we don't know it at the time.

Sometimes on "The Way" we have to go a bit out of our way.

Having got home from work incredibly late last night, I found my way wandering towards the supermarket to pick up something that could vaguely be described as dinner. On the way there I ran into a friend's dad who was returning from the pub. This particular friend has had a few problems and has been off radar for a while, so I decided to enquire as to how he was and chatted to his dad for a few minutes. In the course of the conversation I discovered that my friend was in the aforementioned pub. We went our separate ways and I continued to the supermarket. I was going to text my friend but in my heart I believed the right thing to do was to go and meet him. Having left the shop I made my way to the pub, found my friend and chatted to him for about an hour or so... checking up on him and putting the world to rights.

We don't live to ourselves alone and sometimes we have to accept that on our own personal journeys, situations or opportunities are going to arise that require us to go off on a tangent into unexpected places or circumstances.

If we look at the Bible there are plenty of examples of this. Some come through an act of God, others come through consequence and still others come through a conscious decision. To quote just a few of these examples: Joseph was diverted from life at his father's side by his brothers' choice to sell him into slavery; Moses was diverted away from Egypt and into Midian after he beat an Egyptian oppressor to death; Elijah was diverted to Mount Horeb after pronouncing judgement on the prophets of Baal; Jonah diverted himself when God called on him to preach to the Assyrians in Nineveh... and the apostle Paul was diverted to Macedonia by the Holy Spirit, when he tried to get to Bithynia.

In each of the situations listed above, God uses the traveller's change of direction to bring about a change in their character or their calling... or to directly benefit the lives of the new people he encounters. Joseph ascended to  position of power where he became an instrument of salvation both for Egypt and his own people. Moses was brought to a place where his fugitive self would dwindle as he learned how to become a shepherd... first merely with sheep... but later a shepherd of Israel. many generations later, Elijah found himself at the exact same spot - both geographically and emotionally. Elijah had just witnessed the might and power of God manifested in an awesome public display, he had every reason to feel confident; yet he found himself fleeing in terror at the threat of repercussions to his ministry. How many of us have experienced that very same emotion? How many of us have ridden the crest of a spiritual wave and felt overexposed, naked and vulnerable when the momentum has ebbed away? I would wager it happens to a great many people.

Jonah's notorious disobedience resulted in an arguable enhancement of his prophetic ministry. When God called him to account and caused him to end up inside the belly of a great fish, Jonah found himself stewed in its gastric juices. He repented, was delivered and became the inheritor of a literal "big fish" story. The city he was being sent to (Nineveh), was a centre of Dagon worship at the time. Dagon was to all intents and purposes a manfish god. Imagine how much his gastric bleached appearance coupled with his bizarre account would have amplified his message and ministry.

When Paul tried to travel from Mysia to Bithynia, we are told the Holy Spirit would not allow him to cross the river Rhyndacus (which served as the border). We are not told quite how that worked... but the subsequent vision that Paul received led him in the direction of Macedonia instead... which led to a series of eventful stories from his ministry... not least of which was his miraculous "non-escape" from jail. 

However, my favourite diversionary story comes from the ministry of Jesus:

That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side.”  Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him.  A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped.  Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”

Jesus Restores a Demon-Possessed Man

They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.

When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!” For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”

Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”

“My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.

 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.

As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. Jesus did not let him, but said, “Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.”

Mark 4:35-5:19

Most people treat these two stories above as separate isolated incidents. I find this strange as the narrative clearly indicates that the stories flow into one another. I have long held the belief that Jesus got in the boat and faced the fierce squall because he was travelling to meet and release the Gerasenes demoniac. Not only that, but it appears this was also the one and only reason he did it... because no sooner had he driven Legion out of his victim, he was back off in the boat again to raise Jairus' daughter on the other side of the Sea of Galilee.

I think this is fantastic because it demonstrates that there are no mathematics, numbers or equations in God's compassion. Everything Jesus does is motivated by love - amor propter caritatem (love for love's sake). Whether the cause is one person... or the entire human race, the cost is never too high. Jesus put himself and his apostles in harm's way, for the benefit of one individual (at least I'm sure that's how the apostles saw it at the time).

The needs of the many...

In Star Trek, there is a wonderful philosophical revolving door that mirrors this concept. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spock lays down his life to save everybody aboard the Enterprise. As his body begins to fail due to being saturated with radiation poisoning, he presses himself up against the glass partition that separates him from Captain Kirk and points out that he did it because "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few... or the one". It's a touching and very sad scene and the philosophy behind it has caused the line to be quoted frequently ever since.

The needs of the one...

However in the very next film in the series - Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, this very concept is turned completely on its head as Captain Kirk and the rest of the main characters risk their careers, the USS Enterprise and their very lives in a desperate bid to recover Spock's body and reintegrate it with his katra (soul), which is residing inside Doctor McCoy. When the resurrected Spock asks Kirk why he did it, Kirk replies "Because the needs of the one, outweigh the needs of the many".

One of the great traps religions often fall into is a focus on the collective at the expense of the individual; this leads to a bureaucratic form of management that is more suited to machinery. On the other hand, other religions fall into the other pitfall of focusing on personal enlightenment and development which can become a form of isolationism if done out of context.

Neither of these concepts really match the one that the Church was modelled on. As a Christian, I believe the great thing about a relationship with Christ is that value is place on the individual as well as the collective. The model the Church is supposed to follow is that of the body. As Paul so eloquently demonstrated in his first letter to the Corinthians, though we make up one body we equally have our place and have our own value. If one part suffers or has a need, the rest of the body suffers or shares that need. If you injure your leg,you will shift the weight of your entire body to ease the burden on that leg.

We are not machines and we are not amoebas. If we are truly serious about being a body... a family, then we need to accept that we too will sometimes have to "shift weight". We can't always go our own way and do our own thing. Yes, we may have a certain calling or way of doing things... but being a Christian means accepting that we can be diverted from these things for the sake of Christ.

I'd love to hear any thoughts you may have... specifically with regard to (but not restricted to) the following questions:

• Have you ever been significantly diverted by God in your Christian life?
• Do you have any personal examples of "The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few"?
• Do you have any personal examples of "The needs of the few are greater than the needs of the many"?

Worth the Wait (Some Doctor Who SPOILERS)

I'm writing this blog hot on the heels of having watched the new Doctor Who opener The Eleventh Hour.

I had faith that Stephen Moffat would look after the series, even when my initial reaction to Matt Smith's inheritance of the role first became known was a little queasy... and when the naysayers and doubters came out in force.

I didn't understand how it could work... but if you are a long time fan of the Doctor, you learn to look beyond these things and trust that things will work out.

The Eleventh Hour was brilliant. I think it was paced really wisely. The script gave breathing room for Smith to work into the role by injecting regular bouts of humour. In truth one of the things that makes Doctor Who magical anyway is its ability to offset dark plots with excellent humour and multifaceted characters... that and of course it's unique in built regeneration plot device that helps keep the show eternally evergreen.

There were plenty of memorable quotes, especially the line about having nothing to fix the universe with except a post office which was closed... and the Doctor admitting he was a mad man with a box (but that this was a truth that one day your life might depend on).

Mothers across the country may very well be terrified at the prospect that their children will even as I type, be emptying the pantry of custard powder, the freezers of fish fingers... and emulating the Doctor's new culinary invention - fish finger custard.

Who dares me to try it? ;)

Some people have been a bit critical of Karen Gillan... but I don't see why, she did pretty well. Maybe those critics are just paranoid racists and think that she's going to to turn out like Bonnie Langford just because of the hair.

Bonnie Langford was just "naturally" annoying in Doctor Who... it had nothing to do with her hair.

I liked her (No not Bonnie, I mean Karen!!!!! Phew I think I got away with that).

I found it quite appropriate that the episode fell on Easter Saturday. The Doctor promised his companion (then, companion to be), that he would return. However he then disappeared and she was left to wonder if she'd gone crazy and had an imaginary friend throughout her childhood... felt let down. Similarly, it's no secret that Jesus had told his followers on several occasions that he was going to return... but future promises are often a cold comfort in the face of disappointment (in Amy's case), or desperate grief (in the case of the apostles). As human beings we experience things emotionally and deal with things in the here and now. We are linear creatures and struggle to see the big picture.

Stephen Moffat described Amy Pond as being the kind of person who had become bitter and cynical about things like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy at an early age because of the Doctor's failure to return when she expected.

I liked the way that the Doctor returned to a cynical, hard hearted Amy Pond years down the line and convinced her to trust him. Ultimately he understood that the inner child that craved adventure and yearned to believe, still existed deep within; I think it was to this that he was appealing to. Certainly at the end when he invited her to join him, he pretty much explicitly states this.

When Jesus returned to life (and importantly he wasn't late in keeping his appointment), his disciples probably had the same issue. They had to choose between trusting their cynicism, fear and depression... or open themselves up to the possibility that the wonderful but unimaginable was true... and the latter is something our inner child is equipped to do.

This is something that interests me generally, but also particularly at the moment because I see many people I have grown up with filled with bitterness and cynicism to matters of faith. They unconsciously do this because of how God, Jesus and the whole topic of faith and spirituality was presented to them in their youth. Life and love were exorcised from faith and the truth was substituted cold religion... and that was something that they had no love for.

I wonder what would happen if they realised that the risen Jesus is not like the Tooth Fairy at all, is VERY real... and that he's there appealing past their hard heartedness and towards their inner child (not their naivety... it is possible to be childlike without being naive).

Upon his return, the Doctor asked Amy to trust him for just 20 minutes. It was only after that time was up that she finally understood that he was that person who she initially trusted and laid her hopes upon as a child.

Maybe that's where my friends need to be. Maybe that's where you need to be. Perhaps you aren't ready to trust God on a journey of a lifetime just yet. However... maybe, just maybe you need to give Jesus 20 minutes... or however long is relevant in your circumstances. Give him that chance to reaffirm with you that he is not an imaginary friend and not a tooth fairy; nor the taskmaster who demands robotic followers... but a real person, the fantastic one who can be relied upon in life.

Maybe this is your time to get reacquainted.

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."

Revelation 3:20

Remembering...

It can't (or at least it shouldn't) have escaped your attention that November devotes a reasonable amount of time to acts of remembrance:

There is Bonfire Night:

"Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot..."

Then we have Remembrance Sunday and the armistice; commemorating the sacrifices of those who sacrifice themselves to protect our way of life.

In the United States, there is the festival of Thanksgiving, where time is set aside to recall how the initial English colonists were saved by the kindness of the native tribes from certain death during their first bitter winter in the Americas.

So, naturally with these in mind, particularly Remembrance Sunday, I've been thinking a lot about the importance of remembering things.

More specifically, I've been asking myself which part of remembering is important to us as individuals?

Human beings are sentimental creatures. We paint, we sculpt, we write, we mark, we build and we invent rituals both simplistic and elaborate... all to preserve the memory of things that are important to us.

It's a great strength, but it can just easily be one of our greatest weaknesses.

What do I mean by this?

I will explain but first let me tell you a little story about an oak tree:

It grew local to where I live and was known as the Elephant Oak/Elephant Tree. It took it's name from the unique shape that the roots had formed above ground. It really did look like an elephant. Many generations of children played beneath the bows of that tree, or scaled it's trunk... but eventually, time moved on and the land the tree occupied, was needed to help develop Alcester's new bypass and that the tree would need to be felled.

It was decided that the memory of the tree needed to be preserved and so the local authority decided to remove and varnish a section of trunk... the tree was felled and the trunk segment now sits to this day on top of the bypass bridge nearby to where it once stood.

The reason I told you this story is that the act of preservation is a disgrace to the memory of the tree. If you passed by today, you wouldn't know what the significance of the random wooden object was. It doesn't even look like an elephant anymore... not really. The point I am trying to illustrate is that in seeking to preserve something material of the tree... the very reason the tree was special... has been lost.

This is a microcosm of much larger things.

Earlier in the year, when I travelled to Israel and saw the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, my heart sank... the whole place is encased in shrines and the reason that place is special becomes lost in the regalia (and for that matter, the hysteria). It's quite reassuring that there's a place just down the road that, even if it's claim to historicity is slightly more tenuous, seeks to preserve the memory of what happened in the original Holy Week in a manner that helps people contemplate those events and their relevance both universal and personal.

I was reminded of this several weeks ago when I got caught up in a television debate to do with the celebration of religious festivals being covered on television. The Bishop of Lichfield bless him, argued that Christmas was THE key festival of the year.

I nearly choked on my Shreddies.

As a Christian I believe that Easter is far more important (something I was told once as a boy by Mr Bowen... and knew in my heart was true as soon as I heard it). Christmas is merely the wrapping paper... Easter is the present. Without the need for Easter... there would have been no cause for Christmas. In this instance I can categorically state that the chicken most definitely came before the egg!

You see the danger is, that we can get so caught up in celebrating or remembering an event... that we actually forget what the event commemorates and it becomes meaningless and disrespectful.

In the same debate, a lady vicar spoke of people being disenfranchised with religion.

Do you know something? I thought her choice of words was very interesting and unintentionally ironic.

Why?

Because people do see religion as a franchise... a marketing brand, a spiritual business empire... and they dismiss it without hesitating even for just one moment to dig below the surface and see what is really there.

It's not even with the big festivals either. Sometimes the very way that worship is organised seems to hinder the act of genuine worship itself. We can become so wrapped up in how we do something... that we neglect the God who we worship.

At this time of year, I think a lot about the mantra of the Poppy Appeal:

"Remember the dead, but don't forget the living".

I find that as much as that statement is true about war veterans and serving soldiers, it is equally true about tradition. If we benefit from a certain type of worship, that's great... but we must not forget the living God who inspires us to worship, if it was not for Him... those words and/or tunes would be lifeless and their true meaning lost.

In C.S Lewis' The Last Battle, there is a memorable scene where a group of dwarves are in the presence of Aslan himself... and on the verge of being in the new Narnia... but they sadly are left behind because they are hard hearted... and all that they can see is the inside of a dank stable... and not the wondrous truth that is actually all around them. Being unable to accept the utopian reality presented and freely offered to them, they settle for the dystopian reality they have grown accustomed to.

My heart breaks when I think that the same is true for many today... either through their own unbelief or through a misrepresentation of the Gospel message, there are people in the world today who are settling for the dirty stable when the treasures of heaven are just right in front of them... waiting for their acceptance.

There is gold in them there hills. It's true... I've found it... OK so I've only got a few nuggets... but I'm hungry for more... and the great thing about the treasure to be found in a relationship with God is something that Jesus pointed out:

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. "

Matthew 6:19-21

The treasure God gives is real... it is imperishable and it is not something that can be stolen away from you.

It's not even something that is intangible that awaits us at the end of time. When God pours out his Spirit, the lost are found, the prisoners are set free, the eyes of the blind are opened, the lame walk and the dead are raised.

I believe it.

But I also believe that many of us who proclaim the Gospel are wary of acknowledging it 's most awesome power to transform lives on a very supernatural level because of our own fears and insecurities.

We are scared to step out of the boat for fear that we will sink and be shown up for charlatans.

We are scared to step out of the boat because if we succeed they will think we are nutjobs.

So all too often the temptation is there to provide people with a spiritual crutch rather than the ability to walk in the light of Christ.

... and i believe they are aware of it.

We need to offer people real food, real treasure.... and that requires us to be transformed first.

There is an old story about the Pope and Thomas Aquinas:

As he was showing Thomas as the glories of the Vatican, the Pope remarked: "We cannot say with Peter of old, silver and gold have I none" Thomas replies: "Nor can we say, "Such as I give to thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."

They were both quoting from the book of Acts. One has to wonder if the two viewpoints are interconnected... after all Jesus did say that we cannot serve two masters. The more we focus on money, the harder it becomes to focus on God.

In the Old Testament book of Malachi, God throws down a challenge to his people who have been holding back on him. He urges them to bring the full amount of their tithing into the Temple. This is what he says:

"Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

It's like that big scene in Casino Royale. James Bond is playing for big stakes and the only way he can win, is to go all in and risk losing it all. He does so and cleans everybody out.

The promises of God are even greater.... but they require an even greater risk. Lets face it though, the stakes are higher so why shouldn't that be the case with the risk? The kingdom of God can quite literally transform people's lives in this world and the next. The trouble is, to get to the good stuff you have to be prepared to lay it all on the line for God. Let's not deceive ourselves though - the things we play with... money, feelings, relationships, reputation. - they aren't truly ours anyway.

So the question I guess is: when God calls on us to place our poker chips on the table... are we prepared to go all in?

I just want to conclude with what I believe were Christ's words with regard to the matter:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mark 8:34-37

Am I a "Cultural Polytheist"?

I have a confession to make.

As a child, I started to develop an interest in the myths and legends of the the ancient world - Greek, Roman and Norse. I used to love the stories. So I wonder... am I actually a cultural polytheist?

It should be pointed out that my love of these stories has not really shaped any of my mainstream beliefs. OK, so I have an outlandish theory that the ancient myths might in some way be related to the passage in Genesis that refers to the Nephilim... but I certainly don't believe in the pantheon of false gods from ancient polytheism.

For the record I don't consider myself a cultural polytheist, nor I am certain did C.S. Lewis or Tolkien (despite their great love of mythology), and neither did St. Paul (who actually quoted a few Greek hymns and altered their meanings... applying them to Christ). These people were all immersed in diverse cultures that they drew inspiration from. For Lewis and Tolkien, that was looking at how mythology worked as a precursor for the Gospel message. For St. Paul, it was assimilating the culture to make the Gospel more accessible to a wider audience.

Going back further into antiquity; in the Old Testament we have characters like Daniel who refused to even pay lip service when asked to worship a statue of Nebuchadnezzar. This resulted in him infamously being sent as a snack for the king's pet lions (a fate Daniel escaped by virtue of divine intervention). Why did he feel the need to do this? He could have just pretended... he knew that it was all nonsense, surely it didn't matter whether he feigned worship, for nobody would know. However Daniel wasn't built like that; as far as he was concerned, he would know and God would know... and that was enough for him. Whether you agree with that point of view or not, you seriously have to respect the man for sticking to his principles when the personal cost could have been the ultimate one.

However, lets not beat about the bush any longer. This article is not about whether I consider myself a "cultural polytheist"at all; in fact I'd laugh you out of the room if you suggested it. I consider it a pretentious label, with no real meaning. I am of course really referring to Richard Dawkin's recent assertion that he in fact is a "cultural christian".

He claims his willingness to sing Christmas carols is evidence of this... but that just makes him hypocritical in my book. If you don't believe the words you are singing... then you shouldn't be singing them. If you don't believe the sentiments and words of a prayer or creed, then you should not utter it. It is a dangerous game because words really do have power.

I have told you on record of the times I have altered a praise song's lyrics, or not sung a hymn because I disagree with the theology in them. If I don't believe something or agree with it... pretending isn't really an option.

Furthermore he claims that he does not want to stop Christian traditions. This must come as a massive disappointment to the National Secular Society (which he is an honorary associate of).

For they claim:

"Religion should be a matter of private conscience, for the home and place of worship; it must not have privileged input into the political arena where history shows it to bring conflict and injustice."

So that's carol singing out the window then.

Not that I'm knocking Dawkin's claims. If he does not want to slap a ban on evangelism, that's fine by me. That's where the imbalance is you see... the most ardent secularists want to be able to peddle their views openly without allowing religions to have the same footing. If secularists want an open forum for their views, that's fine... but true free speech demands that they demonstrate the same level of respect to theists.

Lets examine that quote from the National Secular Society again.

Do they really claim that history has demonstrated that religion has nothing positive to offer in the political arena? Really?

How about Abolition? That's a pretty big hole in the argument... and what about racial civil rights? William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King must be spinning in their graves at that ridiculous assertion. Christianity was championing civil rights long before the National Secular Society came along and started stealing fire.

I would argue that in fact, it is neither religion, belief (two different things) or secularism that cause harm in themselves. I would say that the weight of history demonstrates that it is in fact the human condition. You can call it what you want... but I call it the sinful nature.

I don't think a person can really claim to be merely a "cultural christian". Ok, sometimes a man may have doubts about just where he is in the spectrum of faith... but when it all boils down to it, you are either a Christian or you are not. Christianity is not about mere religious practice. In truth it should surpass all this.

Christ came to transform us, that we may no longer conform to the sinful nature - the human condition:

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Romans 12:2

He came to set us free from the very things that bind us to our willingness to hurt others. "Cultural Christianity" if it exists at all, is not equipped to do that, for it does not provide access to God - the source of all goodness. That is something only Jesus could do... and through Jesus we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, who equips us with the power and freedom to obey the Father.

Christmas is a good time to ponder where you are with regard to God. If you consider yourself a "cultural christian", I strongly encourage you to consider these words from Isaiah:

"The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men."

Isaiah 29:13

Is that you? Do you follow God by singing songs and saying words that you don't really engage with? I'm not saying you should abandon using those forms of worship... but I am saying that you should examine the words you are saying with your heart.

UnBEARable

I've been following the news with regard to the plight of Gillian Gibbons, with some interest this week.

It is utter madness.

I understand that in Islamic law, it is wrong to portray anything as Mohamed; we've been through that episode in Europe last year with the furore concerning the Mohamed cartoons. I recall commenting at the time that the principle difference between Jesus and Mohamed over personal slander, was that Jesus endured it... whilst Mohamed legislated against it (in my view, to preserve his public image).

We could talk theology here... but what is the point? The root of this argument is less about theology and more about the nature of children. Reports suggest that Ms Gibbons merely facilitated the discussion about what to name the "offending" teddy bear; the children drew their own conclusions.

The children no doubt chose to name the teddy after character they were familiar with... and why not? After all, we live in a culture where the name Mohamed is charting in the top flight of name choices; for a child, theology doesn't even enter their minds over such things.

Furthermore, Sudan is possibly one of the last places on Earth that could claim to be in a position to make moral life and death judgements. They need to get their own house in order and make sure the Darfur conflict is fully resolved before making such assumptions collectively as a people.

This kind of news story gets me riled because it plays directly into the radical secularists hands. I'm talking about the kind of people who practically come out in hives when you mention the words "religion","faith", "God" or even "spirituality". Yes... a lot of bad has been done in the name of God... but that is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Godly people have been a force for positive change throughout history.

People might be reading this and saying "but if they said it about Jesus, you'd be the same".

No I wouldn't.

As I have stated before... Jesus did not legislate to protect himself, he came to endure the scorn of men... and redeem them despite it:

"He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

Isaiah 53:3-5

Jesus wasn't concerned with how men perceived him because he knew who he was and his Father - God, affirmed it publicly.

I am utterly convinced that Jesus reaction would be completely different, because he understands the hearts, minds and souls of little children:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there."

Matthew 19:13-15

"He called a little child, whom he placed among them. And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes a humble place—becoming like this child—is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

Matthew 18:2-5

Jesus would never call for the death of someone over such a thing... he even said blasphemy against him (the Son), would be forgiven (not that it's an excuse for us to partake in it). T conclude on a lighter note, I'll say that the harshest thing he'd do would probably be something along the lines of what Captain Sheridan did when confronted with a similar situation in Babylon 5:

Space the offending teddy... and not a human being for pities sake!

The Battle for Science Fiction's Soul

I promised the other day that I would respond to an article I had read recently in TV Zone magazine (issue #216).

The item (entitled "Deep Thought"), was written by John Binns. He posed the question "Why are Science Fiction series so obsessed with mystical themes such as destiny?"


By looking at an array of television shows including Heroes, Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, Doctor Who and Quantum Leap - from his own subjective viewpoint, he voiced concern that some science fiction programmes were playing fast and loose with evolutionary theory and by misunderstanding what evolution means... were threatening to let religion in through the back door.

Binns suggests that:

"the prosaic truth of natural selection is that the only choice that matters to a gene sequence is whether the individual who carries it decides to have children; everything else, at least as far as evolution is concerned, is irrelevant."

He even went as far in his criticism of modern science fiction, as to say that:

"Doctor Who has joined a cultural pantheon that understands so little of the concept of evolution that it might as well be an act of God after all"

Binns has made the classic mistake of believing that evolutionary theory is the exclusive property of atheism.

It really isn't.

I have many Christian friends who have a genuine and passionate relationship with God and yet are prepared to consider that Genesis is allegorical. There are many reputable scientists who feel the same way - too many to list. They believe in evolution as part of God's creative process... and so do not subscribe to the view that Binns expresses.

I could turn this post into an exploration of the various different ways that Christians choose to understand the created order... and there are several - contrary to the popular misnomer, not every Christian is a literal 6 day believer. However, I am writing this as a response to an attack on fiction not fact... and so now is not the time.

Binns also writes about the ideas of God, religion and fate working their way into science fiction:

"What's worrying about this trend is not just that it has persisted and made it into the mainstream, but that it has blended with a general ignorance about what evolution means, threatening to let religion in to popular culture by the back door."

Binns is clearly imposing his subjective view on us in this article. I stress once again, that there is no singular view on "what evolution means". Scientifically minded atheists are entitle to their views. However as I have pointed out before when being critical of Richard Dawkins, their views are not sacrosanct by any means. Their views when it comes to "why", are equally subjective... and we do well to be cautious of them when they preach their own flavour of fundamentalism.

The right to "freedom of religion" (inclusive of atheism, humanism and agnosticism), must not be superseded by "freedom from religion". The former is inclusive, the latter exclusive.

Science fiction writers should be absolutely free to express any theistic or atheistic viewpoint they desire. Lets remember that roughly only 16% of people don't subscribe to a theistic belief of some nature, so it is wrong that only 16% of people get a say in what input goes into popular culture. Religion and faith in themselves are not a threat and should not be seen as something to keep out of popular culture. If it were the case, most of my blog posts would never exist... because I frequently reference popular culture, so did the apostle Paul for that matter(but there the comparison ends).

Besides, even if you could eradicate purposeful theistic parallels, the ideas and principles are so saturated into the collective psyche that religious allegory, ideology, iconography and imagery would continue to influence created works.

It should be noted that J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5 is actually an atheist. However he does not seek to impose his atheism on his audience. He accepts that religion plays an important role in peoples lives - and often plays on it (remaining assertive with his atheism but never aggressive). Here is a sequence from the first season episode The Parliament of Dreams:

Note that the first in line is an atheist. It is beautiful sequence is it not? Staczynski is objective, he holds his creative microscope up to religion and he is equally favourable and critical towards it. I believe that is a good attitude to have towards writing.

Returning to Binns who concludes in his article:

"In other words there's nothing wrong with a few outlandish non scientific ideas in the dramas we watch; the only thing to be careful of is when they're masquerading as something else. And when a drama presents itself as knowledgeable about something as important as evolution, we should be able to expect not a bundle of pseudo-religious ideas masquerading as science, but something more like the real thing."

In conclusion, I would like to encourage John Binns to take some time out to become knowledgeable about something as important as other people's beliefs... and how they interact and co-exist with scientific theory. Science is not equipped to make bold philosophical and ideological statements in itself, it is not designed to... and the last time a political organisation decided to hijack scientific theory (oddly enough evolution), for it's purposes; millions of people ended up in furnaces. Faith and reason both have their role to play and we should not be afraid of embracing either. Science fiction should continue to flourish in a carnival of religious and scientific diversity.

Something Fishy Going On?

I was having an interesting discussion with my dad last night.

When it comes to church and belief, Dad is much more traditional than I am. I'll accept some traditions... but I don't tend to follow just for their own sake.

I was asked if I wanted fish and chips tomorrow... never one to pass up a free meal, I of course said yes. Mum and Dad were both raised in the custom of not eating meat on Good Friday. Similarly, they never served either me or my sister meat on Good Friday, as we grew up. Last night I asked Dad why he thought that the tradition had been put in place. He wasn't entirely sure... but nonetheless he saw it as an important act of personal reverence on his part. If I were to guess, I would say that it is done out of respect for the fact that Jesus took on flesh and blood and died for us. Meat is flesh and blood... so to abstain from eating meat is an acknowledgement of what Jesus did.

I probably won't eat any meat tomorrow, but more because I don't want to cause concern for other people. As a Christian, I personally believe that Jesus sacrifice holds daily and eternal significance to me. I don't necessarily subscribe to the importance of festivals. every day is a gift from God... and should be treated as such. I believe in what Paul taught in his writings to the Romans:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written:

" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,

'every knee will bow before me;

every tongue will confess to God.'"

So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

What Paul writes here is amazing... it can be applied to so many different facets of the Christian life. If more people applied this passage to their lives, there would be a lot less disagreement among believers. What he is basically saying is that there are bound to be minor things that we see and do differently... but we should not impose our personal spirituality... the ways in which we worship or practice our belief on other Christians.

I really encourage you to consider what aspects of your faith that are not mandatory... you may be unnecessarily burdening other people with.

Choc Horror?

A sculpture of Jesus Christ - made out of chocolate, has been pulled from an exhibition in New York.

The decision was made after various religious groups (spearheaded by the Catholic League), piled the pressure on The Manhattan Lab Gallery.

I am a Christian, but I'm not going to blindly criticise a work of art without trying to understand what the artist was getting at first.

The points that seem to cause the most offence are the nudity of the Christ figure, the artistic medium used to represent him... and the fact that the public had been invited to eat the work when it was scheduled to be displayed.

Before I go on, I want to remind you that I was one of the people who was upset by The Jerry Springer musical - my reasons were different from most of the zealots... if you want to know my reasons, ask me. However, I feel it is only fair that you know that I had a position on that as it might view this article in a different context.

There are a couple of things that Christians should consider before preparing to cast stones. Firstly, when Jesus was actually crucified, he in all probability was completely naked - for it was part of the punishment of crucifixion: the physical agony of being mortally wounded and hung on a scaffold to die... coupled with the humiliation of being on public display, stripped of all clothing. Most crucifixes probably have loincloths, to stop people from being distracted from the deep meaning of Christ's sacrifice. Although, having said that... I have heard some suspicious people theorise that by putting a loincloth on Jesus, the Church is actually trying cover up his Jewish heritage. Personally I think Christ's Jewish heritage is something to celebrate.

Now, on to the medium being used - chocolate. Chocolate is a luxury food, it is sweet and sensual... not to mention it is comforting on a very bad day. True, it can be argued that it's desirability as a food can allude to sexuality... but I don't think that is what the artist was trying to convey. You could take it on a number of levels... it rather depends on what ideas the artist himself was trying to explore and get across. Chocolate, being a "feel good food" might imply that the artist was saying that followers of religion only worship because it makes them feel better.

What it makes me think about, is the fact that in western Christianity, we have a tradition of stuffing ourselves silly with chocolate eggs on Easter Sunday and celebrating the symbolism of new life. I have been told that the image of eggs and bunny rabbits actually comes from a mythological pagan goddess, who fell from the sky in an egg and possessed the ability to shape shift (usually into a rabbit). It would be easy for me as a Christian to point my finger at the artist's work and say it is inappropriate, that it belittles what Jesus did.

It is also easy for us to tuck into chocolate on Resurrection Sunday (what the Church calls Easter), thank Jesus for what he did and get on with our merry lives without giving him a second thought.

If your father, your mother, brother, sister, spouse or friend lay down their life for you... do you really think it would be appropriate to remember there actions by eating junk food on the anniversary? I am not saying it is sinful to eat chocolate, I am saying it is important that if we really have this belief... we should have some form of conviction that goes beyond some kind of seasonal gimmick.

If we point the finger at this artist's work, we only serve to highlight the hypocrisy in a non-biblical tradition associated with the Church. To condemn this work of art is also to condemn the triviality with which we sometimes treat our own beliefs.

One of my favourite sculptures (admittedly I have never seen it, but I love the concept), is Mark Wallinger's Ecce Homo:

Here, Jesus is portrayed in such a manner as to liken him to his own race... in a way that is relevant to their more contemporary sufferings. He stands stripped to his underwear with the crown of thorns adorning his head. However, his head is shaved... and he bears a tattooed number not unlike those found on the arms of Auschwitz survivors. A very bold and poignant statement on the artist's part, worthy of commendation. Astonishingly this piece of work also came under fire from a London councillor who felt the use of white marble was racist! What an imbecile the man must have been!

We should not be so quick to assume everything is evil. We should look for the good in people's work... and then if we find none, be honest and frank about it based on informed opinion.

I am ashamed at the fundamentalists who have spouted off without thinking... and I am not one of them.

The Fanatical Atheist Strikes Again

As Monty Python would say - "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

However, as time wears on it seems that we can increasingly expect Richard Dawkins.

Intolerant, obdurate, contemptuous, dogmatic and fanatical... words and charges that many people lay at the door of the religious minded. I now nail those very same charges firmly on the door of Dawkins.

His latest target is the comic Peter Kay... Peter Kay? For pities sake! This isn't even (by his own admission) some great theologian, this is just a guy who in his humour, pretty much represents the man on the street. I'm sure this is no coincidence... but both men have books nominated for the Galaxy British Book Awards. If ridicule of Kay's work as an act of sabotage is the real motivation behind Dawkin's attack, then his strategy is knavish, underhand and unprofessional... and will, if there is any justice, be taken into account by those deciding who receives the accolade.

Kay, in his autobiography "The Sound of Laughter" writes:

"I believe in a God of some kind, in some sort of higher being. Personally I find it very comforting."

Dawkins quoted this very excerpt and scoffed waspishly:

"How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe
something because he finds it 'comforting'?"

It's a little bit of a jump - an unscientific assumption on Dawkin's part, because Kay didn't necessarily say that comfort was the motivation for his belief... but that a byproduct of his belief was comfort. I'll put it into a scientific allegory for those who might find simple truths hard to understand... helium is a safe theoretical byproduct of the fusion process.... but it is not fusion itself.

Dawkins argues that we find everything that is true on the basis of hard evidence... but that isn't strictly true. Do we take lovers or make friends on the basis of hard empirical evidence that the people we meet are good for us?

We do not.

We begin these relationships on the basis of impulse, emotion and experience... we may recognise the feeling and act upon it... but we aren't doing so purely because neural interactions and chemicals in our bloodstream tell us we should. Sometimes our bodies betray us... someone who is physically attractive can be poisonous to us on a deeper level. Our choices are not necessarily made on the basis of what the hard evidence of our physiology is telling us.

I don't have a problem with atheists or atheism, if people wish to believe or disbelieve in anything... that is their right and priveledge. What I absolutely object to, is the notion that any one group - theist or atheist, has the right to object to public expression of another groups point of view. Richard Dawkins often epitomizes this very attitude.

Dawkins is becoming increasingly militant as he ages... is it possible that somewhere deep in the closet of his subconscious - locked away where his ego can merrily ignore it, he is not comfortable with the position he has taken? Is he in fact denial? If he is, then perhaps the only way his conscious can handle this discomfort is by vocalising his aggression towards religion even louder... as time begins to run out?

As for Peter Kay... I'll leave you with a pearl of wisdom he once impressed me with:

"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."

Nuclear Pop

Did my eyes deceive me, or are the Sugababes re releasing a track for inclusion in the Eurovision Song Contest?

Of course they aren't (although they are one of the few pop acts I actually respect - Keisha is my favourite). Though there is a song called "Push the Button" being entered into the annual contest (which I religiously avoid due to having an affliction otherwise known as... taste), alas it is not the one sung by the Sugababes.

No, this "Push the Button" is an anti-nuclear anthem (apologies for picture or any other quality you may find distasteful), believed to be written in response to the potential threat posed by everyone's favourite poison dwarf - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was overwhelmingly chosen by the Israeli public. You can read more about it in this BBC article.

Many would accuse Israel of hypocrisy (they maintain a policy of nuclear ambiguity, but most people don't doubt they have the technology). However, to my knowledge Israel have never once publicly voiced an opinion that implied any desire to entirely obliterate a nation with such technology. The Iranian President, compensating for his insecurities, has made such statements without as yet having that technology. .. and that is the major difference. Iran does have serious energy needs... but you can understand why people are jittery about allowing such a nation to have nuclear power, when their most prominent spokesman has himself propagated the notion that Iran harbours nuclear ambition for an entirely separate agenda.

I call upon the Iranian people to throw down this vile idiot, he puts his own personal insecurities before the security and wellbeing of his nation. I say to you, deal with the monster on your thrown and we will deal with the monsters on ours (Bush and Blair will both be out of office by the end of 2008).

Going back to Eurovision and it will be interesting to find out how well this group performs, because it may well reveal just how strongly Europeans feel about nuclear technology, for or against.... the song isn't just restricted to Israel'[s specific situation.

On a side note, reading the BBC article revealed an interesting fact. It is against Eurovision rules to quote the Bible (and presumably any other religious text) in any song entry. What is with that? We know what happened last time a European nation started getting overly worried about books...

Secrets, Sins, Burdens and Confessions

We had a very interesting discussion at home group the other night, it was probably the most uplifting and helpful home group for myself personally, in some time.

We've been studying the epistle of James recently. Martin Luther regarded the book of James as "the straw epistle". I think that's more than a little harsh, to say the least.

It is from James where we get this little gem of a verse, that I'm sure even if you are a non Christian reading this... you wouldn't disagree with:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27

That said, I don't consider the word religion to be belief itself, I consider religion merely to be the "application of belief". That is why you can see so many people going through the motions of a belief system, without actually being passionate about it. I don't consider myself a "religious man", but rather a "man of faith". I suppose you argue that it's a similar thing to me identifying myself as British rather than English (curiously my motivation seems to share common traits).

Speaking about religion and faith actually brings me to the point of my post. One of the verses in our final study in James provoked a fair bit of discussion:

"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. " James 5:16

Not being Roman Catholic, I don't believe in the sacramental necessity to confess my sins to a priest in order to obtain absolution. I believe in justification by faith, I confess my sins to Jesus and repent, he forgives me and I do my best not to sin again; reconciling myself to others if my words or actions have offended them.

Having said that, I do believe there is a time when it is good to reveal to a close friend or confidante, the things of the past that weigh heavy on your soul. A friend reminded me of this by recounting a story where I had done something wrong in the past, and had repented of it years before... but still bore the burden of it in my heart. We both remember well, the night we stopped on our bicycles... prepared to go our separate ways... and I felt motivated to confess what I had done. Ever since that day, the burden has never weighed me down... because it was shared.

Several years later, I was given the opportunity to repay the favour when, the same friend shared one of his burdens with me. This time it wasn't about sin... but about personal calling. In both cases, one of us felt motivated by God to reveal an uncomfortable or cumbersome truth to the other. In both cases the burden was shared and the load lightened. It formed the basis of personal spiritual healing.

So in a way, I do believe confession IS good for the soul... not when it is a ritual, but when it is an action motivated by the Holy Spirit... when it is an outward sign of an inward change.

All this, reminded me of another verse (this time from Paul's letter to the Galatians):

"Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." Galatians 6:2

I wonder if you feel motivated to share something with somebody close to you? Maybe you should. It doesn't have to be anyone in a fancy frock... just someone you trust. Heck if you are really pushed, you can even try me... and you have my word I would destroy anything you emailed me, to retain confidentiality. I don't for a moment expect that anybody shall... but the offer is genuinely there.

Blessings

N

What's In A Name?

I've been thinking lately about our attachment to identity. We attach a lot of importance to how we are addressed, both in terms our personal names and our nationality.

Two things have brought this up for me recently, the unionist/separatist debate over the future of the United Kingdom... and one of the elements observed in the bullying of Shilpa Shetty. In the former case, I explained in an earlier post how I would feel if the UK split up (I don't consider myself English but British), obviously other people feel differently about that and it doesn't make either them or I, right or wrong. There is no state, no law that can define how we identify ourselves according to international heritage... although they can of course refuse to recognise the nation to which we claim to belong's existence. In the latter case, Ms Shetty was labelled as "Princess" or "The Indian" or had a "surname" attributed to her out of ignorance. It seemed to me that what deeply hurt her initially, was the simple refusal of some of her peers to acknowledge her by name.

I met an old schoolfriend a few years ago, his name is Andrew Cutting. At school most of the lads were nicknamed after their surnames... he was, I wasn't - guess I was lucky. When I bumped into him I slipped into the old routine and it clearly hurt him. "It's Andy, Nick... you wouldn't like it if I called you Payne". I apologised and we chatted for a brief while. I've made a mental note not to refer to anyone from my past using past contexts, unless they are OK with this.

Similarly in my hometown, you can tell the people who I know and am known by... and those who know me primarily by association with my parents. Those who know my name call me Nicholas... those who know me, call me Nick.

The key thing about names is that they define how we identify with one another, ourselves and ultimately... God. In the Bible, God gave mankind the authority to name the animals. If I point to a horse, and say there is a horse... it gives no impression of personal value. If I point to him and say "There's Binky" and he responds, you know that there is some form of basic relationship. It's the same with human beings. In the West, we find it acceptable to walk into a room and give a generic greeting. Apparently (so I've been told), in Ecuador it is extremely rude to do this, it is customary to greet everyone in the room as an individual. I think they have the right idea.

We call one another by terms of endearment, nicknames I myself have been known as "Lunar", "Lunarboy", "Pyjama-Man" and "Natrel Man". We can choose to change our name by law, if we are unhappy with it... or if our known identity becomes a danger to our existence. Women can choose to surrender their surname, in order to become associated more closely with a man in marriage. We choose names that has special meaning, significance or affection for our children. Well... OK in my case I didn't have a name for two weeks because Mum and Dad couldn't decide and in the end I was named after the local church (an embarrassing tale for another time I think).

God also changes names... at times when people have a moment in their life that changes the way they relate to him. Abram was changed to Abraham, Sarai became Sarah and as I mentioned in another previous blog, Jacob became Israel.

God himself reveals different names attributed to himself, through the Bible. In fact a key theme in the Bible is how the same God is known by a different name when he reveals a new aspect of his character to his people that marks a new point in his relationship with them.

I'm going to leave you with a meditative challenge and a selection of the Biblical names of God that I found at Lambert Dolphin's website, which also has a more in depth examination of those names.

For the meditative challenge, I want to go back to the horse/Binky scenario. I want you to imagine you are in a sunlit field, looking up to the top of a gentle hill with a friend. I'd like you to try and picture "God" (or if you are an atheist, the person with whom you most closely associate that word) appearing over the hill. When you point to God, how will you describe him to your friend? Is he just the term "God", or is he something more personal than that? If you struggle, maybe the name you seek is in the following list. Whichever name stands out the most for you at this time in your life, I'd like you to go and meditate/think about it. Perhaps if you feel brave enough you could share the name that came to you, or maybe even what came as you meditated on that name. Here is the list:

• El - God
• Elohim - God, pluralised noun(as in the Trinity).
• El Shaddai - God Almighty
• Adonai - Lord
• Jehovah - LORD
• YHWH - I AM WHO I AM" or I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE
• Jehovah-Jireh - The Lord Will Provide
• Jehovah-Rophe - The Lord Who Heals
• Jehovah-M'Kaddesh - The Lord Who Sanctifies
• Jehovah-Shalom - The Lord Our Peace
• Jehovah-Tsidkenu - The Lord Our Righteousness
• Jehovah-Rohi The Lord Our Shepherd
• Jehoivah-Shammah - The Lord Is There
• El Elyon - God Most High
• Tsemach - The Branch
• El Roi - God of Seeing
• Palet - Deliverer
• Gaol - Redeemer
• Magen - Shield
• El-Olam - Everlasting One
• Zur - God Our Rock
• Melekh - King
• Father
• Son
• Holy Spirit
• The Trinity
• The Word
• Alpha and Omega - The First and the Last
• Y'Shua
• Jesus
• Christ
• Messiah
• The Lamb of God
• Saviour
• The Innermost Friend
• Comforter
• My All In All

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.

Things to Come

I sadly have not yet had the honour of becoming a parent, knowing the agony and ecstasy of watching something that is a part of you grow up and realising their own personal destiny.

However, I am knowledgeable enough to realise that when a child is born, nobody really knows quite what to expect along the rocky path of pilgrimage that is life on Earth.

Though this is true of every child, it was especially the case with Jesus Christ - not just for his parents, but for all those around him.

When you look at a child it easy to project your own ideas and aspirations about who or what he shall be... because to our eyes a child is an open book.

Even if you take the slightly unsubtle angelic gesture proclaiming the birth of Christ, then just a week into his natural life... Jesus was causing a lot of commotion.

Simeon spoke of him:

"This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."

I wonder what Mary made of that? As far as we know, it is the first time she had any hint that the life of Jesus would be marked with controversy and suffering.

A short while later and Mary, Joseph and Jesus get a visit from some foreign wise men. They bring gifts "gold for a king", no surprise there... that's in line with what the angel said... Son of David, reigning over his kingdom - no problem. "Frankincense for a priest" - hmm interesting - whatever could that be referring to? After all Jesus was of the tribe of Judah - not Levi. What could it mean? Finally, "Myrrh" for the grave. Now everybody dies... but these gifts were to signify that kingship, priestly virtue and death were to play a major role in Jesus destiny. What could it all possibly mean?

As Jesus grew into a healthy teenager, favoured by God and men... he began to openly recognise the unique nature of his relationship with God in heaven. Hew began to say and do things that made his earthly family uncomfortable.

Eventually as a man, he struck out on his own... pursuing his Father's business, THE Father's business - namely making known the good news of the Gospel message: healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, feeding the hungry, raising the dead, proclaiming the forgiveness of sins and the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Just three and a half years later, his body hung limp on a cross - bruised, battered, cut to ribbons, drained of blood and life.

Just three days after that he was ALIVE. Not just revived, he had gone beyond death and become something so magnificent and wonderful... we can barely grasp the concept.

No one could have seen that coming as he lay gurgling away in the straw of Bethlehem. Who could have seen it?

My Christmas message to you is simply this:

What is Jesus to you? What do you expect from him? Is he merely forever frozen in time and space as an infant fairy tale on a stained glass window? Is he a wise teacher? Or is he the magnificent and wonderful risen Lord who comes to change the destiny of mankind? My challenge to you, whatever you see Jesus as this Christmas... is to let him grow in your heart.

"Don't be afraid!" That is what the angels said to the shepherds... and that is what I say to you. Don't worry about what Jesus will become in your heart, or fret over who or what that will lead you to become. Unleash God in your heart and just wait and see what happens.

God bless and Merry Christmas!

Nick