Christmas Conundrums

I decided to write this blog in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent comments on BBC Radio 5 as reported in the Times, with regard about the level of truth in the Christmas stories.

Before saying anything, I should point out that Rowan Williams actually does believe in the Virgin Birth himself, so his aim was not punch holes in the bottom of his own boat. His intentions were good - he was aiming to make the gospel message less hard to swallow for people on the outside.

Dr Williams is quite correct in his assertions about the Magi, we do know very little about them... and we have embellished who they were somewhat - but I do not doubt they made their accredited appearance; their gifts would have provided the resources necessary for Joseph, Mary and Jesus' time of refuge in Egypt. I also know that one of the reasons Matthew included them in his narrative, was that he was aiming to point out right from the very start that Jesus had come to be the Gentile Messiah as well as the Israelite one.

It's also true that we don't know exactly what was in the stable at the time of Christ's birth. I would hazard a guess that there were animals in there, because of the fact that Jesus was placed in their food trough upon birth.

It's also true that the weather in the Middle East is not the same as British weather...and that Jesus was not actually born at this time of year. The move to celebrate Christ's birth in December was a political one. However, you could argue that Jesus is like the British monarch, he has his actual birthday and an official one too. He is the King of kings, so it is totally appropriate as far as I am concerned.

As to stellar behaviour, the simple truth is we don't know what astronomical event was being observed, nor how the Magi with their background had decided to interpret what they had witnessed. The biblical narrative suggests that they reached Jesus later in his development, not whilst he was a baby. That doesn't mean that we have to dismiss the idea... we merely have to accept that there are other ways of understanding the star. Some are recorded here on Wikipedia.

However, the main controversy I wish to address is the issue of the Virgin Birth. Dr Williams believes in it... but according to a 2002 survey of 2000 Anglican clergy, many of them do not personally accept it, some do not even believe in the resurrection! I find that statistic quite disturbing, it is one thing to struggle with a theological concept as a believer... it is quite another to ask others to accept a belief you do not hold yourself. Some, like the chaplain who was denouncing the nativity as myth, are worse; they actively encourage people NOT to believe in the Virgin Birth. One wonders why they signed up in the first place. If you can't accept the basics of Christian belief... what business do you have shepherding a flock of Christ's sheep? It is being a blind guide to others. I sometimes think (whetther they are aware of it or not), that the reason behind some of these people's ministries is not divine calling... but self righteousness - "the Church is wrong, but I am right... I will show them". That is ego on the throne and not God.

Back to the Virgin Birth and I personally feel that it is pretty important.

If Jesus was born of a human union... there would be nothing to make him any different to us. He would be a sinful human because he would carry Adam's sin. He had to be perfect, he had to be supernaturally born in order to be free of the sin that he came to deliver us from. He also had to be human so as to be able to represent us. He had to be our righteousness and in his resurrection, our mediator.

The chaplain I spoke of yesterday and referred to above, spoke scientifically about our knowledge of conception and how it biologically works... but he missed the point. He was trying to rationalise the birth of Christ based on the observed scientific reproductive process with regard to a normal human child; not that of God translating himself into a human body. We have seen in cloning how genetic data can be completely removed from an egg and replaced with data from another being. There are so many different ways we could look at it scientifically and still not understand exactly what happened. You cannot reason everything out with God... sometimes you have to just accept it's above you... and run with it.

I disagree to an extent with Dr Williams. I do believe it's important to accept the virgin birth...I do agree that people who struggle with it shouldn't get hung up on it. Crucially what I am saying is that I don't believe you make Jesus Christ any more accessible by watering down who he is.

In 2005 Jamie Oliver had a problem with making school dinners. He wanted to replace turkey twizzlers and Frankenstein foods with real wholesome food... however he had to contend with school budgets. It came down to him saying something like "you could reduce the cost and get cheaper ingredients to a degree... but you could only do it so much. There comes a point where the end product isn't what you are advertising it as it anymore."

That's the problem the church faces if it constantly waters down the Gospel. It won't be proclaiming the Gospel any more... it'll be some other message; cleverly packaged but devoid of the power that only God could give it. I'm all for making the Gospel accessible - how many times have you seen me use popular culture or allegory here, in order to get the message across in a more understandable way? The one thing I won't do is change the essential message at the heart of the Gospel and that's because the message of the cross is God's wisdom and not man's. It is foolish to understand the Gospel on the world's terms, you have to accept it as God gives it to you. He took on human form and he died to deliver us from our sins.

Many of you here will go to church in the next 24 hours and hear the words from the following passage you hear every year... because it might be the only time of year you go, which is entirely your choice and privilege. However my challenge to you is to look at this passage and contemplate what it means to you personally, who is this child to you?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

John 1:1-18

May God bless you this Christmas. May you know him more deeply than you have ever known him.

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.

Conformity

Yesterday's Doctor Who was highly enjoyable. Not only did we have the return of the drone like Cybermen (with a new twist to their name as well), but at last we have a plausible explanation as to why the Doctor is limited to travelling only along our own timeline and not that of parallel dimensions. It had been niggling me... the idea that the idea that the Timelords were all but extinct, when surely there must be Timelords in alternate universes that have not been destroyed. now we know why the Doctor feels so alone - he can't get to the other universes to visit their versions of Gallifrey.

Anyway there were a couple of interesting points in yesterday's episode that could easily be used as allegory for Christian theology.

Firstly you have the "Preachers" led by Ricky (the parallel universe's Mickey), so called because they believe in the Gospel Truth (they don't believe in receiving information and data from bluetooth headsets invented by Cybus Industries, and with good reason for the owner of the company John Lumic is using the technology to further his own agenda of upgrading humanity with his technology and turning them into emotionless automatons trapped in steel bodies - the Cybermen.

Then you have the whole attitude of the Cyberman "race" to the rest of the populous. You must conform or be deleted. This is obviously setting them up with a showdown with the preachers who are the very antithesis of this. True to form the Preachers show up and try to gun down the Cybers with normal ammo - which fails to have any effect (long term Doctor Who aficionados will know that you need gold plated weaponry or ammunition as it messes up the run of the mill cyberman's respiratory equipment).

However the cliffhanger leaves the Doctor, Rose, Mickey and the Preachers surrounded by cybermen who are ready to "delete" them for not being compatable.

That is the world's attitude to Christianity. If you don't conform, you are incompatible and risk deletion. If you do conform, you lose your identity in Christ and become just another face in the crowd. OK, so you might not be trapped in a steel body deprived of all emotion, but you become something less than what you were designed to be, cut off from all the promises and potential that god had set aside just for you.

I'm going to leave you with a few scriptures to ponder and a challenge:

"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

"For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." Romans 8:13-17

"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:11-13

and:

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." Ezekiel 36:26

So what are you going to be? A Cyberman or a Preacher. are you going to be a conforming tin man or a spiritually liberated child of God.

The decision is yours...

N

God, Babel and the Bomb

I've been thinking rather a lot today about the vast advances in technology mankind has made during the relatively brief amount of time civilisation has existed on Earth.

One reason for this is my continuing concern and apprehension, concerning Iran's nuclear program, and the increasingly disturbing statements that come from the country's leader - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the West, we find it highly disturbing (and rightly so) that anybody with an extremist agenda should ever obtain the ability to carry out a nuclear tactical strike against a populated city (although, even the idea that a "civilised" society should have such a capability is frightening and abhorrent enough).

In the Biblical book of Genesis there is a curious passage, that deals with the subject of technological progression - and it has always fascinated me:

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth. (Genesis 11:1-9)

You might have read that and thought "Well gosh, thanks a lot God, no wonder the World is in such a state!" It is true, that God appears on the surface of things to be confounding man's unity just to stop him developing incredible technologies. Superficially it appears like an incredibly selfish thing to do. You might well ask, how many wars may have happened over simple misunderstandings just because people weren't able to communicate?

However, we live in an age where through the spread of a few large empires and the rise of technology the human race has arrived at a point where mankind is largely able to develop a dialogue with his global neighbours. Having reached such a unique and advanced point in our development, do we find that this has stopped us finding reasons to harm, deprive or kill one another?

No, it has not. We have seen first hand how things such as enlightened self interest, personal agendas, economic stability and ideological purity drive our political and social conflicts. The hampering of communication was never a driving force behind our historic conflicts, but in most cases merely a contributing factor to their inevitability.

As much as poor communication and "chinese whispers" may cause conflict, how much more so is the saying "familiarity breeds contempt" true? It is in our nature to seek out the familiar in one another. We build cliques and join clubs - fly flags and draw up borders and call ourselves friends or nations or allies. Then, when somebody different comes along who we don't like, or who challenges our supremacy,authority or even just our security - we gang up on them (although sometimes like in World War II and the cause is noble and just, this can be justified). This is the way of the World and God in his wisdom knows it. The fact is that we (the human race as individuals), are very adept at both seeking out allies and more frighteningly - seeking out what is different in others and oppressing it. You can see this in all the most unsavoury areas of our characeter... and the darkest chapters of our history. Fortunately in the modern world, most of us have adopted a live and let live policy towards our fellow man... and usually the most divisive of arguments tend to be restricted to personal altercations and heated group debates. Kingdoms aren't ruled by the will of one, but the will of many... so theoretically it should be less likely that personal agendas shape international policy (although recent administrations on both side of the Atlantic have severely bucked that trend lately). We have things like Magna Carta to thank for that.

It wasn't always like this.

Going back to the story in Genesis, I would argue that contrary to the first impression, if you bother to dig a little deeper... you can see that God actually did the human race a favour.

Lets speak hypothetically about a possible scenario that could have happened, if God had not confused the tongues of men. Can you imagine what the Earth would be like today if the feudal rulers of Bronze/Iron or even Middle Age civilisations had acquired nuclear technology? A dust ball no doubt.

I believe God slowed our ability to make technological progress to a point that was more equated with our capacity to learn tolerance (generally speaking), and bear with one another. He knew our ability to intellectually progress was much more efficient than our ability to emotionally develop... and very wisely did something about it. I would argue that he saved our hides with that judgement call (not for the first and certanly not for the last time).

In days gone by, there were many men who were as foolish and insecure as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush are today. We should give thanks that God did something about it in our past, because I pretty much reckon we wouldn't be around today to talk about it if he hadn't.

What seemed like utter foolishness, turned out to be true wisdom and I just want to conclude with one last exhortation from the Bible about the wisdom of God:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;

the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, 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. He 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. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)

Some of you who have read all this may think the idea of a God willingly going to his death to save humanity from sin is foolishness. However, I hope I have adequately demonstrated just one way in which something that seemed very foolish turned out to be very wise. If that's you, I urge you to take a good look at the cross again... and uncover it's deeper wisdom.

Blessings

N

Forgiveness

A couple of days ago I left a couple of comments on Gerry's space. I was responding to what somebody else was saying with regard to Gerry's posting on the subject of forgiveness.

Despite apparently being an American pastor... which would give him some authority, Gerry's visitor had displayed a distinctly unchristian attitude on the subject. He had suggested that Christians only need to forgive other Christians for sinning against them and that it was perfectly ok to withhold forgiveness from non-Christians, that righteous anger is always paramount.

This is so out of touch with the Gospel message. Righteous anger has it's place, but Christ himself whithheld his anger at a time when it was most deserved. No, God's word compels us to love the sinner but hate the sin. You only need look at the Sermon on the Mount to understand this. Lets look at The Lord's Prayer first (Matthew 6:9-15):

"This, then, is how you should pray:

" 'Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come,

your will be done

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.

Forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from the evil one.

For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Just before he said that, he also gave this teaching: (Matthew 5:43-48)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Now, you could argue that these scriptures seem to be contradicting what we are taught in church; namely that we are under grace through Jesus sacrifice on the cross, that our forgiveness is not dependent on anything on our part... but is a divine gift of God. If God has forgiven us eternally... then surely we won't be condemned if we don't forgive our enemies?

Now look at this parable of Jesus from Matthew 18:21-35:

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. "But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. "His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' "But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

When we become Christians we turn away from the world's way of doing things, and we adopt heavenly clothing. We take on Christ's attitudes towards things. We are called to become more like Jesus in our daily lives, for Ephesians 5 teaches:

"Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."

When he died, Jesus had many enemies... he didn't deserve them. The Sanhedrin, under the influence of Annas and Caiaphas... conspired to have him killed. Pilate ordered his crucifixion, the romans beat him to a pulp, flogged him to within an inch of his life... then frog-marched him with the cross to Golgotha. There they crucified him. ALL of these people wronged Jesus, ALL of them sinned against him. NONE of them apologised. At the time, none of them were Christians.

And what did Jesus do...? What did he say to them for this injustice?

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

You see, if we have fellowship with God... we eventually become like him. However if we refuse to forgive others... to love our enemies... then we are not living by Godly principles... we are living by the world's standards and not Christ's. If this is the case, then God's grace has no meaning in ourlives and we are not genuine.

The conclusion of the matter then; is that God's grace through Christ is not dependent on us forgiving others... but if we truly love God and have really accepted Christ's forgiveness, then the Spirit of forgiveness will be at work in us... if it is not then we are not in Christ.

I'm not saying any of us is perfect... certainly not me... and we all needs God's grace, not just for our own forgiveness - but for us also to be able to carry out what God asks of us.

If however, you know that you have a problem forgiving others... you need to go and pray through it with someone.

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Nick

The Manner of Jesus Return

I'm a little upset with something I heard the other night... I do not feel in a position to do much about it at church, so I thought the only really positive action I could take, was to write about it here... lest the error be repeated.

I was involved in a discussion last night, which moved onto the subject of Jesus' Second Coming.

Everybody who was involved agreed that the Bible says it will happen, but what surprised me was one comment that came from a surprising source.

It was with regard to the nature of Christ's return. A young person asked if Jesus would come back as an adult or a baby. The response was that nobody knows how or when Jesus will return. That took me aback a little. We definitely don't know when... but the Bible is pretty clear on how he comes back. I offered a scripture from Acts to back it up:

"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." " - Acts 1:9-11

When I mentioned that though, I was told that that scripture was "a bit dodgy"...
...
...
... I cannot fathom why they believed that to be the case. You can interpret scriptures different ways... but you cannot simply dismiss them if you don't like them. It's certainly bad to describe it as "a bit dodgy".

I was sure of myself, so I went back home and looked it up, to see if it could be interpreted any other way... it can't - the concordance offers no alternate meaning. While looking it up, I used the word "cloud" to try and track it... and came up with the following:

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." Matt 24:30

"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." - Matt 26:64

"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory." - Mark 13:26

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." - Mark 14:62

"At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." - Luke 21:27

"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen." - Revelation 1:7

So the Bible is pretty clear on it... Jesus is coming back riding the clouds in his resurrection body. Even as a teenager when my sister was watching The Omen part III and I caught the end of it; I knew even then that this was so, I can remember thinking the film was pants because the theology was so poorly researched. Jesus will not return as an infant... when he comes back, it'll be as he is now... the Son of the Most high... as described in Daniel, the prophets and Revelation.

This has nothing to do with the endless debates of pre-millennial, post-millennial, amillenial, ad infinitum (with regard to the order of events at the end), it is merely concerned with "dodgy teaching" of the manner of Christ's return.

Be watchful

Nick

Purgatory

It's been a long time coming... truth be told I've been ducking writing on the subject, but when I noticed somebody had read my "Lost" blog, I was reminded that I had said I would. So I thought now would be the right time.

So lets examine what it is first, before we lay into it. Basically, Purgatory is supposed to be a kind of disciplinary waiting room before you receive eternal life. It is supposed to be between heaven and hell, a place of purification where a soul is made perfect before meeting God. The length of your stay varies according to the quantity and gravity of your sins.

What is wrong with it, is that it doesn't exist! The idea wasn't based on scripture, it was a fantasy invented to make cash for the church of the middle ages... and BOY did it make cash! There was an "economy" for sin. Certain sins cost you bad, so you had to make reparations for it by praying for absolution. Trouble was... the clergy set some sins at ludicrous rates. You might expect to be locked in purgatory for eons. Help was at hand though... if you were wealthy, just build loads of churches, give stacks of cash to the abbot and the monks would pray for your sins... that should shave a few millennia off.

So where does Jesus fit in with this theology? Well we know that:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

Now it wouldn't be very loving of God, to send Jesus to pay for our sins... and then despite all that... say "well boys and girls, you can still bubble away for a few thousand years for what you've done". That is not forgiveness. God's forgiveness is complete. As it is written:

"For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him."

That verse doesn't make Purgatory look very likely, does it? i think that makes it quite clear that the death of Christ is meant to be the one factor that reunites us with the Father.

Christians believe that Jesus died in FULL payment for the sins of mankind. There was one sacrifice made for all. That was Jesus. We believe we are washed of all our evil deeds and darkness... by his willing death on the cross. THAT is why the idea of purgatory (as invented by the Roman church in the Middle Ages) should be so abhorrent to Christians, and why it is an affront to God... the author of salvation.

You might be feeling that you have strived all your life to attain a salvation that is freely on offer. If you wish to know how to attain it, I have added a few short pointers.

All you need to do to receive that salvation is:

• Believe Jesus is who he says he is.
• Recognise that we have offended God by our rebellion against him in our daily lives.
• Genuinely turn away from that wilful rebellion.
• Accept that your "sins" were paid in full by Jesus death on the cross, and that God
• acknowledged this by raising Jesus to new life (you can call that your proof of purchase).
• Finally you need to let God take a central and more active role in your life through the Holy Spirit. If you want suggestions: Meet other Christians, pray and read the Bible.

Don't believe it's that simple? Well, the Bible puts it like this:

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

Or as Billy Graham has said:

God said it (in his Word), I believe it (in my heart), that settles it (forever). No getting relatives to pray for your soul until judgement day... just a solid assurance that God loves you so much, that he sent his Son to die for you... in order that you might live with Him forever.

After reading this... you might want to take a step forward. Here is a short prayer that I would encourage you to say to God:

"Father in heaven, I know that I've sinned against you by my thoughts, actions and inaction. I don't want to be that person any more... I want to be the person YOU made me to be. Thank you for sending your Son Jesus to die for me. Please forgive me through his death and resurrection. Come and live in my heart God. I ask it in Jesus' name. Amen"

Remember... God said it, you believe it.... that settles it!

Lost - Channel 4

I've recently been hooked on the latest television sensation to grace our screens from America (they do produce a heck of a lot of bad TV, but this one seems pretty well written).

It is set on an island where a group of airline passengers have crash landed. Their backgrounds are as shrouded in mystery as the secrets of the island itself. Each episode so far has brought about surprising revelations. There is some kind of "monster" that stalks the island.

It's the kind of show where you build theories and then have to change them as the plot thickens, which I love. It's good for the brain... you have to use it to enjoy the show.

Locke, is by far my favourite character to date. Apart from the fact he seems to have a mysterious anthropomorphic relationship with the island itself, this week we discovered before being stranded on the island... he was wheelchair bound; yet now he runs about like a commando.

One theory that is popular at the moment, is that they are all dead... and the island is actually purgatory. Although as a Christian I cannot subscribe to the theology of purgatory (something I may speak about soon), the scenario would make sense.

I think their are influences of Shakespeare's "Tempest" and the film "Forbidden Planet" in the show too. In the latter there were also invisible monsters known as "Monster's from the Id". In psychology, the Id is our baser nature, our animal instincts... what would lead us to kill or act solely on passion without moral or ethical restraint. Our ego and super ego counterbalance and override this. Anyway in the film, the Id monsters are manifestations of a character's Id... I think this is what is going on in Lost too! Again, it would fit the purgatory idea. One of the key themes, is that life on the island is a blank slate/second chance. If they had to make payment for the less savoury parts of themselves, what better way then to be forced to confront a manifestation of it? In Wednesday's episode, Locke faces one... and survives, nobody else who has messed with one has.

That episode was called "Walkabout". Walkabout is a kind of aboriginal pilgrimage where the participants get in touch with nature. However, it is more than that... on walkabout you are supposed to "meet yourself" as well. So that fits with my Id theory. Locke met his own negativity and somehow overcame it.

There was an English philosopher who shared his name "John Locke". He believed firmly that every man had the right to pursue his own liberty and happiness and that the state should only have so much sovereignty in our lives. He advocated rebellion, if a Government was corrupt. His writings, after his death are said to have influenced both the French and American revolutions. The pursuit of liberty fits Lost's Locke as well. Despite the limitations of a wheelchair, he wanted to go on a Walkabout holiday. They wouldn't let him. He argued "Don't tell me what I can't do!" (which is probably a reason why I like him... he hates the idea that mortal men can constrain him from attaining his goals in life, and resists their attempts to do so). Some have argued that Locke the philosopher was not overly keen on imagination and passion (arguing that the former separated people from reality and the latter led people to act without morality). That would be ironic, because if the island in Lost is a fantasy, then the character John Locke is embracing the imaginary and passionate on it.

But in two weeks time my opinion could be totally different, what do you think about what I have come up with so far.

Let me know your theories if you watch the show yourself!

Disagreeing With Theological Giants

This probably isn’t as in depth as the original, which for some reason disappeared into the ether… great!!!! All thanks to MSN Spaces, where this was originally posted back in 2005.

I think my understanding of spiritual condition and sin is radically different from the versions put forward by both Augustine and Pelagius.

My understanding of “original” sin, is that the guilt for it lies solely with the original perpetrators, but the consequences of it still lie with us. Augustine would probably agree with this but the buck probably stops there.

Augustine would have us believe that our nature is changed to one of evil, that without baptism, we are all doomed from birth; even infants would not escape hellfire. This doesn’t fit with scripture, because scripture teaches us that we are judged by the light we receive. I think that people who have not developed a proper understanding of right and wrong, are not held accountable. God is completely righteous, completely loving and completely just.

Pelagius believed that our nature was essentially good, and that God would not call us to be good if we didn’t have the means within us to achieve this in the first place.

I disagree here with both of them. I agree our nature changed, but not in a sense of good or evil, just in attitude.

What we lost as a race when we fell, was not our capacity to do good, it was our ability to be in direct fellowship with God. This meant that we were made much more susceptible to evil desires. We were acting independently of God. It means that we cannot have a proper relationship with God though, one without true union. Although this makes us sinful, it doesn’t make us inherently evil by nature. Sin, as I have mentioned before came from an archery term meaning “to fall short”. In this state, how we fall short is up to us. We can try and keep God’s commands (but we will fail at some point), or we can openly rebel against God. However, in the final analysis… without God’s intervention both paths unfortunately end in destruction.

As an example, think of a broken tooth that becomes rotten. The break itself will not cause death, but it will attract more tartar and plaque which will lead to it’s death through rotting. We can obey God’s Law (which I suppose is equivalent to brushing your teeth and flossing), or we can openly rebel by refusing to do that and worse… eat sugary foods that we know are harmful.

By observing God’s will for us in our actions, we “clean our teeth”, by acting in rebellion to God we hasten our spiritual demise.

However, observance of the Law in itself is not sufficient (because we will always fail to some degree). The damage done to us means the eventual balance will lead to spiritual death. What we need is something that plugs the gap in our broken tooth.

That, would be Jesus. By dying for our sins, he restored the gap in our broken tooth. No, even more than this… he recreated us in his image, we are new creations… complete in god’s sight through Christ’s sacrifice. We can still sin of course, and that will harm the eventual condition of the tooth… but it will never rot to a point where it dies. This is why it is important to avoid sinning… scripture clearly teaches us that after death, Christians are still accountable for what they do with their salvation, it’s just that the eventual discipline does not result in eternal death.

Where Augustine believed mankind is fundamentally bad, Pelagius believed that mankind’s nature was fundamentally good. I believe that mankind is fundamentally broken, but has a diverse nature… Many of us are on the whole good, many essentially bad… but when we have reached that certain point of accountability in our life, we ALL require divine grace in order to attain salvation.

Both Pelagius and Augustine were of their time, as was Calvin… so I try not be too hard on them.

Calvin used the scripture “those God foreknew, he predestined” to propagate the idea that God only bothers trying to save a lucky few. If that were true, how would you explain the parable of the sower? Or the fact that according to Peter, Jesus preached to the Flood dead?

I find that teaching completely abhorrent. I believe that God loves and reaches out to all, equally and without discrimination. He does this despite the fact he knows people will reject him. This is perhaps the most tragic yet moving thing about his love for us. You might be an atheist from the cradle to the grave, and God will know this... he will know the fruitlessness of reaching out and attempting to save you... but do you know what, even with a 0% possibility of you choosing to accept him... he still reaches out.

There is a much used statement about Christ's sacrifice that is true: If by dying he could only save one person, and that person was you... he'd still do it.

What I believe is also true, is that even if NOBODY had chosen to accept his gift of salvation, he would still have offered it.

Pelagius, Augustine and Calvin all have to some degree or other, valid points. However, they all fall short because they do not have a proper understanding of how time works. They all favour either free will or destiny, without trying to properly explain the role of the other they have rejected.

God is outside of and yet permeates time completely. To him, all the past and all the future is happening in the present tense (can you even imagine the complexity of that?). He knows and loves you to the very core of your being. He knows every choice you have made, and will make, and why you made or will make them. He knows the way you will jump in every conceivable scenario, even when the interaction of others is involved. Each person’s individuality from the dawn of time till the end of days is taken into consideration; we therefore all have free will and the freedom to make any choice we wish. However, God also has a complete and perfect plan for the human race, which we all play our part in. So we have a destiny

That is the beautiful paradox. We are both completely free and completely destined. Recently I came across a proverb, which I believe backs this idea up:

“In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.” - Proverbs 16:9

So based on my conclusions here and in other blog entries, I believe if I had existed at some point between 300 and 1700 AD, I would have been burned at the stake by at least one denomination.

So on a heresy rating of 1-10, where do you guys rate me? If you think I’m wrong, tell me. If you have your own comments on the thoughts of Pelagius, Augustine and Calvin… do tell. If I’ve gotten anything out of context please comment.

Blessings and regards

Nick

Alien Relations

You know, it's amazing some of the things you end up talking about at church. Some of the lads were talking about alien characters from science fiction who looked attractive.

This ended up moving onto the subject of, "if a hot alien woman came down from another planet, would it be OK to date and potentially marry?" (Leaving the aside the subject of beliefs clashing).

???????????? How did we get on to that???????????????????

There were two principle arguments. The first being, if they were sentient and had free will... then they could be classed as equal to us in God's eyes. So yeah!

Then there was the counter argument that if they were physiologically different from us, you'd be breaking the Torah. You know, the bit about only breeding each according to it's own kind.

Although it's an entirely apocryphal thing to talk about, I reckon if God was OK with it, he'd not make us that genetically incompatible. Some Christians think it heresy to suggest that there might be life out there. however, I know one theologian who is also an astronomy scholar who would give you 50/50 on it.

The big question for me is, if they exist... are they fallen like us? Or are they still in a state where their direct link to God was never broken? Imagine that.

Wouldn't it be tragic if there were say a few other sentient races out there, who only became sinful because of us. They fell, because mankind fell. That would just be awful.

Or what if God created each sentient species in such a way that they would all fall and require his redemption... this is certainly an idea backed up by some theological thinking, after all there is a thought that the plan for the cross existed before mankind existed.

I still can't believe we were seriously talking about it though. Slightly off topic, I managed to find out the name of the actress who played the blue twilek in episode III. She's Amy Allen. I have left a link to IMDB somewhere on here, so you can check her out for yourself.

Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI

When I first saw the newly elected pope emerging on the balcony, he freaked me out a little. He seemed to look a little vampiric. However, trying not to be one who judges on outward appearance, I have decided to look into what the Roman Catholic denomination, the wider family of the Church, and the world in general can expect from this man.

Newsnight was very interesting, notably for the comments of a member of the RC clergy who was involved in a debate with a woman about this very subject. The woman was arguing strongly that the cardinals had let the world down by electing an ultra-conservative pope. The 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.

Isn't that the truth for all of us as Christians? We don't have a duty to any political leaning within church ideology, we only have ONE duty... to be faithful to God.

John 6:28,29 "Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”"

Our actions and beliefs should be directed by the one God sent... Jesus Christ. We need to be sensitive to God's Word and the presence of the Holy Spirit if we are to do that. Our ideologies should be shaped by our beliefs, not the other way round.

The new pope has suggested that his primary goal will be to unite all Christians, and while this is noble... the simple fact is, true Christians are already united through the Holy Spirit and the grace of God, oh yes we may differ on the odd doctrine here and there, and we may worship in different denominations... but those of us who have genuine faith are not divided against those we recognise as brothers.

I watch with interest to see how his interpretation of what he said, is acted out. It could be good or bad.

I was looking at the Beeb website today. the new pope strongly disagrees with the philosophy of relativism, and I have to say in principle I'm in agreement with him. However I'm not a rigid absolutist by any means. I believe there most truths are absolutely certain as a Christian, but I also believe God allows for flexibility on certain issues.

I see the Law and life like a skeleton. Structured enough to keep everything together as should be, but flexible enough not to be completely isolationist.