A light-hearted reply to the Book of Acts in the Bible
I've really enjoyed reading the sequel to your first book, Luke. (At least, I assume it was you who wrote it, as you forgot to sign it - which isn't like you; you're normally so meticulous about getting everything right - but I'm sure I recognised your writing.)
Anyway, it's an amazing story! After reading your previous letter, I was sure there was more to come, but this went beyond my wildest imaginings! Of course, when Jesus was put to death it looked like the whole thing had gone horribly wrong. I know that you wrote about his resurrection, but such things are really rather hard to believe, despite all the witnesses. But your new book certainly put paid to any doubts I may have had.
The coming of the Holy Spirit on all those who heard Peter speaking at Pentecost must have put the wind up them! Seriously, how did Peter manage such an excellent talk while all that commotion was going on - though I suppose that was the work of the Holy Spirit too? I reckon that some of the preachers I've heard could do with being empowered by the Holy Spirit.
It was great to hear about the explosive growth of the church that followed, and lovely to hear about the unity of the believers at that time. Again, the work of the Spirit was something else! Is that why those who try to do outreach in their own strength find it so unfruitful? Mind you, I know of churches these days who will barely speak to each other, so what sort of witness does that give?
And who'd have thought that Jesus would choose Saul to be his messenger - after all he'd done to persecute the early believers. A most unexpected turn of events, but a master-stroke! Who could have thought of that?
It must have been quite a shock for Peter to realise that God was interested in the Gentiles too. No wonder the believers back in Jerusalem got so hot under the collar about it! I have to admit I had to stop and think hard about this myself, too. But, again, the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them in such a clear way did put it beyond doubt. In fact I've heard that there are believers from all kinds of Christian churches who have been filled with the Spirit and not just the Pentecostals - Catholics, Methodists, even Evangelicals.
I didn't really understand why Saul changed his name to Paul. Was that to symbolise his complete change of heart? Anyway, he became quite a traveller; I trust he collected 'boat-miles'! To start with I wondered whether he just liked the adventure, but I quickly realised that he was following the leading of the Spirit, who was determined that the Good News should reach the whole world, not just Jerusalem or even just Samaria. Sometimes I just wish we'd think about reaching the next village, though the Spirit is still out and about reaching the rest of the world, of course.
I don't find all of Paul's writings easy to understand, so had a lot of sympathy for the poor man who fell asleep during one of his sermons. But, how amazing that Paul was able to bring him back to life after he had fallen from the third floor window! I don't remember the last time I saw such a miracle, but people still fall asleep in sermons, of course.
I was rather shocked, though, about all the riots and trouble that followed Paul everywhere. I'd never really thought that Christians would be in the middle of that kind of thing. But then I thought back to Jesus' own life, and he certainly faced a lot of opposition - right up to his death, of course. But it's rather a far cry from all the respectable Christians you tend to see nowadays...
Despite all that, Paul carried on preaching right to the end. I'd have got very anxious about having to speak in front of Governor Felix and King Agrippa, but Paul seemed as clear and assured as ever. Where did he get that peace and assurance from - was that also the work of the Holy Spirit? There are some Christians round here who could use some peace and assurance.
You stopped your account at a strange place. Did Paul get to speak in front of Caesar? I assume it was nearly the end for Paul, but I'm curious to know just what happened. If you ever write the next instalment, be sure to send me a copy.
Yours as ever,
Theophilus
PS Why did you call your book 'The Acts of the Apostles'? Surely it was the 'Acts of the Holy Spirit', as it was the Spirit who took the initiatives and was working through Peter, Paul and the other apostles.
PPS Did Paul take any pictures on his travels? If so, I wonder whether they could be put online so everyone can see. I haven't been to most of the places he visited, and it would be nice to be able to picture him there.
Tuesday 20 December 2011
Tuesday 13 December 2011
Upholding the truth?
There is an ongoing frustration, even sometimes an exasperation, between those Christians who are careful to "uphold the truth", and those who seem more inclined to say "well, it's rather more complicated than that". This usually occurs in some argument over a matter of Biblical interpretation.
Paul in the New Testament (1 Cor 3) exhorts Christians to move from being spiritual babes taking milk to mature adults eating solid food, to put aside childish interests and become mature believers. Becoming more mature would seem to imply that we have ironed out many of our uncertainties and become clearer about the truth. And yet the opposite often appears to be true - it is the 'young hot-heads' are the ones who seem most certain of the rights and wrongs, and the 'older and wiser ones' who often seem less sure about the details and distinctions. Have these older people let go of their former zeal and clarity, and let worldly arguments and complexities cloud their judgement? Have they lost sight of the simple truth?
Perhaps that is the problem: the truth is not often simple.
False certainty
Certainty may arise out of ignorance or arrogance, not only from sure knowledge - and distinguishing between these can be very hard indeed. Moreover, passion about a subject more often arises out of some personal vested interest, rather than out of any objective understanding. So it is much more likely that when we are adamant that we are 'upholding the truth' about some issue, that we are merely holding tightly to our own preferred view of how things should be, and most at risk of using the Bible to back our personal cause.
Women in church leadership is a topical example, but there are many. It is possible to find some Biblical support for both positions.
Where is the place for saying 'we don't really know for sure', when not knowing is sometimes, perhaps often, an honest and mature answer? It may also be that the more mature believers take a stance that is best summed up by 'it doesn't matter that much' - while recognising that it matters greatly to those who feel strongly about it, it's not a matter that defines one's faith or warrants any splits.
Even those issues which do define a faith - for example, that God exists and came in human form as Jesus, whose death on the cross made possible the cleansing of sin - are still matters of faith and not 'right' or 'wrong'. The Christian faith is, after all, faith.
Where we are indeed upholding the truth, need that look the same as having a closed mind? And does being willing to seriously consider an opposing view on an issue of Christian teaching necessarily mean that you are compromising the truth?
The truth stands
In fact, the truth is never compromised - it does, and always will stand firm. Rather, it is we who are compromised - by our pride, our insecurity, our desire for certainty, our personal need to be 'right'. (See an earlier post: 'Craving-certainty')
God either exists or he doesn't. He was, or was not, shown through his Son Jesus. My careful or outspoken arguments one way or the other make no difference to the fact! At some future point the truth will be plainly known.
Remember, for now we see and understand the truth 'through a glass darkly' and so may too readily mistake our reflection for the truth. Perhaps the older and wiser Christians just have a clearer view of that grubby glass and are more prepared to put aside peripheral issues and focus on the heart of the matter? Maybe that is why St Paul, writing the letters in our New Testament, moved from asserting his right to being an apostle in his early writings (e.g. 1 Cor 9 v1) to saying in one of the last letters he wrote, "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst" (1 Tim 1 v15). At the end of his life, Paul was sure of these things: that Christ came to save sinners, and that he was himself the vilest of sinners. In this context all other trivia falls away.
So the truth remains, totally untarnished, despite our total sinfulness.
Paul in the New Testament (1 Cor 3) exhorts Christians to move from being spiritual babes taking milk to mature adults eating solid food, to put aside childish interests and become mature believers. Becoming more mature would seem to imply that we have ironed out many of our uncertainties and become clearer about the truth. And yet the opposite often appears to be true - it is the 'young hot-heads' are the ones who seem most certain of the rights and wrongs, and the 'older and wiser ones' who often seem less sure about the details and distinctions. Have these older people let go of their former zeal and clarity, and let worldly arguments and complexities cloud their judgement? Have they lost sight of the simple truth?
Perhaps that is the problem: the truth is not often simple.
False certainty
Certainty may arise out of ignorance or arrogance, not only from sure knowledge - and distinguishing between these can be very hard indeed. Moreover, passion about a subject more often arises out of some personal vested interest, rather than out of any objective understanding. So it is much more likely that when we are adamant that we are 'upholding the truth' about some issue, that we are merely holding tightly to our own preferred view of how things should be, and most at risk of using the Bible to back our personal cause.
Women in church leadership is a topical example, but there are many. It is possible to find some Biblical support for both positions.
Where is the place for saying 'we don't really know for sure', when not knowing is sometimes, perhaps often, an honest and mature answer? It may also be that the more mature believers take a stance that is best summed up by 'it doesn't matter that much' - while recognising that it matters greatly to those who feel strongly about it, it's not a matter that defines one's faith or warrants any splits.
Even those issues which do define a faith - for example, that God exists and came in human form as Jesus, whose death on the cross made possible the cleansing of sin - are still matters of faith and not 'right' or 'wrong'. The Christian faith is, after all, faith.
Where we are indeed upholding the truth, need that look the same as having a closed mind? And does being willing to seriously consider an opposing view on an issue of Christian teaching necessarily mean that you are compromising the truth?
The truth stands
In fact, the truth is never compromised - it does, and always will stand firm. Rather, it is we who are compromised - by our pride, our insecurity, our desire for certainty, our personal need to be 'right'. (See an earlier post: 'Craving-certainty')
God either exists or he doesn't. He was, or was not, shown through his Son Jesus. My careful or outspoken arguments one way or the other make no difference to the fact! At some future point the truth will be plainly known.
Remember, for now we see and understand the truth 'through a glass darkly' and so may too readily mistake our reflection for the truth. Perhaps the older and wiser Christians just have a clearer view of that grubby glass and are more prepared to put aside peripheral issues and focus on the heart of the matter? Maybe that is why St Paul, writing the letters in our New Testament, moved from asserting his right to being an apostle in his early writings (e.g. 1 Cor 9 v1) to saying in one of the last letters he wrote, "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst" (1 Tim 1 v15). At the end of his life, Paul was sure of these things: that Christ came to save sinners, and that he was himself the vilest of sinners. In this context all other trivia falls away.
So the truth remains, totally untarnished, despite our total sinfulness.
Saturday 3 December 2011
Compulsory faith?
There are many religions where faith is not a matter of personal choice. It is either a matter of following the cultural norms or of coerced acceptance. This is common in many parts of the world, but in most nations nowadays this doesn't apply to Christianity, though it has in times past and still does in some places. But I assert that this is anathema to the Gospel of Christ.
Let's start with considering compulsory religion
Some religions take the stance that it's better to compel a person, for the sake of their eternal soul, to hold to a faith; participation is not just expected, but the consequences of deciding one doesn’t believe can be literally life threatening. But while you can compel an outward adherence to a required set of behaviours, you cannot proscribe a person's thoughts or state of heart. So, I can only make any sense of such a religion if it is based on maintaining outward behavioural standards: "keep these rules and you will be saved, regardless of your thoughts or the inclinations of your heart".
How different was Jesus’ approach!
For some reason Jesus did not take the route of compulsion or coercion. He took it upon himself to come to Earth as a human being to tell people about God the Father’s saving love. And not just to tell them, but to demonstrate servant-heartedness, dying in the place of those who were at best misunderstanding, and at worst disinterested or disbelieving.
When you look at His life, it was lived out as an example of service and sacrifice, not of power (at least, not as usually conceived by human beings). His life and words were certainly challenging, but there was no ‘take over’, no hard sell, no manipulation, no compulsion – merely an offer that each one could take or leave. No robbing people of their personal responsibility.
But why, given that He said the consequence of our decision was either eternal life or eternal separation from God? Why is personal responsibility so important to God, when He, of all Beings, could certainly compel?
The answer lies in the nature of love, for God is love. Love includes giving people the freedom to make up their own mind, to turn away from Him, and sadly many do!
Compulsory faith is a contradiction in terms.
Implications for Christian mission
It’s been said that ‘mission is seeing what God is doing and joining in’. So, Christians involved in mission - and how can you be a Christian and not be involved? - have an example to follow in Christ's life. We are to tell people about God’s love and demonstrate this through a life of sacrificial service. Our responsibility is to inform and to show by example, but never to force.
Are we really content to leave each person to freely make up their own mind, or are we tempted to go beyond that and add subtle manipulations, incentives or veiled threats?
Even where the pressure is more informal - a cultural expectation of compliance - then it becomes hard for people to distinguish a personal belief from merely conforming with others. Many 'Christian countries' will have fallen into this position. If the great majority go to church, where is the personal challenge to consider one's own faith as we go along with the crowd?
Love demands giving those we love the freedom to say "no". Otherwise we are exerting power, which puts us 'over' the other and is the opposite of servant-hearted love.
However, we should be clear that when others reject our loving approach, it is not simply a matter of saying to ourselves: "Well it's up to you; now I've done my job". It also leaves us open to the deep pain of others choosing to go their own way and reject Christ - a grief that is shared with Christ Himself.
So, be very wary when you see people of whatever religion - including Christians - trying to force others to believe. That is not of God; it's not His way.
Let's start with considering compulsory religion
Some religions take the stance that it's better to compel a person, for the sake of their eternal soul, to hold to a faith; participation is not just expected, but the consequences of deciding one doesn’t believe can be literally life threatening. But while you can compel an outward adherence to a required set of behaviours, you cannot proscribe a person's thoughts or state of heart. So, I can only make any sense of such a religion if it is based on maintaining outward behavioural standards: "keep these rules and you will be saved, regardless of your thoughts or the inclinations of your heart".
How different was Jesus’ approach!
For some reason Jesus did not take the route of compulsion or coercion. He took it upon himself to come to Earth as a human being to tell people about God the Father’s saving love. And not just to tell them, but to demonstrate servant-heartedness, dying in the place of those who were at best misunderstanding, and at worst disinterested or disbelieving.
When you look at His life, it was lived out as an example of service and sacrifice, not of power (at least, not as usually conceived by human beings). His life and words were certainly challenging, but there was no ‘take over’, no hard sell, no manipulation, no compulsion – merely an offer that each one could take or leave. No robbing people of their personal responsibility.
But why, given that He said the consequence of our decision was either eternal life or eternal separation from God? Why is personal responsibility so important to God, when He, of all Beings, could certainly compel?
The answer lies in the nature of love, for God is love. Love includes giving people the freedom to make up their own mind, to turn away from Him, and sadly many do!
Compulsory faith is a contradiction in terms.
Implications for Christian mission
It’s been said that ‘mission is seeing what God is doing and joining in’. So, Christians involved in mission - and how can you be a Christian and not be involved? - have an example to follow in Christ's life. We are to tell people about God’s love and demonstrate this through a life of sacrificial service. Our responsibility is to inform and to show by example, but never to force.
Are we really content to leave each person to freely make up their own mind, or are we tempted to go beyond that and add subtle manipulations, incentives or veiled threats?
Even where the pressure is more informal - a cultural expectation of compliance - then it becomes hard for people to distinguish a personal belief from merely conforming with others. Many 'Christian countries' will have fallen into this position. If the great majority go to church, where is the personal challenge to consider one's own faith as we go along with the crowd?
Love demands giving those we love the freedom to say "no". Otherwise we are exerting power, which puts us 'over' the other and is the opposite of servant-hearted love.
However, we should be clear that when others reject our loving approach, it is not simply a matter of saying to ourselves: "Well it's up to you; now I've done my job". It also leaves us open to the deep pain of others choosing to go their own way and reject Christ - a grief that is shared with Christ Himself.
So, be very wary when you see people of whatever religion - including Christians - trying to force others to believe. That is not of God; it's not His way.
Friday 18 November 2011
The Devil's Top 10
It is easy to assume that the devil's work can be easily seen, for we expect him to speak or do such blatant evil that it will be patently obvious. In fact, much of what the devil does looks reasonable, logical, and perhaps even good, and so we miss the concealed half-truths and the appealing lies. Below is a selection of very common devilish deceits; perhaps we should start with the most basic:
The Devil doesn't exist
The devil says: "Surely you don't believe that old nonsense about me existing? I mean, if God exists, why would he allow there to be a devil to mess things up? And if God doesn't exist, then sure as hell, neither do I. No, really, that idea is just ancient fear of the unknown, or a convenient way of blaming someone else for our own failings."
Rationale: If people don't believe in the devil, they'll be off guard.
But the Bible says: "Your enemy prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" 1 Peter 5v8
If heaven exists, everyone's going there; hell certainly doesn't exist
The devil says: "God's a very forgiving sort of chap; after all he made human beings and knows what they're like. And he's already done everything necessary to accept people into heaven. So you can be sure that everyone will end up there."
Rationale: Remove the fear of God's judgement or any need for repentance.
But Jesus said: "I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me all you evildoers." Luke 13 v27
The real world is the material world, what we can see, touch and measure
The devil says: "Come on, you don't believe all that spiritual nonsense do you? It's time you stopped believing all that hokum and accepted that the world is what we can see, the real physical stuff under our feet and all around us. Science has explained most things and it's only a matter of time until we understand the rest; there's certainly no need to resort to a God to make everything work!".
Rationale: It's based on the lies that everything is material, and that 'God' is only that which we cannot explain.
But the Bible says: "God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and truth." John 4 v24
Money makes the world go round
The devil says: "We all need money. Actually, we all need a bit more money. So, if we work a bit harder and earn a bit more we'll be able to buy that item we've wanted for a while, and then we'll be happier and better able to look after ourselves and our families."
Rationale: If we can seduce much of the world into thinking that materialism is normal and good, then a lot of the planet can be trapped at one fell swoop - and all in the name of progress!
But the Bible says: "You cannot serve both God and Money" Matthew 6 v24, and "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." 1 Timothy 6 v10
It's all about being good and decent
The devil says: "What we need is to be respectful of each other; everyone knows that we can do as we like so long as we don't harm others. So long as you're not a murderer or paedophile, then all will be well."
Rationale: If people merely compare themselves with each other, rather than by God's standards, they'll feel secure.
But the Bible says: "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags". Isaiah 64 v6, and "There is no-one righteous, not even one." Romans 3 v10
Sex outside marriage is normal
The devil says: "In this day and age everyone accepts that there's nothing wrong with sex - it's normal and healthy, and we shouldn't be ashamed or prudish about it. Of course we've all had a variety of sexual partners, who hasn't? In fact, the more the merrier. There's nothing wrong with me!"
Rationale: This is a particularly good way of confusing sex with love, with people ending up feeling like objects and wary of anything called love.
But the Bible says: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19 v5-6
You're worth it
The devil says: "Who does God think he is to tell you what is right or wrong? You know yourself and your needs better than anyone else, so decide for yourself what is right and wrong, and what you will do and what you won't. Just so long as you're happy, all's well".
Rationale: This plays well to the individualistic Western world!
But the Bible says: "Those who trust in themselves are fools." Proverbs 28 v26
It's all in the mind
The devil says: "Religion is all a trick of the mind, a mental crutch; really it's all psychological. In fact, nowadays we have therapists and the like to rid people of this kind of neurosis, and help people towards greater self-confidence and well-being."
Rationale: Replacing religion with psychology puts 'salvation' back into people's own hands.
But the Bible says: "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God". Romans 5 v6
Keep people busy
The devil says: "Keep people fed with interesting, important, good, engaging and relevant information and things to do, along with up-to-the-minute news, entertainment and hundreds, if not thousands of social network friends; then they will feel loved. Give people 24/7 access to business contacts, and then they'll feel important."
Rationale: Give them anything, just so long as they don't have time to read the Bible or pray.
But the Bible says: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength" Isaiah 30 v15
All religions are the same
The devil says: "How intolerant Christians are to say Jesus is the only way to God! They need bringing down a peg or two. In these days of equal opportunities all religions deserve a level playing field. Don't they know there are sincere and good people from many other faiths?"
Rationale: We can despise the exclusive claims of Christianity - and appear to care for people of all faiths or none.
But Jesus says: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14 v6
The Devil doesn't exist
The devil says: "Surely you don't believe that old nonsense about me existing? I mean, if God exists, why would he allow there to be a devil to mess things up? And if God doesn't exist, then sure as hell, neither do I. No, really, that idea is just ancient fear of the unknown, or a convenient way of blaming someone else for our own failings."
Rationale: If people don't believe in the devil, they'll be off guard.
But the Bible says: "Your enemy prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" 1 Peter 5v8
If heaven exists, everyone's going there; hell certainly doesn't exist
The devil says: "God's a very forgiving sort of chap; after all he made human beings and knows what they're like. And he's already done everything necessary to accept people into heaven. So you can be sure that everyone will end up there."
Rationale: Remove the fear of God's judgement or any need for repentance.
But Jesus said: "I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me all you evildoers." Luke 13 v27
The real world is the material world, what we can see, touch and measure
The devil says: "Come on, you don't believe all that spiritual nonsense do you? It's time you stopped believing all that hokum and accepted that the world is what we can see, the real physical stuff under our feet and all around us. Science has explained most things and it's only a matter of time until we understand the rest; there's certainly no need to resort to a God to make everything work!".
Rationale: It's based on the lies that everything is material, and that 'God' is only that which we cannot explain.
But the Bible says: "God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and truth." John 4 v24
Money makes the world go round
The devil says: "We all need money. Actually, we all need a bit more money. So, if we work a bit harder and earn a bit more we'll be able to buy that item we've wanted for a while, and then we'll be happier and better able to look after ourselves and our families."
Rationale: If we can seduce much of the world into thinking that materialism is normal and good, then a lot of the planet can be trapped at one fell swoop - and all in the name of progress!
But the Bible says: "You cannot serve both God and Money" Matthew 6 v24, and "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." 1 Timothy 6 v10
It's all about being good and decent
The devil says: "What we need is to be respectful of each other; everyone knows that we can do as we like so long as we don't harm others. So long as you're not a murderer or paedophile, then all will be well."
Rationale: If people merely compare themselves with each other, rather than by God's standards, they'll feel secure.
But the Bible says: "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags". Isaiah 64 v6, and "There is no-one righteous, not even one." Romans 3 v10
Sex outside marriage is normal
The devil says: "In this day and age everyone accepts that there's nothing wrong with sex - it's normal and healthy, and we shouldn't be ashamed or prudish about it. Of course we've all had a variety of sexual partners, who hasn't? In fact, the more the merrier. There's nothing wrong with me!"
Rationale: This is a particularly good way of confusing sex with love, with people ending up feeling like objects and wary of anything called love.
But the Bible says: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19 v5-6
You're worth it
The devil says: "Who does God think he is to tell you what is right or wrong? You know yourself and your needs better than anyone else, so decide for yourself what is right and wrong, and what you will do and what you won't. Just so long as you're happy, all's well".
Rationale: This plays well to the individualistic Western world!
But the Bible says: "Those who trust in themselves are fools." Proverbs 28 v26
It's all in the mind
The devil says: "Religion is all a trick of the mind, a mental crutch; really it's all psychological. In fact, nowadays we have therapists and the like to rid people of this kind of neurosis, and help people towards greater self-confidence and well-being."
Rationale: Replacing religion with psychology puts 'salvation' back into people's own hands.
But the Bible says: "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God". Romans 5 v6
Keep people busy
The devil says: "Keep people fed with interesting, important, good, engaging and relevant information and things to do, along with up-to-the-minute news, entertainment and hundreds, if not thousands of social network friends; then they will feel loved. Give people 24/7 access to business contacts, and then they'll feel important."
Rationale: Give them anything, just so long as they don't have time to read the Bible or pray.
But the Bible says: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength" Isaiah 30 v15
All religions are the same
The devil says: "How intolerant Christians are to say Jesus is the only way to God! They need bringing down a peg or two. In these days of equal opportunities all religions deserve a level playing field. Don't they know there are sincere and good people from many other faiths?"
Rationale: We can despise the exclusive claims of Christianity - and appear to care for people of all faiths or none.
But Jesus says: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14 v6
Friday 28 October 2011
Sacrificing children
In some ancient religions it used to be the practice to sacrifice children. Our minds recoil at the thought! Who could do such a thing? It isn't possible to contemplate it in this day and age! Anyone doing so today would be hunted down amid a media fury, condemned and imprisoned, with the key thrown away.
We don't sacrifice children any more, but instead we do the following:
And in these ways we rape the world and steal from our children, sacrificing them on the altar of our greed, smiling all the while and saying how much we love them.
Maybe this doesn't apply to everyone.
But I'm ashamed to realise that much of it does apply to me...
What about you?
We don't sacrifice children any more, but instead we do the following:
- We use up the world's natural resources that took millions of years to lay down, in just a few tens of years, without a care for our children's future.
- We use carbon resources as if they were renewable, when they are not (within any reasonable timescales).
- We mess with the planet's climate to such a degree that within our children's lifetimes there will be irreparable change.
- We drive cars and ship goods from one side of the world to the other, in order to gain the materials goods we like, and so pollute the planet for our children.
- We put our own happiness and sexual lusts first, lightly putting aside any commitment to marriage and family and the care of our children.
- We over-fish the seas to the degree that our children will have little left, when so many populations depend on the sea for food.
- We live in debt, not just personal but national, to enable us to live the lifestyle we desire in the present, without a thought for our children, who will have to pay this debt back - financially and in terms of their lifestyle - in decades to come.
- When economic downturns occur and unemployment rises, we allow this to particularly hit the young, so that we can continue to maintain our comfortable lifestyle.
- We assume in the West that equality and fair trade is about enabling the developing world to rise to a Western lifestyle, rather than living our lives much, much more simply in order to sustain the planet's resources for our children.
- We argue and protest about our rights, never for a moment thinking about the needs of our children.
- And meanwhile most of our churches squabble over minutiae but say nothing about greed, colluding with all the above.
And in these ways we rape the world and steal from our children, sacrificing them on the altar of our greed, smiling all the while and saying how much we love them.
Maybe this doesn't apply to everyone.
But I'm ashamed to realise that much of it does apply to me...
What about you?
Thursday 20 October 2011
Proposition: there are many paths up the mountain
Many people take the view that all religions are really much the same, so it is simply a matter of taste to pick the one that works for you. The choice is of minor consequence as they all lead to God; it's just a question of which route you choose to take to get there. Hence the proposition: there are many paths up the mountain.
Assumption 1: There is one god who shows himself in different forms. And yet:
a. While Christians, Jews and Moslems say there is only one God, other religions say there are many gods.
b. Other religions say the way to salvation is through successfully following a particular set of lifestyle rules; Jesus alone said salvation is by grace and cannot be earned by any amount of following rules.
Conclusion: The god at the top of this mountain is inconsistent; therefore is not God! Sorry, I can't make the proposition work with this assumption.
Assumption 2: There is one god who shows himself consistently, but people are confused.
a. People are often confused, so that seems entirely possible, even likely.
b. But if god cannot manage to communicate well enough with confused people to get his message through, he's not much of a god.
Conclusion: A promising start, but I'm sorry, I really can't make the proposition work with that assumption either.
Assumption 3: There are actually many gods at the top of the mountain
a. But we already know that the God of the Christians, Moslems and Jews has clearly said 'There is no God but me". As other religions disagree about this, they can't all be right. Either the one God is wrong and so isn't God, or the other religions are wrong.
b. Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me", but the Jews and Moslems disagree. They can't all be right.
Conclusion: I'm sorry, we're definitely having problems with this 'many gods' assumption...
Assumption 4: There is actually no god at the top of the mountain, but it's still good to climb for the journey and the view.
a. This would certainly develop our 'muscles' of discipline and persistence.
b. But it's ultimately deceptive, so we would learn disappointment, disillusionment, and distrust. Yet this isn't the experience of the great majority of climbers.
c. Moreover, those who have already climbed the mountain could reasonably be expected to have communicated that they found no god!
Conclusion: I'm sorry, we need a better response than that!
I'm definitely struggling to make this 'all religions are really much the same, so take your pick' proposition work.
Afterthought: Another proposition: people prefer nice cosy ideas to uncomfortable truth...
Conclusion: Umm ... that might work...
Assumption 1: There is one god who shows himself in different forms. And yet:
a. While Christians, Jews and Moslems say there is only one God, other religions say there are many gods.
b. Other religions say the way to salvation is through successfully following a particular set of lifestyle rules; Jesus alone said salvation is by grace and cannot be earned by any amount of following rules.
Conclusion: The god at the top of this mountain is inconsistent; therefore is not God! Sorry, I can't make the proposition work with this assumption.
Assumption 2: There is one god who shows himself consistently, but people are confused.
a. People are often confused, so that seems entirely possible, even likely.
b. But if god cannot manage to communicate well enough with confused people to get his message through, he's not much of a god.
Conclusion: A promising start, but I'm sorry, I really can't make the proposition work with that assumption either.
Assumption 3: There are actually many gods at the top of the mountain
a. But we already know that the God of the Christians, Moslems and Jews has clearly said 'There is no God but me". As other religions disagree about this, they can't all be right. Either the one God is wrong and so isn't God, or the other religions are wrong.
b. Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me", but the Jews and Moslems disagree. They can't all be right.
Conclusion: I'm sorry, we're definitely having problems with this 'many gods' assumption...
Assumption 4: There is actually no god at the top of the mountain, but it's still good to climb for the journey and the view.
a. This would certainly develop our 'muscles' of discipline and persistence.
b. But it's ultimately deceptive, so we would learn disappointment, disillusionment, and distrust. Yet this isn't the experience of the great majority of climbers.
c. Moreover, those who have already climbed the mountain could reasonably be expected to have communicated that they found no god!
Conclusion: I'm sorry, we need a better response than that!
I'm definitely struggling to make this 'all religions are really much the same, so take your pick' proposition work.
Afterthought: Another proposition: people prefer nice cosy ideas to uncomfortable truth...
Conclusion: Umm ... that might work...
Sunday 9 October 2011
Navigating by the stars
We all have some internal way of setting the course of our lives - though we may not think much about it - and this is likely to include having some role models whose lives we aspire to emulate.
Role models are not necessarily people we admire; they may simply be people who have 'gone ahead' of us, such as our parents. But we are also likely to look beyond them to others who are outside our immediate sphere. In our culture, which worships celebrity, we may well look to the rich or famous, to pop stars or Hollywood stars, or to 'celebrities' who have no other role than to be celebrities. These appear to be the successful and beautiful people, when our lives can feel humdrum and plain.
So we emulate their looks, their ideals, their behaviour; we make believe. And why not? Doesn’t this lift our eyes beyond our small horizons and introduce a bit of glamour?
Given that it is impossible to see things with much objectivity (see my last post: 'We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are'), we need some way to maintain a course through life when all else shifts - our moods, our circumstances, and as we move from childhood to adolescence to adulthood and to old age, our perspectives on life change.
Ancient mariners navigating by the stars knew that they needed to find the Pole Star to find true north, for even the stars appear to move round on their axis, with the Pole Star alone giving a reliable course. So, we too need to look much further, much deeper, to a fixed and unfailing point in order to set a true and reliable course over a lifetime.
But Hollywood stars and celebrities come and go; they may be shooting stars, but they certainly do not offer a sure means of navigation for life. Moreover, in emulating them we haven’t fooled anyone, least of all ourselves – our dreams remain only make-believe while our lives continue as humdrum as before.
If they do not offer a reliable means of navigating life, what does?
Many look to the ancient religions, which purport to offer a timeless wisdom, the promise of fulfillment and bliss in the life hereafter. Moreover, these bear witness to having sufficient benefit and wisdom that they have survived over countless generations. There is a selection of such religions to choose from according to taste!
But pause before rushing on, for choosing one's Pole Star is no small matter. In fact therein lies the problem: one cannot choose the Pole Star - there is but one! Choosing any but the true Pole Star will gradually but surely lead us astray.
So what do you navigate by in life, and is it a true and reliable guide when all else is disorientated?
Role models are not necessarily people we admire; they may simply be people who have 'gone ahead' of us, such as our parents. But we are also likely to look beyond them to others who are outside our immediate sphere. In our culture, which worships celebrity, we may well look to the rich or famous, to pop stars or Hollywood stars, or to 'celebrities' who have no other role than to be celebrities. These appear to be the successful and beautiful people, when our lives can feel humdrum and plain.
So we emulate their looks, their ideals, their behaviour; we make believe. And why not? Doesn’t this lift our eyes beyond our small horizons and introduce a bit of glamour?
Given that it is impossible to see things with much objectivity (see my last post: 'We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are'), we need some way to maintain a course through life when all else shifts - our moods, our circumstances, and as we move from childhood to adolescence to adulthood and to old age, our perspectives on life change.
Ancient mariners navigating by the stars knew that they needed to find the Pole Star to find true north, for even the stars appear to move round on their axis, with the Pole Star alone giving a reliable course. So, we too need to look much further, much deeper, to a fixed and unfailing point in order to set a true and reliable course over a lifetime.
But Hollywood stars and celebrities come and go; they may be shooting stars, but they certainly do not offer a sure means of navigation for life. Moreover, in emulating them we haven’t fooled anyone, least of all ourselves – our dreams remain only make-believe while our lives continue as humdrum as before.
If they do not offer a reliable means of navigating life, what does?
Many look to the ancient religions, which purport to offer a timeless wisdom, the promise of fulfillment and bliss in the life hereafter. Moreover, these bear witness to having sufficient benefit and wisdom that they have survived over countless generations. There is a selection of such religions to choose from according to taste!
But pause before rushing on, for choosing one's Pole Star is no small matter. In fact therein lies the problem: one cannot choose the Pole Star - there is but one! Choosing any but the true Pole Star will gradually but surely lead us astray.
So what do you navigate by in life, and is it a true and reliable guide when all else is disorientated?
Friday 23 September 2011
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are
We cannot help but see the world through our own eyes - what else can we do? Yet our point of view is so familiar that we usually blind to it and so are sometimes taken aback by the difference of another's viewpoint.
At some levels this is easy to accept. Your liking certain foods or fashions that are different to my tastes, and having different interests to my own - that is easy to handle. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" we think when we are aghast that someone else could find that attractive!
But the issue cuts deeper that this. Consider our values, the things we take to be right or wrong. Now we are not talking about our taste in food or style, but our 'taste in truth'. Arghhh! - a contradiction in terms, for truth is truth is truth, surely?
And you may think that here I am becoming one of those 'woolly liberals' who are apparently prepared to accept anything and everything as equally valid. No, I'm not. But nor am I going to fall into the opposite trap of assuming that my version of the truth is the result of my perfect vision and insight! For I cannot get away from the fact that what I see in front of me is a product of my own (no-doubt-biased, partially-ignorant, completely-sinful) mind.
And I'm afraid that this is true, even when, perhaps particularly when, we come to reading the Bible. We can only see it through our own eyes, and what we see says as much about us as about the Bible.
I was struck a while back in a Bible study group when we were looking at Mark 1 v1-13. When asked what the focus of the passage was, we got the following answers:
So, what have we learned from the passage? That the first speaker notices actions, the second is concerned about identity, the third about the purpose of life, and the last has probably learnt this lesson from painful experience. And each had picked out what was relevant to them.
We can - with some validity - say that God had spoken to each one. We can also say - with some validity - that all saw but a small part and missed a very great deal.
So, what was the passage actually about? What is God telling us through this section of his Word? Which of the above answers is true? Each of the above answers contains truth. We learn not just about God, but the way we see His Word (like everything else) also tells us about ourselves.
[NB. Although there may be many right answers, some answers are wrong! For example, the passage does NOT say the Jesus is one of God's many sons, nor is this said or implied elsewhere in the Bible. So we could confidently challenge such a statement if it were made. Not everything goes!]
But it remains the case that we don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.
----
Title is a quote from Anais Nin who, though not a heroine of mine, expressed this thought beautifully.
At some levels this is easy to accept. Your liking certain foods or fashions that are different to my tastes, and having different interests to my own - that is easy to handle. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" we think when we are aghast that someone else could find that attractive!
But the issue cuts deeper that this. Consider our values, the things we take to be right or wrong. Now we are not talking about our taste in food or style, but our 'taste in truth'. Arghhh! - a contradiction in terms, for truth is truth is truth, surely?
And you may think that here I am becoming one of those 'woolly liberals' who are apparently prepared to accept anything and everything as equally valid. No, I'm not. But nor am I going to fall into the opposite trap of assuming that my version of the truth is the result of my perfect vision and insight! For I cannot get away from the fact that what I see in front of me is a product of my own (no-doubt-biased, partially-ignorant, completely-sinful) mind.
And I'm afraid that this is true, even when, perhaps particularly when, we come to reading the Bible. We can only see it through our own eyes, and what we see says as much about us as about the Bible.
I was struck a while back in a Bible study group when we were looking at Mark 1 v1-13. When asked what the focus of the passage was, we got the following answers:
- John the Baptist baptising Jesus (which is in v9)
- God confirming Jesus as his Son (v11)
- John telling people that Jesus was coming in order to baptise people with the Holy Spirit (v8)
- That after a time of blessing there comes a time of trial (v13).
So, what have we learned from the passage? That the first speaker notices actions, the second is concerned about identity, the third about the purpose of life, and the last has probably learnt this lesson from painful experience. And each had picked out what was relevant to them.
We can - with some validity - say that God had spoken to each one. We can also say - with some validity - that all saw but a small part and missed a very great deal.
So, what was the passage actually about? What is God telling us through this section of his Word? Which of the above answers is true? Each of the above answers contains truth. We learn not just about God, but the way we see His Word (like everything else) also tells us about ourselves.
[NB. Although there may be many right answers, some answers are wrong! For example, the passage does NOT say the Jesus is one of God's many sons, nor is this said or implied elsewhere in the Bible. So we could confidently challenge such a statement if it were made. Not everything goes!]
But it remains the case that we don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.
----
Title is a quote from Anais Nin who, though not a heroine of mine, expressed this thought beautifully.
Tuesday 6 September 2011
Doing more than half the work
Here are three suggested guidelines related to helping.
They can be applied in just about any setting – practical help, offering guidance, third-world development work, Christian mission…
1. When we do for someone what they can do for themselves, we diminish them and rob them of their dignity.
2. Where a task is heavy and some assistance might be appreciated, we may offer to help but we shouldn’t take control; our role is to serve under their leadership; it is their task.
3. Even where a person really cannot do something for themselves, don't do more than half the work, as this creates dependence and robs them of learning.
Helping is a difficult task, and not often encountered.
They can be applied in just about any setting – practical help, offering guidance, third-world development work, Christian mission…
1. When we do for someone what they can do for themselves, we diminish them and rob them of their dignity.
- How often we demonstrate our ‘helpfulness’ by doing for others what they can do for themselves! But usually we are just demonstrating our pride and our lack of respect.
- And all we are really showing is our own neediness – our need to be ‘top dog’, our need to be needed, our need to be seen as helpful…
- We also show our lack of listening or discernment, our lack of understanding of the other person’s knowledge, skills and capabilities. And so we miss the opportunity to learn from the other and so grow ourselves.
2. Where a task is heavy and some assistance might be appreciated, we may offer to help but we shouldn’t take control; our role is to serve under their leadership; it is their task.
- Where we think we can help, there usually comes an assumption that actually we could do it better than they can. And so we say we are offering to help, but actually are offering to take over!
- But when it comes to knowing what needs to be done, who knows better – the outside ‘expert’ or the person who lives within the situation and brings a lifetime of experience to their situation?
- Just occasionally – though much less frequently that assumed – the outsider may know something that is genuinely useful. But this should be offered very tentatively and humbly, with the decision over whether to take it forward left firmly with the person whose task it is. If it is imposed it will not be adopted or owned, merely tolerated for a while.
3. Even where a person really cannot do something for themselves, don't do more than half the work, as this creates dependence and robs them of learning.
- How much easier it is to do the task for the other, rather than go through the lengthy process of working alongside someone who does not understand!
- But this merely feeds our ego, until we become bored and tire of helping and depart, leaving the other worse off than when we began.
- Rather, work together, offering your skills or understanding, but also listening and learning from the other, so that together you create something which is better than either of you could do alone.
Helping is a difficult task, and not often encountered.
Thursday 18 August 2011
There's a small part of the world...
There is a small* part of the world where:
Too often people have lost hope
because loneliness is endemic and love is not often found
and many choose to be sex objects just in order to find closeness.
Where people worship idols,
and graven images are held in such high esteem that they are to die for,
and the main religion is materialism.
Where words are twisted and honesty is rare,
back-stabbing and character-assassination is rife
and where ‘news’ actually means gossip.
Where justice means those with the biggest bank-balance are right
Where civilisation means having a big arms industry.
Where people think they are rich, and yet they are poor
Where health means no more than the absence of illness
Where experts know everything, except about how to live.
Where people engage more with the virtual world than with reality,
because reality is too painful
and life is so bitter it's better to use alcohol and drugs to numb the mind.
It's called 'the West' or the 'Developed World'.
* ‘The West’ (the North American, European and Australasian continents plus Japan) amounts to about 22% of the world’s population. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
(You may be reading this in ‘The West’ and object to these generalisations if they don’t reflect your personal experience. However, even greater generalisations are used to describe the majority world: ‘poor’, ‘lazy’, ‘corrupt’, etc.)
Too often people have lost hope
because loneliness is endemic and love is not often found
and many choose to be sex objects just in order to find closeness.
Where people worship idols,
and graven images are held in such high esteem that they are to die for,
and the main religion is materialism.
Where words are twisted and honesty is rare,
back-stabbing and character-assassination is rife
and where ‘news’ actually means gossip.
Where justice means those with the biggest bank-balance are right
Where civilisation means having a big arms industry.
Where people think they are rich, and yet they are poor
Where health means no more than the absence of illness
Where experts know everything, except about how to live.
Where people engage more with the virtual world than with reality,
because reality is too painful
and life is so bitter it's better to use alcohol and drugs to numb the mind.
It's called 'the West' or the 'Developed World'.
* ‘The West’ (the North American, European and Australasian continents plus Japan) amounts to about 22% of the world’s population. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
(You may be reading this in ‘The West’ and object to these generalisations if they don’t reflect your personal experience. However, even greater generalisations are used to describe the majority world: ‘poor’, ‘lazy’, ‘corrupt’, etc.)
Saturday 6 August 2011
The future is only what you make it now
We probably tend to assume that we have little control over the future. Almost by definition, we don't know what the future holds.
Except that this is largely not true. Do you want know what you'll be like as an old man or woman? Then read on...
More than anything else, we are creatures of habit. Neuroscience shows us that as we repeat certain thought patterns and behaviours we build up neural pathways in our brains to match, so that these thoughts and behaviours become more and more familiar and automatic, even to the extent that doing something different becomes difficult. This is just to say, that as we practice certain ways of thinking and behaving they become entrenched; they become our character.
So what we'll be like in the future is in fact very predictable - we will very likely be much the same as today, only more so!
A handful of simple examples:
So, take a look at your life. What are you practising in the present:
This applies in the Christian faith as much as in anything else. For example: what do you do when you face a difficulty - worry or pray? Which are you practicing and getting better at? Of course, there will be unexpected events in the future, and God isn't above intervening in surprising ways. And it is possible to call on Jesus to turn you around completely - which he will if you'll let him.
If you look at yourself and where you are headed and don't like what you see, then it is not too late to change track. But the more practice you have had on your current path, the more difficult it will be to 'do different'. So, when we think 'I'll get round to it later' - as is so easy - we need to bear in mind that it will only become harder as time goes by.
So if you want to become a certain kind of person, it's high time you begin to get in some practice... The future is only what you make it now.
Except that this is largely not true. Do you want know what you'll be like as an old man or woman? Then read on...
More than anything else, we are creatures of habit. Neuroscience shows us that as we repeat certain thought patterns and behaviours we build up neural pathways in our brains to match, so that these thoughts and behaviours become more and more familiar and automatic, even to the extent that doing something different becomes difficult. This is just to say, that as we practice certain ways of thinking and behaving they become entrenched; they become our character.
So what we'll be like in the future is in fact very predictable - we will very likely be much the same as today, only more so!
A handful of simple examples:
- If I would like to be respected and have a large circle of friends in my old age, but in the present I am well practiced at telling lies and annoying people, then my dream future will probably only be that - a dream. It is much more likely that I face a lonely old age, distrusted by others...
- If I want to feel at peace and contented, but spend the present worrying and being anxious, then I'm getting better and better at worrying, but getting no practice at being content! Why do I think I'll suddenly become good at it later?
- If I want my children to be close to me as I grow older, but I only talk to them to criticise or make demands, then ... well, you can see where this is going ....
So, take a look at your life. What are you practising in the present:
- being self-centred, independent, or distant?
- taking things easy and sleeping?
- being anxious, controlling or snappy?
- working and driving yourself and others hard?
- keeping your word and being truthful?
- trusting in God and knowing his faithfulness?
This applies in the Christian faith as much as in anything else. For example: what do you do when you face a difficulty - worry or pray? Which are you practicing and getting better at? Of course, there will be unexpected events in the future, and God isn't above intervening in surprising ways. And it is possible to call on Jesus to turn you around completely - which he will if you'll let him.
If you look at yourself and where you are headed and don't like what you see, then it is not too late to change track. But the more practice you have had on your current path, the more difficult it will be to 'do different'. So, when we think 'I'll get round to it later' - as is so easy - we need to bear in mind that it will only become harder as time goes by.
So if you want to become a certain kind of person, it's high time you begin to get in some practice... The future is only what you make it now.
Saturday 23 July 2011
On saying "no"
Do you remember all those times you said "yes" to some request for help, without really stopping and thinking about it much? And then later got annoyed that you were committed to doing this thing, or found yourself ending up being much too busy?
It is said that 'If you want something done, ask a busy person'. You know how there are some people who seem to be involved in lots of things, and others who don't seem to get involved at all? Well, if you are the former, this post is for you. Let's take a closer look at the thinking and motives that may be going on here.
As a Christian I should say 'yes'
Maybe you feel that as a Christian you should be helping out, even when you don't really feel like it? After all, this is about putting others' needs before our own, isn't it?
Well, God certainly calls us to work for him, and this may well include ways that aren't high on our personal list of preferences, or that involve real sacrificial service. But this also means that there are things he does not call us to do. This isn't simply to say that God calls us to do good and not evil (though that is true), but that there are good things he is not calling me to do - for he has different, individually tailored, work for each person who will follow him.
There are only 24 hours in a day, and they need to be used fully in the ways God has commanded - which includes his command to rest and to take time with him... We certainly can't do everything, and God doesn't call us to do so! So what is he calling us to do, and what is he calling others to do?
Somebody's got to do it
But if God has not called you to such work, why are you doing it? It might be because you've got hooked by the notion that someone's got to do this thing, and if no-one else is, then it better be you.
But actually, it might be that God actually doesn't need that particular thing done, and so no-one doing it really is the best outcome. Alternatively, it may be that someone else should be getting off their backside to do what God has called them to.
So, it may also be that while you are doing these things that God hasn't called you to do, you are robbing someone else of that role which is theirs! Perhaps they remain one of the people in the background because you are always there in front, getting in the way?
Moreover, if you are busy doing something you are not called to, then you are not getting on with what he has called you to ...
It would look bad if I said no / it would look good if I said yes
Umm. I thought that pride would turn up somewhere in this topic.
There's a real need
Does a need constitute a call? I think not. There are so many needs and we cannot possibly respond to them all. Some are easy to say 'no' to, as we clearly don't have the required skills or resources; but when we could do something, does that mean we are called?
So when we helpfully, or out of a sense of Christian duty, always say 'yes', then we are spending time not doing what God has called us to do. The devil is very keen to keep us busy doing all sorts of good things, just so long as they are not what God has called us to do.
Our thinking and motives for saying 'yes' or 'no' are always complex and mixed; pride and fear are bound to be in there somewhere. So perhaps, rather than simply saying "yes", or by starting from the point of considering whether the task needs to be done, we would do better to start by asking God, "Are you calling me to do this?"
Of course, the question arises: "How do I know what God is calling me to do?". The answer lies in a close and personal walk with Jesus - which will almost certainly be squeezed out if you are always saying 'yes' to everything else...
It is said that 'If you want something done, ask a busy person'. You know how there are some people who seem to be involved in lots of things, and others who don't seem to get involved at all? Well, if you are the former, this post is for you. Let's take a closer look at the thinking and motives that may be going on here.
As a Christian I should say 'yes'
Maybe you feel that as a Christian you should be helping out, even when you don't really feel like it? After all, this is about putting others' needs before our own, isn't it?
Well, God certainly calls us to work for him, and this may well include ways that aren't high on our personal list of preferences, or that involve real sacrificial service. But this also means that there are things he does not call us to do. This isn't simply to say that God calls us to do good and not evil (though that is true), but that there are good things he is not calling me to do - for he has different, individually tailored, work for each person who will follow him.
There are only 24 hours in a day, and they need to be used fully in the ways God has commanded - which includes his command to rest and to take time with him... We certainly can't do everything, and God doesn't call us to do so! So what is he calling us to do, and what is he calling others to do?
Somebody's got to do it
But if God has not called you to such work, why are you doing it? It might be because you've got hooked by the notion that someone's got to do this thing, and if no-one else is, then it better be you.
But actually, it might be that God actually doesn't need that particular thing done, and so no-one doing it really is the best outcome. Alternatively, it may be that someone else should be getting off their backside to do what God has called them to.
So, it may also be that while you are doing these things that God hasn't called you to do, you are robbing someone else of that role which is theirs! Perhaps they remain one of the people in the background because you are always there in front, getting in the way?
Moreover, if you are busy doing something you are not called to, then you are not getting on with what he has called you to ...
It would look bad if I said no / it would look good if I said yes
Umm. I thought that pride would turn up somewhere in this topic.
There's a real need
Does a need constitute a call? I think not. There are so many needs and we cannot possibly respond to them all. Some are easy to say 'no' to, as we clearly don't have the required skills or resources; but when we could do something, does that mean we are called?
So when we helpfully, or out of a sense of Christian duty, always say 'yes', then we are spending time not doing what God has called us to do. The devil is very keen to keep us busy doing all sorts of good things, just so long as they are not what God has called us to do.
Our thinking and motives for saying 'yes' or 'no' are always complex and mixed; pride and fear are bound to be in there somewhere. So perhaps, rather than simply saying "yes", or by starting from the point of considering whether the task needs to be done, we would do better to start by asking God, "Are you calling me to do this?"
Of course, the question arises: "How do I know what God is calling me to do?". The answer lies in a close and personal walk with Jesus - which will almost certainly be squeezed out if you are always saying 'yes' to everything else...
Thursday 14 July 2011
Decisions, decisions, decisions
A decision is a decision is a decision. Right?
Wrong! A decision is a whole process in itself and we often mistake an idea or an intention for a decision.
Making a decision is a surprisingly protracted process. It involves something like this:
Of course, not every decision involves all such steps or necessarily in this particular order, but I hope the general process is clear: we move from an idea, to an intention, to a decision, to a plan, and finally to action.
Moreover, we tend in natural speech and thought, to include plenty of 'loopholes' in our (apparent) decisions. For example:
Now you may think that I'm being terribly picky about such small words, as we all know what these phrases mean. The trouble is, that's true. We all know - including ourselves - that these are the kind of things we say to sound like we're making a decision, when inwardly we know full well that we have no real intention of following through on them!
And yet we still wonder why these 'decisions' don't convert into actions, and probably beat ourselves up for having so little self-discipline. But actually, we had never decided to do any of them in the first place.
So, let's be honest with ourselves. Next time you hear someone - or, more importantly, yourself - use phrases like those above, you might wonder whether what is voiced is just a good idea, or an intention, or whether it is actually an 'I'm-going-to-do-this' decision. They are not the same!
Of course, there are many good ideas around, and we all know that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'; it may also have some bearing on why some 'decisions to follow Christ' don't get very far ...
Wrong! A decision is a whole process in itself and we often mistake an idea or an intention for a decision.
Making a decision is a surprisingly protracted process. It involves something like this:
- Notice an idea - someone else's idea, or an idea of our own
- Weigh the idea; is it a good idea? a bad idea?
- If it's a good idea, is it a practical or impractical idea? [... so far we just have an idea...]
- If it's a practical idea, consider who might enact it; is this idea something that someone might do, or that I might actually do?
- Do I want to do it? [... now we have a 'good idea' that I'm interested in...]
- If I want to do it, is it just a 'good idea' or something I actually intend to do? [... now the idea may become an intention, but it's still not yet a decision...]
- If I intend to do this, when might I do it: sometime? soon? or now? [... now we may be getting close to a decision, though if the answer to this question is 'sometime' it's still just an intention...]
- I will do it on Thursday. [... now we have a decision!]
- I will do it on Thursday, in the time I have before I collect the kids from school. [... and now we have a decision and a plan.]
Of course, not every decision involves all such steps or necessarily in this particular order, but I hope the general process is clear: we move from an idea, to an intention, to a decision, to a plan, and finally to action.
Moreover, we tend in natural speech and thought, to include plenty of 'loopholes' in our (apparent) decisions. For example:
- "I really ought to go and see my parents" is not yet a decision, merely a recognition that I ought to do so.
- "I really must lose some weight" is not yet a decision; saying you 'must' is merely a strong way of saying this is a good idea, but it's not yet a decision.
- "I think I'll get some work done on my project today" is not yet a decision, as it's merely stating that you're thinking about doing some work on the project today.
Now you may think that I'm being terribly picky about such small words, as we all know what these phrases mean. The trouble is, that's true. We all know - including ourselves - that these are the kind of things we say to sound like we're making a decision, when inwardly we know full well that we have no real intention of following through on them!
And yet we still wonder why these 'decisions' don't convert into actions, and probably beat ourselves up for having so little self-discipline. But actually, we had never decided to do any of them in the first place.
So, let's be honest with ourselves. Next time you hear someone - or, more importantly, yourself - use phrases like those above, you might wonder whether what is voiced is just a good idea, or an intention, or whether it is actually an 'I'm-going-to-do-this' decision. They are not the same!
Of course, there are many good ideas around, and we all know that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'; it may also have some bearing on why some 'decisions to follow Christ' don't get very far ...
Friday 8 July 2011
Do you trust yourself?
Trust comes from repeated experience. The more times we experience someone else following through on their promises, etc., the more we come to trust them. Equally, when we experience them not doing what they said they would do, trust quickly evaporates.
Has it ever occurred to you that this applies to yourself? I don't mean how others see you, but it applies in how you see yourself!
Think of all those times you have said to yourself "I'll do that tomorrow" but not done it, or "I really am going to cut down on eating junk food" but not followed through. Well if you heard someone else coming out with all these fine sounding but empty promises, would you trust them over such matters? Me neither!
So it's not very surprising if we end up not trusting ourselves...
At the very same moment as we are saying "I'll do that tomorrow", there is another, quieter, voice in our head saying something like "that'll never happen", or "who do you think you are kidding?". And very soon we don't believe a word we say. Empty words, empty promises, from an untrustworthy character - the person in the mirror! You may fool others some of the time, but will you really fool yourself?
So, along with losing trust in oneself, self-esteem also goes out of the window. You look at yourself and see a person whose word means nothing. No-one else believes you, and you don't even believe yourself.
Do you know how to regain trust in yourself?
Trust grows, albeit slowly, from repeated experience that someone is trustworthy. So, if you were to follow through on something you said you'd do, that is the beginning. Hence it is much better for us to say we'll do something really small and achieve it, than to say we'll do something much more significant and fail to reach it. For example, it's better to decide to do 2 hours work today and achieve that, than to say we'll do 8 hours work but only manage 6 hours. The first builds trust, as we followed through on what we'd said we'd do; the latter destroys trust as we didn't achieve what we said ... despite actually having done more work!
Of course, if doing just 2 hours work isn't really a challenge, then the trust built is very small; a promise fulfilled, but not a promise of very much.
But if your self-esteem is low and you don't believe much that you say, then starting with really small steps makes sense. And if you are not really intending to follow through (however good an idea it might be) then it's much better not to say you'll do it in the first place.
But this involves a ruthless commitment to honesty. Say what you are doing to do; don't say what you are not going to do!
And gradually you will come to trust the speaker - yourself. And so will others, as, in time you are seen to be a person of your word, who says what they mean, and means what they say.
Not salvation, but still a useful turn around!
Has it ever occurred to you that this applies to yourself? I don't mean how others see you, but it applies in how you see yourself!
Think of all those times you have said to yourself "I'll do that tomorrow" but not done it, or "I really am going to cut down on eating junk food" but not followed through. Well if you heard someone else coming out with all these fine sounding but empty promises, would you trust them over such matters? Me neither!
So it's not very surprising if we end up not trusting ourselves...
At the very same moment as we are saying "I'll do that tomorrow", there is another, quieter, voice in our head saying something like "that'll never happen", or "who do you think you are kidding?". And very soon we don't believe a word we say. Empty words, empty promises, from an untrustworthy character - the person in the mirror! You may fool others some of the time, but will you really fool yourself?
So, along with losing trust in oneself, self-esteem also goes out of the window. You look at yourself and see a person whose word means nothing. No-one else believes you, and you don't even believe yourself.
Do you know how to regain trust in yourself?
Trust grows, albeit slowly, from repeated experience that someone is trustworthy. So, if you were to follow through on something you said you'd do, that is the beginning. Hence it is much better for us to say we'll do something really small and achieve it, than to say we'll do something much more significant and fail to reach it. For example, it's better to decide to do 2 hours work today and achieve that, than to say we'll do 8 hours work but only manage 6 hours. The first builds trust, as we followed through on what we'd said we'd do; the latter destroys trust as we didn't achieve what we said ... despite actually having done more work!
Of course, if doing just 2 hours work isn't really a challenge, then the trust built is very small; a promise fulfilled, but not a promise of very much.
But if your self-esteem is low and you don't believe much that you say, then starting with really small steps makes sense. And if you are not really intending to follow through (however good an idea it might be) then it's much better not to say you'll do it in the first place.
But this involves a ruthless commitment to honesty. Say what you are doing to do; don't say what you are not going to do!
And gradually you will come to trust the speaker - yourself. And so will others, as, in time you are seen to be a person of your word, who says what they mean, and means what they say.
Not salvation, but still a useful turn around!
Sunday 3 July 2011
Do what makes you anxious, not what makes you depressed
Many times a day, probably without even noticing it, we face a repeated choice: to tackle something new or to avoid it; to take on something that we aren't sure we can do, or to stay with the safe limits of the familiar; to go forward or to stay secure.
In fact, we almost certainly have a general 'stance' in life, a strong tendency towards one or pole or the other: to risk moving forward despite being unsure of the outcome, or to stay with what we already know.
Some examples:
There are pros and cons for both stances.
Those who remain within known boundaries value security and familiarity, and within these bounds feel safe, comfortable and confident. However, in time they may also feel bored, that they are not growing, are not being challenged, are not learning anything new. Safety may well turn in time to low self-esteem and perhaps even to depression (2).
Those who are inclined towards tacking new things, stretching themselves, even laying themselves on the line in some way, learn more about themselves and the world, but will also sometimes make a fool of themselves and are likely to be familiar with failing from time to time. They are also very likely to feel a degree of anxiety: can they do this? will they succeed or fail? For any time we attempt something new there is a degree of anxiety, of risk of failing.
But in time anxiety leads to growth, to new learning and skills, and also to greater confidence - a confidence not based on a brittle self-concept of 'safe success', but on the deeper knowledge that we can survive, even grow, through failure. (See my post: 'In praise of failure'.)
At bottom, the choice is between stretching ourselves and growing, or staying safe and stagnating; choosing between doing things that make us anxious and doing things that may in time lead to depression.
There is something to bear in mind about the degree of risk to take: the key principle being to take small, manageable risks - to experience some anxiety but not overwhelming panic. So if you are of a cautious predisposition, take small 'baby steps' of risk until you gain enough confidence to take bigger steps. But if you are awaiting a time when you won't feel anxious before taking some new step, you will wait forever!
Choose to do what makes you anxious, but don't do what will make you depressed.
_______
(1) Title: quote attributed to James Lincoln Collier
(2) I don't mean to imply that everyone who is depressed has been down this path; there are other reasons why people get depressed. But when avoidant behaviour becomes a repeated pattern, then it is a good 'recipe' for depression.
In fact, we almost certainly have a general 'stance' in life, a strong tendency towards one or pole or the other: to risk moving forward despite being unsure of the outcome, or to stay with what we already know.
Some examples:
- will we talk to that stranger who we'd like to get to know, or not?
- will we try a new task on the computer we haven't attempted before and we're not sure we can do, or will we ask someone else to do it?
- will we push ourselves to the limit in the test we are taking and find out what we can really achieve? or will we settle for a safe 'good enough'?
There are pros and cons for both stances.
Those who remain within known boundaries value security and familiarity, and within these bounds feel safe, comfortable and confident. However, in time they may also feel bored, that they are not growing, are not being challenged, are not learning anything new. Safety may well turn in time to low self-esteem and perhaps even to depression (2).
Those who are inclined towards tacking new things, stretching themselves, even laying themselves on the line in some way, learn more about themselves and the world, but will also sometimes make a fool of themselves and are likely to be familiar with failing from time to time. They are also very likely to feel a degree of anxiety: can they do this? will they succeed or fail? For any time we attempt something new there is a degree of anxiety, of risk of failing.
But in time anxiety leads to growth, to new learning and skills, and also to greater confidence - a confidence not based on a brittle self-concept of 'safe success', but on the deeper knowledge that we can survive, even grow, through failure. (See my post: 'In praise of failure'.)
At bottom, the choice is between stretching ourselves and growing, or staying safe and stagnating; choosing between doing things that make us anxious and doing things that may in time lead to depression.
There is something to bear in mind about the degree of risk to take: the key principle being to take small, manageable risks - to experience some anxiety but not overwhelming panic. So if you are of a cautious predisposition, take small 'baby steps' of risk until you gain enough confidence to take bigger steps. But if you are awaiting a time when you won't feel anxious before taking some new step, you will wait forever!
Choose to do what makes you anxious, but don't do what will make you depressed.
_______
(1) Title: quote attributed to James Lincoln Collier
(2) I don't mean to imply that everyone who is depressed has been down this path; there are other reasons why people get depressed. But when avoidant behaviour becomes a repeated pattern, then it is a good 'recipe' for depression.
Sunday 26 June 2011
When prayer is optional
When we live within the bounds of our normal, comfortable daily lives, prayer is optional. We know that praying is a good idea, but it may well not be at the top of our to-do list. We find time for an occasional quick prayer, or a daily ritual prayer, and perhaps something a bit more concerted when trouble arises, but we can quickly revert to our regular spiritual slumber when life reverts to normal.
The same can apply in our churches. If the normal swing of church activity doesn't require living life on the 'spiritual edge', then prayer is likely to be optional; included because it 'should be' but not at the centre, not essential.
In addition, we can easily become so busy - either with home-life, or with church services and evening meetings, strategies for mission and outreach, and plans for the new website - that prayer gets lost. When we are too busy to pray the devil rejoices!
I have no doubt that the devil would far rather we were busy planning our church outreach - or even getting on with telling people abut Jesus! - than praying. For he knows that it is only through prayer that we are effective as Christians. Without it, the rest is just 'works' and human effort, which are no threat to him.
It is only through prayer that God's work is done. Not just going-through-the-motion prayers, but heartfelt, needy, faithful wrestling in prayer; prayer that is a cry from the heart, is imperative, and comes before everything else.
I'm belatedly discovering that it's only when we start living outside our comfort zone that prayer becomes imperative. Living at God's decree will always be outside our comfort zone, for it involves putting aside our own desires and requires acts of out-of-control faith. (See The Holy Spirit and mess)
If, to be honest, we recognise that prayer is optional or perfunctory in our lives, then we're probably living safe and comfortable lives under our own control. While we stay in the background in this way, well away from the forefront of the spiritual action, prayer is optional.
If we want prayer to be more heart-felt and meaningful, I rather doubt that this comes through trying harder. Perhaps the start is by asking God to draw us closer to himself, and being willing to be drawn out of our comfort zone and closer to the battle-front.
And then we may discover that prayer is -
the air we need to breathe,
the sight we need to see,
the power we need to live,
the strength we need to work,
the faith we need to persist,
the difference between standing and falling,
... and the heart of the work we are given.
So, what is the place of prayer in our lives?
The same can apply in our churches. If the normal swing of church activity doesn't require living life on the 'spiritual edge', then prayer is likely to be optional; included because it 'should be' but not at the centre, not essential.
In addition, we can easily become so busy - either with home-life, or with church services and evening meetings, strategies for mission and outreach, and plans for the new website - that prayer gets lost. When we are too busy to pray the devil rejoices!
I have no doubt that the devil would far rather we were busy planning our church outreach - or even getting on with telling people abut Jesus! - than praying. For he knows that it is only through prayer that we are effective as Christians. Without it, the rest is just 'works' and human effort, which are no threat to him.
It is only through prayer that God's work is done. Not just going-through-the-motion prayers, but heartfelt, needy, faithful wrestling in prayer; prayer that is a cry from the heart, is imperative, and comes before everything else.
I'm belatedly discovering that it's only when we start living outside our comfort zone that prayer becomes imperative. Living at God's decree will always be outside our comfort zone, for it involves putting aside our own desires and requires acts of out-of-control faith. (See The Holy Spirit and mess)
If, to be honest, we recognise that prayer is optional or perfunctory in our lives, then we're probably living safe and comfortable lives under our own control. While we stay in the background in this way, well away from the forefront of the spiritual action, prayer is optional.
If we want prayer to be more heart-felt and meaningful, I rather doubt that this comes through trying harder. Perhaps the start is by asking God to draw us closer to himself, and being willing to be drawn out of our comfort zone and closer to the battle-front.
And then we may discover that prayer is -
the air we need to breathe,
the sight we need to see,
the power we need to live,
the strength we need to work,
the faith we need to persist,
the difference between standing and falling,
... and the heart of the work we are given.
So, what is the place of prayer in our lives?
Thursday 16 June 2011
The nature of prayer
I wonder how you understand prayer.
Of course, we "say prayers", which probably start something like "Dear Lord" and will certainly end with "Amen". Hence we recognise the start and end of prayers. The rest of the time our thoughts are our own, are 'private' and are 'not prayers', as they are not addressed to God.
But I increasingly wonder whether prayer is 'what we set our heart upon'. So, while our public (or even private) prayers may sound perfectly acceptable and very spiritual - that Mrs Jones becomes a Christian, for example - our heart's desire may honestly be for a shinier car; that is what our heart is set upon.
The trouble is, I'm not convinced that God is very good at ignoring the thoughts that are not addressed directly to him. In fact, I don't think he's very good at respecting our privacy at all.
God may well answer the prayers of our heart. Mrs Jones hasn't become a Christian, but in time we do acquire a shiny car. We may be puzzled why our prayers for Mrs Jones have gone unanswered, and we probably don't attribute our new car to God's grace, as we never saw that idea as a prayer in the first place.
I'm not saying that the car is what God most wanted to give us, but if our heart's desire is just for such material things, then that may be all he gives us. And all the while God longs that we would ask for something more important in His Kingdom.
If this is at all on the right lines, then it is a sobering thought. But then we are close to asking for forgiveness, which must be a good way to start praying.
What are we praying for? What are the desires of our heart?
Lord, forgive us.
Of course, we "say prayers", which probably start something like "Dear Lord" and will certainly end with "Amen". Hence we recognise the start and end of prayers. The rest of the time our thoughts are our own, are 'private' and are 'not prayers', as they are not addressed to God.
But I increasingly wonder whether prayer is 'what we set our heart upon'. So, while our public (or even private) prayers may sound perfectly acceptable and very spiritual - that Mrs Jones becomes a Christian, for example - our heart's desire may honestly be for a shinier car; that is what our heart is set upon.
The trouble is, I'm not convinced that God is very good at ignoring the thoughts that are not addressed directly to him. In fact, I don't think he's very good at respecting our privacy at all.
God may well answer the prayers of our heart. Mrs Jones hasn't become a Christian, but in time we do acquire a shiny car. We may be puzzled why our prayers for Mrs Jones have gone unanswered, and we probably don't attribute our new car to God's grace, as we never saw that idea as a prayer in the first place.
I'm not saying that the car is what God most wanted to give us, but if our heart's desire is just for such material things, then that may be all he gives us. And all the while God longs that we would ask for something more important in His Kingdom.
If this is at all on the right lines, then it is a sobering thought. But then we are close to asking for forgiveness, which must be a good way to start praying.
What are we praying for? What are the desires of our heart?
Lord, forgive us.
Thursday 9 June 2011
Catching glimpses, but missing the whole
Have you ever noticed that we describe ourselves in the terms that we expect our listeners to be interested in or understand. I'm not talking here about the fact that we talk about different things to different people, but rather that we describe the same issue differently when we talk to different people.
So we visit our doctor, and describe how we have so many headaches and are tired all the time. Next we talk to our therapist about being depressed. Then we talk to our vicar and say how hard we are finding it to pray. And then we come home and talk to our family and say how much we are missing our close friend, who died recently.
And so the doctor prescribes pain relief and something to help us sleep, the therapist helps us to change the train of thought that runs round in our head, the vicar talks about God being present even when we don't feel it, and the family member shares in our tears.
But if these are all expressions of the same issue - bereavement, in the simple example above - then no-one is hearing or understanding the whole. Who can we talk to without presenting just one facet of our experience; without limiting ourselves to the presumed realm of interest of our listener? And who is there that will listen openly to all that we are experiencing?
We live in a world where each professional is only an expert in some tiny fragment of human experience. But it's not just professionals' spheres of expertise that have become fragmented. I wonder whether this has led to our conceiving of our internal experience in equally fragmented ways. We subconsciously categorise our experience against some matching taxonomy: 'physical experience', 'mental or psychological experience', 'spiritual experience' - as if these are different and disconnected!
And by the time we have talked to all these different people and got such different kinds of help, we have almost certainly lost sight of the fact that they are merely facets of the one issue, and we wonder why all of these different problems have come along at the same time!
I am a therapist, so I would rather like to think that the therapist in my example above would do a better job than implied. Except that, by and large, most therapists don't 'do' God; they have got rather too sucked into the medical/psychological model of understanding mental distress, and so exclude the spiritual. Sadly, therefore, I am not confident that the answer lies in therapy.
I am also a Christian, so would really like to think that the answer lies in church. But, very sadly, my experience is that many Christians don't 'do' listening. I know that the kind of listening that is needed is difficult, and is in fact very rare to find anywhere. But how sad if it's not to be found at church. If churches do want their members to be open about the whole range of their experience, then this first needs modelling from the front (see: Who sets the agenda?) and we need to show a genuine interest in more than just "spiritual" things in church.
But perhaps the crucial question is this: when we come to God in prayer, what do we say then? What do we include and exclude? What do we assume that God is interested in? The trouble may be that we simply present a version of what we say to the vicar, somehow assuming that God is (only) interested in 'spiritual' things.
But, thanks to Jesus, surely God does understand and is interested in the whole of us - body, mind and spirit - the three in one? Where better can we go?
So we visit our doctor, and describe how we have so many headaches and are tired all the time. Next we talk to our therapist about being depressed. Then we talk to our vicar and say how hard we are finding it to pray. And then we come home and talk to our family and say how much we are missing our close friend, who died recently.
And so the doctor prescribes pain relief and something to help us sleep, the therapist helps us to change the train of thought that runs round in our head, the vicar talks about God being present even when we don't feel it, and the family member shares in our tears.
But if these are all expressions of the same issue - bereavement, in the simple example above - then no-one is hearing or understanding the whole. Who can we talk to without presenting just one facet of our experience; without limiting ourselves to the presumed realm of interest of our listener? And who is there that will listen openly to all that we are experiencing?
We live in a world where each professional is only an expert in some tiny fragment of human experience. But it's not just professionals' spheres of expertise that have become fragmented. I wonder whether this has led to our conceiving of our internal experience in equally fragmented ways. We subconsciously categorise our experience against some matching taxonomy: 'physical experience', 'mental or psychological experience', 'spiritual experience' - as if these are different and disconnected!
And by the time we have talked to all these different people and got such different kinds of help, we have almost certainly lost sight of the fact that they are merely facets of the one issue, and we wonder why all of these different problems have come along at the same time!
I am a therapist, so I would rather like to think that the therapist in my example above would do a better job than implied. Except that, by and large, most therapists don't 'do' God; they have got rather too sucked into the medical/psychological model of understanding mental distress, and so exclude the spiritual. Sadly, therefore, I am not confident that the answer lies in therapy.
I am also a Christian, so would really like to think that the answer lies in church. But, very sadly, my experience is that many Christians don't 'do' listening. I know that the kind of listening that is needed is difficult, and is in fact very rare to find anywhere. But how sad if it's not to be found at church. If churches do want their members to be open about the whole range of their experience, then this first needs modelling from the front (see: Who sets the agenda?) and we need to show a genuine interest in more than just "spiritual" things in church.
But perhaps the crucial question is this: when we come to God in prayer, what do we say then? What do we include and exclude? What do we assume that God is interested in? The trouble may be that we simply present a version of what we say to the vicar, somehow assuming that God is (only) interested in 'spiritual' things.
But, thanks to Jesus, surely God does understand and is interested in the whole of us - body, mind and spirit - the three in one? Where better can we go?
Thursday 2 June 2011
In the name of Jesus we muddle through
It used to be said of the Trade Union movement that it's main function was to achieve glorious defeats. They didn't win many cases for their workers, but they did bring their membership together in solidarity against a shared sense of injustice.
I'm not sure whether the unions are more successful these days, but I wonder whether Christians have become enamoured of glorious defeats? Have we lost sight of the spiritual victory? Have we become used to being in the minority and either facing apathy or defending ourselves against hostility, and too used to feeling overwhelmed or defeated. Moreover, we can be rather good at enjoying a shared secret knowledge that we are nonetheless on the winning side, all the while cowering in corners, keeping an increasingly low profile in order to avoid the spotlight.
There is an old (1970s?) chorus I remember from my early years as a Christian:
In the name of Jesus,
In the name of Jesus
We have the victory.
In the name of Jesus,
In the name of Jesus
Demons will have to flee
Who can tell what God can do?
Who can tell of his love for you?
In the name of Jesus, Jesus
We have the victory.
I remember being very encouraged that we were on the victory side! Of course, I still know in my head that this is true, but I realised recently that my felt sense of this victory had become rather distant and neglected.
Moreover, in my mind the simplicity of that chorus has been replaced with a good deal of complexity, shades of grey, and qualified understandings. Not actual doubt, but a difficulty with taking the words of that song with simple gladness and confidence. Is this a growing maturity or is it a clouding of spiritual sight?
And alongside my personal journey (read: 'ageing'), the church in the UK seems to have lost much of its confidence and is also more subdued.
Of course, the Bible doesn't equate 'victory' with worldly ideas of success (see my blog:In praise of failure). The persecutions of the saints throughout the ages makes that clear, as does Jesus' own crucifixion, of course. But herein lies another problem: we may be so familiar with the truth that we will be persecuted as Christians, that we forget to expect to share in God's triumphant victories, except in the most distant of ways - in heaven. But in so thinking, have our faith muscles have become feeble through lack of use?
We live in a spiritual battle - but if we're not fighting, is it any wonder that we end up trampled? And if we aren't even aware that the battle is spiritual, we won't even know what has hit us (see: Impotent Christians in a material world)!
So, for the present, in the name of Jesus we muddle through.
I'm not sure whether the unions are more successful these days, but I wonder whether Christians have become enamoured of glorious defeats? Have we lost sight of the spiritual victory? Have we become used to being in the minority and either facing apathy or defending ourselves against hostility, and too used to feeling overwhelmed or defeated. Moreover, we can be rather good at enjoying a shared secret knowledge that we are nonetheless on the winning side, all the while cowering in corners, keeping an increasingly low profile in order to avoid the spotlight.
There is an old (1970s?) chorus I remember from my early years as a Christian:
In the name of Jesus,
In the name of Jesus
We have the victory.
In the name of Jesus,
In the name of Jesus
Demons will have to flee
Who can tell what God can do?
Who can tell of his love for you?
In the name of Jesus, Jesus
We have the victory.
I remember being very encouraged that we were on the victory side! Of course, I still know in my head that this is true, but I realised recently that my felt sense of this victory had become rather distant and neglected.
Moreover, in my mind the simplicity of that chorus has been replaced with a good deal of complexity, shades of grey, and qualified understandings. Not actual doubt, but a difficulty with taking the words of that song with simple gladness and confidence. Is this a growing maturity or is it a clouding of spiritual sight?
And alongside my personal journey (read: 'ageing'), the church in the UK seems to have lost much of its confidence and is also more subdued.
Of course, the Bible doesn't equate 'victory' with worldly ideas of success (see my blog:In praise of failure). The persecutions of the saints throughout the ages makes that clear, as does Jesus' own crucifixion, of course. But herein lies another problem: we may be so familiar with the truth that we will be persecuted as Christians, that we forget to expect to share in God's triumphant victories, except in the most distant of ways - in heaven. But in so thinking, have our faith muscles have become feeble through lack of use?
We live in a spiritual battle - but if we're not fighting, is it any wonder that we end up trampled? And if we aren't even aware that the battle is spiritual, we won't even know what has hit us (see: Impotent Christians in a material world)!
So, for the present, in the name of Jesus we muddle through.
Friday 27 May 2011
Impotent Christians in a material world
How come many Christians, of all people, have so lost sight of the spiritual world and the supernatural? Where is the miraculous; where are the God-given spiritual gifts; where are the angels and the victory over evil spirits?
The other major world religions, even the tribal religions are much more in touch with the spiritual world than we are!
We seem to think that we are too advanced to believe that nonsense, even looking down on these beliefs in other religions as primitive or pagan. We, on the other hand, are 'wiser' than they; we know that the world is made of atoms and is material! And we have grown up with a deep belief in our own superior knowledge of how the world works.
But actually it is we who have traded sight for blindness and become blind guides.
We have fallen for the lie that what we can see and explain is all that matters - the materialistic view. We have believed a lie - not so much that science is wrong, but the view that it is all that is true!
But that is not Biblical Christianity.
Some resolve this conundrum by coming to the conclusion that Jesus lived in a pre-scientific age, and explained things in the language of the common (read: primitive) people of his day. Had he lived in this era, they think, he would of course have explained things in material and scientific terms...
But then we would need to remove not just the miracles, but all references in the Bible to the spiritual - even to God being Spirit! And what are we left with? Well, not much at all, really:
And is it then surprising that we decide that Christianity isn't very useful in this day and age, and so it is thrown out completely!
Other Christians assume a different 'solution': they are clear that the miraculous used to happen - and especially that Jesus rose miraculously from the dead. But they seem very uncomfortable with the notion of spiritual gifts and with angels and demons, and are clear that miracles don't happen nowadays. They are probably people whose Christian life so far hasn't been touched by the majority of the world where an awareness of the spiritual is a normal part of day-to-day reality.
Anyway, they are left with a castrated Christianity, impotent and nonsensical - a belief system in which God used to be able to do all sorts of things, but offers little these days to those who have any need beyond wanting a cosy circle and a warm feeling. (After all, why would we need any of that spiritual stuff now that we have psychologists and modern medicine? Come to that, why would God need to go to any such effort now that we are so well advanced and able to do everything ourselves?)
While much of life looks simply natural and not obviously spiritual, if we only work at a material level we miss all the spiritual action; we are reduced to feeble human (mis)understanding. We are then blind, powerless and useless.
How true are the Bible's words about collective unbelief:
"He (Jesus) did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith." (Matt 13v58)
The other major world religions, even the tribal religions are much more in touch with the spiritual world than we are!
We seem to think that we are too advanced to believe that nonsense, even looking down on these beliefs in other religions as primitive or pagan. We, on the other hand, are 'wiser' than they; we know that the world is made of atoms and is material! And we have grown up with a deep belief in our own superior knowledge of how the world works.
But actually it is we who have traded sight for blindness and become blind guides.
We have fallen for the lie that what we can see and explain is all that matters - the materialistic view. We have believed a lie - not so much that science is wrong, but the view that it is all that is true!
But that is not Biblical Christianity.
Some resolve this conundrum by coming to the conclusion that Jesus lived in a pre-scientific age, and explained things in the language of the common (read: primitive) people of his day. Had he lived in this era, they think, he would of course have explained things in material and scientific terms...
But then we would need to remove not just the miracles, but all references in the Bible to the spiritual - even to God being Spirit! And what are we left with? Well, not much at all, really:
- the miracles were obviously some unusual but explainable scientific phenomena
- the spiritual gifts (prophecy, discernment, etc) were a figment of the imagination, or perhaps altered states of mind
- the demonic can be readily dismissed as psychological or mental health issues (and how offensive is that?)...
And is it then surprising that we decide that Christianity isn't very useful in this day and age, and so it is thrown out completely!
Other Christians assume a different 'solution': they are clear that the miraculous used to happen - and especially that Jesus rose miraculously from the dead. But they seem very uncomfortable with the notion of spiritual gifts and with angels and demons, and are clear that miracles don't happen nowadays. They are probably people whose Christian life so far hasn't been touched by the majority of the world where an awareness of the spiritual is a normal part of day-to-day reality.
Anyway, they are left with a castrated Christianity, impotent and nonsensical - a belief system in which God used to be able to do all sorts of things, but offers little these days to those who have any need beyond wanting a cosy circle and a warm feeling. (After all, why would we need any of that spiritual stuff now that we have psychologists and modern medicine? Come to that, why would God need to go to any such effort now that we are so well advanced and able to do everything ourselves?)
While much of life looks simply natural and not obviously spiritual, if we only work at a material level we miss all the spiritual action; we are reduced to feeble human (mis)understanding. We are then blind, powerless and useless.
How true are the Bible's words about collective unbelief:
"He (Jesus) did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith." (Matt 13v58)
Thursday 19 May 2011
Don't just do something, stand there!
How much of the time we rush around doing things - seemingly important things - but have no time to stand and stare, to notice what matters and what is going on:
We suffer from the illusion that it is up to us to get things done, and if we don't get on with it, then nothing will happen.
It's a lie of the Enemy, a trap - and one that many (particularly in the West) have fallen headlong into.
But actually, before the dawn of time, God was working and speaking the universe into existence. For millennia his purposes were being realised, including making humankind. And long before we rushed around, God was working out his purposes, and he continues to do so day by day - in his unhurried but perfectly-timed way.
The Lord is author and creator of all things.
So I wonder what all this rushing is accomplishing? Keeping us busy? Creating a sense of purpose and direction? Making us feel important or powerful?
Or perhaps, by all our rushing, we are desperately avoiding the thought that actually our lives are meaningless and have no real purpose, that inside we feel small and unimportant.
But if we stopped rushing we would have time to enjoy life with God; we would know that our purpose is to give glory to Him; and that it is only in God that we have any power or direction.
Actually, as God's precious people, we are much too important than to waste our time on so much worthless bustle! And life is far too short to waste it on rushing and meaningless activity. Instead, take time to wonder, to live in awe, to commune with God in prayer, to be alongside others.
So we have a choice. We can foolishly rush around as if it's all up to us - building sandcastles, while trying to ignore the tide which is coming in.
Or we can stand back and take the time to stop and look, to see what God is doing, and having got a Godly perspective, to unhurriedly work alongside Him, building on the rock.
- Life is short; this isn't a rehearsal, you only live once; I'm going to make the most of every second; sleep is for wimps; 24/7 ...
- There's too much to do; if I don't do it no-one will; maximising efficiency; time flies; time is money; bustle and rush; got to get it all done; needs must ...
- I must meet the deadline or they'll kill me; I'm just going to do this before I finish for the day; I'm going to be late back again tonight darling ...
- Yes, you can get me by or phone or email anytime; of course; don't hesitate; no problem ...
We suffer from the illusion that it is up to us to get things done, and if we don't get on with it, then nothing will happen.
It's a lie of the Enemy, a trap - and one that many (particularly in the West) have fallen headlong into.
But actually, before the dawn of time, God was working and speaking the universe into existence. For millennia his purposes were being realised, including making humankind. And long before we rushed around, God was working out his purposes, and he continues to do so day by day - in his unhurried but perfectly-timed way.
The Lord is author and creator of all things.
So I wonder what all this rushing is accomplishing? Keeping us busy? Creating a sense of purpose and direction? Making us feel important or powerful?
Or perhaps, by all our rushing, we are desperately avoiding the thought that actually our lives are meaningless and have no real purpose, that inside we feel small and unimportant.
But if we stopped rushing we would have time to enjoy life with God; we would know that our purpose is to give glory to Him; and that it is only in God that we have any power or direction.
Actually, as God's precious people, we are much too important than to waste our time on so much worthless bustle! And life is far too short to waste it on rushing and meaningless activity. Instead, take time to wonder, to live in awe, to commune with God in prayer, to be alongside others.
So we have a choice. We can foolishly rush around as if it's all up to us - building sandcastles, while trying to ignore the tide which is coming in.
Or we can stand back and take the time to stop and look, to see what God is doing, and having got a Godly perspective, to unhurriedly work alongside Him, building on the rock.
Saturday 14 May 2011
The Holy Sprit and mess
We like to think that we have things pretty well under control. We make our plans and probably get annoyed if they are disrupted by others - after all, when we have planned things carefully, we arranged them that way for a reason. So it can be rather irritating when someone or something comes along and changes things, disturbs our plans and everything goes awry.
The trouble with letting go of the plans is that we are no longer quite sure what is going to happen and we no longer feel in control. How we like to be in control! And when our plans are taken over and messed up, we are left with - well, a mess!
The Holy Spirit has a really annoying habit of doing just this. So it would help to sort out early on just who is in charge here! Because if we don't want our plans being messed up, we would do well to make sure the Holy Spirit is not invited.
So, when we are planning our day, our church services, our lives - our anything, in fact - let's be clear about whether we want to be in control and keep things orderly and within the bounds of reason, or whether we are inviting the Holy Spirit to take control and willing for him to mess things up. We will undoubtedly find offering unlimited access difficult, for it goes against the grain.
Some Christians seem to think that we can put things into the Spirit's hands a good time in advance, and thus obviate the need for any last minute changes of plan. The best of both worlds: the blessing of the Spirit, a well-worked out plan, and no mess! But this may just be a qualified submission to the Spirit: "I'll ask for your help just so long as you don't spring any surprises". I suppose, in His amazing grace, He may work with what you offer, but that may not offer very much...
After all, it's much safer to stay in control, to retain our well-ordered lives and priorities - particularly where these seem to be Bible-based and Godly!
So, what is the Spirit doing in your life at present? What is He doing in your church or neighbourhood these days? If you don't know the answer, then maybe that says something in itself. But it won't reflect His disinterest, but probably that we haven't left Him any room to act.
It comes down to whether we are doing the planning and graciously allowing the Holy Spirit to join in a bit, or whether we are looking out for what the Holy Spirit is doing and asking for His gracious help that we may join in...
But it'll definitely feel messy. His priorities will be different than ours. His actions will take us by surprise. He will break all our rules and push all our buttons regarding control. And He will raise all our anxieties through our not understanding what's going on and not knowing where we're going...
And it will probably only be later, perhaps much later (if at all) that the Holy Spirit's perfect purposes and plans will make any sense.
So, how much mess can we tolerate? The sooner we decide and get this clear with the Spirit, the easier it will be all round...
The trouble with letting go of the plans is that we are no longer quite sure what is going to happen and we no longer feel in control. How we like to be in control! And when our plans are taken over and messed up, we are left with - well, a mess!
The Holy Spirit has a really annoying habit of doing just this. So it would help to sort out early on just who is in charge here! Because if we don't want our plans being messed up, we would do well to make sure the Holy Spirit is not invited.
So, when we are planning our day, our church services, our lives - our anything, in fact - let's be clear about whether we want to be in control and keep things orderly and within the bounds of reason, or whether we are inviting the Holy Spirit to take control and willing for him to mess things up. We will undoubtedly find offering unlimited access difficult, for it goes against the grain.
Some Christians seem to think that we can put things into the Spirit's hands a good time in advance, and thus obviate the need for any last minute changes of plan. The best of both worlds: the blessing of the Spirit, a well-worked out plan, and no mess! But this may just be a qualified submission to the Spirit: "I'll ask for your help just so long as you don't spring any surprises". I suppose, in His amazing grace, He may work with what you offer, but that may not offer very much...
After all, it's much safer to stay in control, to retain our well-ordered lives and priorities - particularly where these seem to be Bible-based and Godly!
So, what is the Spirit doing in your life at present? What is He doing in your church or neighbourhood these days? If you don't know the answer, then maybe that says something in itself. But it won't reflect His disinterest, but probably that we haven't left Him any room to act.
It comes down to whether we are doing the planning and graciously allowing the Holy Spirit to join in a bit, or whether we are looking out for what the Holy Spirit is doing and asking for His gracious help that we may join in...
But it'll definitely feel messy. His priorities will be different than ours. His actions will take us by surprise. He will break all our rules and push all our buttons regarding control. And He will raise all our anxieties through our not understanding what's going on and not knowing where we're going...
And it will probably only be later, perhaps much later (if at all) that the Holy Spirit's perfect purposes and plans will make any sense.
So, how much mess can we tolerate? The sooner we decide and get this clear with the Spirit, the easier it will be all round...
Thursday 5 May 2011
Which time-zone do you live in?
Some people seem to live in the moment, neither looking back much nor thinking further ahead than this evening. They enjoy each moment without a care about what comes next. No big plans or 'smart' goals; but alive to each encounter, savouring each impression, feeling each pain.
Then there are those who are future-oriented. They may be young people impatiently waiting for 'real' life to begin, or adults rushing on to the next goal, with plans for the future which need to be worked on and with no time to linger in the present. The past is gone and cannot be changed, the present is merely groundwork for a future which beckons. Their identity is not properly visible, for they live in their plans and what is yet to be.
Others live in the past, holding proudly to past accomplishments, or unable to let go of past mistakes and regrets. Their identity is what they have already been or done. The present is to enjoy their accomplishments or torture themselves over past failures, their future just more of the same. They may be old, feeling that life has already happened; looking back and waiting to die, existing, not living. But they may be young and afraid of the future, unable to move ahead, fearing the black hole of the unknown ahead.
Which time-zone do you mainly live in?
There are joys and pitfalls in each...
There is something good about remembering and enjoying our past accomplishments. And it is right to stop and admit, even weep over our past failings. Yet there can be a devilish deceit in living primarily in the past - for it encompasses pride for past achievements, or denies the possibility of Jesus' forgiveness for past sins; and it further implies that God has nothing more for us to do. On all three counts, this is false.
There’s something valuable about living in the present and those who live with a future-orientation too quickly dismiss it, underestimating the importance of treasuring each passing moment and living life to the full. And yet … the real risk for those who live entirely in the moment is that they meander aimlessly through life achieving little of lasting significance. And here, perhaps, a deceit of the Enemy is laid bare: “pursue happiness now”; “don’t worry about the future”. How well these comforting messages fit into our modern western world-view!
And there is also something good about looking to the future, setting a course and striving to achieve it. Yet there may be a deceit here too: "One day you will be somebody", while actually achieving nothing of consequence, not even being fully alive to the moment. It can be an avoidance of the present, or it may be dreaming a pipe-dream. It also contains a common deception, in thinking that the future is ours to plan - for God alone holds our future in his hands.
God’s attitude to time seems to be different to all these. He manages to have both a ‘grand plan’ stretching from before the beginning of time until eternity and yet to also be totally present in the moment. There’s no aimless wandering here; he has a very clear purpose. He is not side-tracked or distracted; his purpose will be accomplished. And yet he also has time to linger and make meaningful every brief encounter, time to address each fleeting concern that we take to him, time to enjoy each sunrise and smile, time to share our hurts and disappointments, and time to be alongside us in our despair.
But, we may say, God has a unique advantage when it comes to time, being eternal and all that. Yes - and no. Though our earthly lives have but a brief span set by God, he has nonetheless set the pattern for us.
So let us also pray that the Lord would help us to remember what he has done in the past and to give him the glory, while relinquishing our past failings into his forgiving hands; to live every unrushed moment fully with him, redeeming it for his eternal purpose; and to hold unswervingly to his call on our lives until we reach our eternal heavenly destination.
Then there are those who are future-oriented. They may be young people impatiently waiting for 'real' life to begin, or adults rushing on to the next goal, with plans for the future which need to be worked on and with no time to linger in the present. The past is gone and cannot be changed, the present is merely groundwork for a future which beckons. Their identity is not properly visible, for they live in their plans and what is yet to be.
Others live in the past, holding proudly to past accomplishments, or unable to let go of past mistakes and regrets. Their identity is what they have already been or done. The present is to enjoy their accomplishments or torture themselves over past failures, their future just more of the same. They may be old, feeling that life has already happened; looking back and waiting to die, existing, not living. But they may be young and afraid of the future, unable to move ahead, fearing the black hole of the unknown ahead.
Which time-zone do you mainly live in?
There are joys and pitfalls in each...
There is something good about remembering and enjoying our past accomplishments. And it is right to stop and admit, even weep over our past failings. Yet there can be a devilish deceit in living primarily in the past - for it encompasses pride for past achievements, or denies the possibility of Jesus' forgiveness for past sins; and it further implies that God has nothing more for us to do. On all three counts, this is false.
There’s something valuable about living in the present and those who live with a future-orientation too quickly dismiss it, underestimating the importance of treasuring each passing moment and living life to the full. And yet … the real risk for those who live entirely in the moment is that they meander aimlessly through life achieving little of lasting significance. And here, perhaps, a deceit of the Enemy is laid bare: “pursue happiness now”; “don’t worry about the future”. How well these comforting messages fit into our modern western world-view!
And there is also something good about looking to the future, setting a course and striving to achieve it. Yet there may be a deceit here too: "One day you will be somebody", while actually achieving nothing of consequence, not even being fully alive to the moment. It can be an avoidance of the present, or it may be dreaming a pipe-dream. It also contains a common deception, in thinking that the future is ours to plan - for God alone holds our future in his hands.
God’s attitude to time seems to be different to all these. He manages to have both a ‘grand plan’ stretching from before the beginning of time until eternity and yet to also be totally present in the moment. There’s no aimless wandering here; he has a very clear purpose. He is not side-tracked or distracted; his purpose will be accomplished. And yet he also has time to linger and make meaningful every brief encounter, time to address each fleeting concern that we take to him, time to enjoy each sunrise and smile, time to share our hurts and disappointments, and time to be alongside us in our despair.
But, we may say, God has a unique advantage when it comes to time, being eternal and all that. Yes - and no. Though our earthly lives have but a brief span set by God, he has nonetheless set the pattern for us.
So let us also pray that the Lord would help us to remember what he has done in the past and to give him the glory, while relinquishing our past failings into his forgiving hands; to live every unrushed moment fully with him, redeeming it for his eternal purpose; and to hold unswervingly to his call on our lives until we reach our eternal heavenly destination.
Tuesday 26 April 2011
Why emotion matters
It's only when we communicate or understand the emotional side of what is being communicated, that we can properly understand and truly relate to a person.
For example, a parent says: "The children have grown up and left home". This is a simple and clear statement, a piece of factual information; we've learnt something. But we are not yet in touch with that person, and we can't actually understand them properly until some emotion is shared.
"The children have grown up and left home, and I'm missing them like crazy", or "The children have grown up and left home and I'm so glad to have them out of the house!". Now we are beginning to know the person and understand what they are experiencing ...
With no emotion, we know about a person; but with emotion being expressed we begin to know the person. Those two things sound similar, but are a million miles apart.
Much of the time in churches people learn about Jesus and about God. That is fine as far as it goes - but it's not the same as being a Christian! Where is the living relationship?
Knowing that Jesus lived, taught, performed miracles, died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven - is interesting; but what does that have to do with me? It's only when I recognise that Jesus did these things because he loves me, grieves over my sin, longs to forgive me if only I will accept, yearns for a relationship with me - that things becomes personal. And this difference isn't just knowing more facts, but being in touch with how he feels about me!
And my response is not sufficient if I merely recognise the fact, or intellectually assent, that I need his forgiveness. It becomes real when I too weep over my sin, feel the joy of being in his presence, am honest with him about my struggles and fears ... Now we have a relationship!
So if a church keeps emotion out of the sanctuary it is stifling living relationships with God. How very sad!
Emotion is not enough on it's own for a good relationship, but being wary of emotion in Christianity merely indicates that our relationship with God is more intellectual than personal - relating to the ideas in Christianity, rather than relating to God.
Fortunately for us, God wants to have a very personal and emotional relationship with us. It's high time we responded - with joy!
For example, a parent says: "The children have grown up and left home". This is a simple and clear statement, a piece of factual information; we've learnt something. But we are not yet in touch with that person, and we can't actually understand them properly until some emotion is shared.
"The children have grown up and left home, and I'm missing them like crazy", or "The children have grown up and left home and I'm so glad to have them out of the house!". Now we are beginning to know the person and understand what they are experiencing ...
With no emotion, we know about a person; but with emotion being expressed we begin to know the person. Those two things sound similar, but are a million miles apart.
Much of the time in churches people learn about Jesus and about God. That is fine as far as it goes - but it's not the same as being a Christian! Where is the living relationship?
Knowing that Jesus lived, taught, performed miracles, died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven - is interesting; but what does that have to do with me? It's only when I recognise that Jesus did these things because he loves me, grieves over my sin, longs to forgive me if only I will accept, yearns for a relationship with me - that things becomes personal. And this difference isn't just knowing more facts, but being in touch with how he feels about me!
And my response is not sufficient if I merely recognise the fact, or intellectually assent, that I need his forgiveness. It becomes real when I too weep over my sin, feel the joy of being in his presence, am honest with him about my struggles and fears ... Now we have a relationship!
So if a church keeps emotion out of the sanctuary it is stifling living relationships with God. How very sad!
Emotion is not enough on it's own for a good relationship, but being wary of emotion in Christianity merely indicates that our relationship with God is more intellectual than personal - relating to the ideas in Christianity, rather than relating to God.
Fortunately for us, God wants to have a very personal and emotional relationship with us. It's high time we responded - with joy!
Thursday 21 April 2011
Head, heart and hands
Each of us naturally leans towards using our minds, or our emotion, or our practical abilities. People tend to be strong in one of these ways of operating, adequate at another, and are often poor at the third. There's nothing wrong with this - it's just that people are different.
Those who most readily respond with their minds will think first; they may also feel some emotion or do something practical, but these will come after thinking. They are likely to be comfortable with understanding and reasoning; they have good 'head knowledge' and understand how (some) things work, which gives them a 'mental map' of what is happening and how best to respond. They will use phrases such as: 'I think that ...', 'What is happening is...', 'I know about that...'.
Others are primarily in touch with their emotion. They hear about something that has happened and are moved by the joy or sadness in it; tears and happiness will be familiar. They may not think through a situation, but they are in touch with what they feel about it and this guides their decisions and actions. They will use phrases such as: 'I feel that...', 'It's so sad that...', 'That poor person!'.
Others are first and foremost practical. Their first inclination is to do something; so if they hear about a person in need, their response is to do something practical to help. They will use phrases such as: 'How can we help you?', 'Can I drive you there?', 'Let's take them some flowers'.
We may well not be aware of such strengths and weaknesses in ourselves, and so are puzzled (at best) or scornful (at worst) at others who have different responses.
Our churches also tend to have a similar bias, and are usually just as blind about it. So (to grossly generalise) the evangelicals think, the charismatics feel, and the socially active Christians get on with doing things. Moreover - to continue the caricature - the evangelicals will be very wary of emotional charismatics and dismissive of 'the social gospel' - their priority is to get their teaching right! The charismatics will be amazed at how cold and unresponsive those evangelicals are, and yet are also not so keen to rush out into practical Christian action as they are enjoying the presence of God in their worship. And those who are into practical loving in Jesus' name cannot understand why these other Christians don't do anything useful!
These differences are often dressed up in theological language, but this doesn't really reflect a difference in theology so much as that God made people different!
But Jesus - unusually - was skilled in all three areas: clear thinking, emotionally literate, and practically involved. Perhaps this is not so surprising, as each of these reflect aspects of God's own character; you will see them all threaded throughout scripture if you look.
Rather than having our churches majoring in just one of these ways of operating and then constructing a theology to justify their discomfort with others' ways of responding, can we not recognise and use the different God-given giftings of our membership so that all are welcome in our churches and all bases are covered?
Of course, our minister / pastor / vicar will have their own personal strengths and weaknesses in these areas and so will almost certainly find it difficult to operate skillfully in all these modes. Can they humbly acknowledge their own weak areas and so seek out and use those within the church who have different gifts?
Only then can we have churches which have the mind of Christ, express the love and compassion of God, and then get involved with their hands in practical loving action in the name of Jesus.
Those who most readily respond with their minds will think first; they may also feel some emotion or do something practical, but these will come after thinking. They are likely to be comfortable with understanding and reasoning; they have good 'head knowledge' and understand how (some) things work, which gives them a 'mental map' of what is happening and how best to respond. They will use phrases such as: 'I think that ...', 'What is happening is...', 'I know about that...'.
Others are primarily in touch with their emotion. They hear about something that has happened and are moved by the joy or sadness in it; tears and happiness will be familiar. They may not think through a situation, but they are in touch with what they feel about it and this guides their decisions and actions. They will use phrases such as: 'I feel that...', 'It's so sad that...', 'That poor person!'.
Others are first and foremost practical. Their first inclination is to do something; so if they hear about a person in need, their response is to do something practical to help. They will use phrases such as: 'How can we help you?', 'Can I drive you there?', 'Let's take them some flowers'.
We may well not be aware of such strengths and weaknesses in ourselves, and so are puzzled (at best) or scornful (at worst) at others who have different responses.
Our churches also tend to have a similar bias, and are usually just as blind about it. So (to grossly generalise) the evangelicals think, the charismatics feel, and the socially active Christians get on with doing things. Moreover - to continue the caricature - the evangelicals will be very wary of emotional charismatics and dismissive of 'the social gospel' - their priority is to get their teaching right! The charismatics will be amazed at how cold and unresponsive those evangelicals are, and yet are also not so keen to rush out into practical Christian action as they are enjoying the presence of God in their worship. And those who are into practical loving in Jesus' name cannot understand why these other Christians don't do anything useful!
These differences are often dressed up in theological language, but this doesn't really reflect a difference in theology so much as that God made people different!
But Jesus - unusually - was skilled in all three areas: clear thinking, emotionally literate, and practically involved. Perhaps this is not so surprising, as each of these reflect aspects of God's own character; you will see them all threaded throughout scripture if you look.
Rather than having our churches majoring in just one of these ways of operating and then constructing a theology to justify their discomfort with others' ways of responding, can we not recognise and use the different God-given giftings of our membership so that all are welcome in our churches and all bases are covered?
Of course, our minister / pastor / vicar will have their own personal strengths and weaknesses in these areas and so will almost certainly find it difficult to operate skillfully in all these modes. Can they humbly acknowledge their own weak areas and so seek out and use those within the church who have different gifts?
Only then can we have churches which have the mind of Christ, express the love and compassion of God, and then get involved with their hands in practical loving action in the name of Jesus.
Saturday 16 April 2011
If something's worth doing, it's worth doing badly
We are often told that if something’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well. I want to propose that a more useful aphorism is that if something’s worth doing, it’s worth doing badly!
If God calls you to do something, go and do it – even if you can only do it badly. Speak to your neighbour, and feel clumsy at it; phone someone who has been on your mind, even though you don’t know quite what to say; pick up the Bible, even though you do not know where to begin; pray, even though your prayers are childish; be obedient, even when there is nothing to show for it!
For then you will rely on God’s strength rather than on your own. Then you will see Almighty God at work, and not just the result of your own feeble ability. And you will know the peace of being within God’s will; and when the world calls you a failure, praise the Lord, for it is true; but you’re a forgiven failure doing the work your Lord has called you to.
You may think: "That's fine for you to say, for you are doing alright. But me, I really am a failure!". There are likely to be times when all of us know we have failed in some overwhelming manner, and are deeply ashamed, even broken. That's not a comfortable place to be in, but in that moment we are in touch with the truth, unlike those who think they are a success.
As Christians we often don’t see the end results of our work, for we deal with faith, hope and love more than with tangible end results. If you want to be great in the Kingdom of God, be willing to give up all hope of success and greatness in this world, for God turns this world’s values upside down.
Yes, the people who choose the top seats at the table are moved down, to make way for the humble. The first shall be last, and last first. And St Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Christians says “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” (1 Cor 1v18).
Steer clear of success – it’s territory Satan entices us to – but a failure, now that is someone that God can use!
If God calls you to do something, go and do it – even if you can only do it badly. Speak to your neighbour, and feel clumsy at it; phone someone who has been on your mind, even though you don’t know quite what to say; pick up the Bible, even though you do not know where to begin; pray, even though your prayers are childish; be obedient, even when there is nothing to show for it!
For then you will rely on God’s strength rather than on your own. Then you will see Almighty God at work, and not just the result of your own feeble ability. And you will know the peace of being within God’s will; and when the world calls you a failure, praise the Lord, for it is true; but you’re a forgiven failure doing the work your Lord has called you to.
You may think: "That's fine for you to say, for you are doing alright. But me, I really am a failure!". There are likely to be times when all of us know we have failed in some overwhelming manner, and are deeply ashamed, even broken. That's not a comfortable place to be in, but in that moment we are in touch with the truth, unlike those who think they are a success.
As Christians we often don’t see the end results of our work, for we deal with faith, hope and love more than with tangible end results. If you want to be great in the Kingdom of God, be willing to give up all hope of success and greatness in this world, for God turns this world’s values upside down.
Yes, the people who choose the top seats at the table are moved down, to make way for the humble. The first shall be last, and last first. And St Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Christians says “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” (1 Cor 1v18).
Steer clear of success – it’s territory Satan entices us to – but a failure, now that is someone that God can use!
Thursday 14 April 2011
Was Jesus really such a success?
Looking at Jesus with our success-oriented eyes, we tend to see the miracle-performing, world-changing Son of God. Not the typical modern-day celebrity type, it's true, but nonetheless, a super-hero up there with the very best of them.
I suggest the view at the time might have been rather different.
Just after his birth he and his family became refugees as they fled Herod’s persecutions. We know almost nothing about his life before he started his mission - he was a carpenter living a life of obscurity in a nowhere town. At the age of about 30, having achieved nothing so far of particular note, he set out on his God-given mission - to bring God’s plan for salvation to the whole of mankind!
It went well to start with, with great crowds flocking to hear him and see his miracles. But quickly it began to go wrong: he was rejected in his home town and narrowly escaped being murdered. Not long after, the great majority of his followers fell away when the going got tough, leaving just the 12. And then one of these twelve betrayed him into the hands of his armed enemies. The others deserted when he was arrested and Peter, his most loyal supporter, denied he even knew him. Following an illegal trial on trumped-up charges, he was put to death with common criminals.
Hanging there on the cross with his life flashing before his eyes: what was there to show for all his work? Where was the fruit of his great mission? Where was the evidence of salvation for the world? In fact, where were his disciples?
No thriving congregation, no recognition, no books published, no possessions apart from the clothes he was wearing, no children. Misunderstood, rejected, dead at 33 and no memorial service with warm words. Apart from a handful, no-one cared. There were just a few frightened and disillusioned disciples who had lost hope and scattered!
As he was dying, nothing remained - except his faith in his Father. The salvation of the world, hanging by the merest of threads - in the faith of one dying man!
He dies, not seeing any evidence for what he trusts is to come. As the world judges things, his life was a catastrophic failure. (Don't let the fact that you know the end of the story blind you to the crisis at this moment in history...)
Imagine, as you look back on your life when you are dying: everything you have worked hard for and cared about - come to absolutely nothing!
So was Jesus really a such a success?
He was successful only in having lived a life of total obedience to his Father. He trusted his Father to fulfil his promise, even when all appeared to have gone wrong.
We, too, have a choice: work to be a success - and perhaps gain some possessions and achieve a modicum of recognition. Or choose to be obedient - most likely being seen as a failure in the eyes of the world - but leaving room for God to work in whatever way he wishes.
Remembered for the car or house you owned? Or remembered for being the hands of God?
I suggest the view at the time might have been rather different.
Just after his birth he and his family became refugees as they fled Herod’s persecutions. We know almost nothing about his life before he started his mission - he was a carpenter living a life of obscurity in a nowhere town. At the age of about 30, having achieved nothing so far of particular note, he set out on his God-given mission - to bring God’s plan for salvation to the whole of mankind!
It went well to start with, with great crowds flocking to hear him and see his miracles. But quickly it began to go wrong: he was rejected in his home town and narrowly escaped being murdered. Not long after, the great majority of his followers fell away when the going got tough, leaving just the 12. And then one of these twelve betrayed him into the hands of his armed enemies. The others deserted when he was arrested and Peter, his most loyal supporter, denied he even knew him. Following an illegal trial on trumped-up charges, he was put to death with common criminals.
Hanging there on the cross with his life flashing before his eyes: what was there to show for all his work? Where was the fruit of his great mission? Where was the evidence of salvation for the world? In fact, where were his disciples?
No thriving congregation, no recognition, no books published, no possessions apart from the clothes he was wearing, no children. Misunderstood, rejected, dead at 33 and no memorial service with warm words. Apart from a handful, no-one cared. There were just a few frightened and disillusioned disciples who had lost hope and scattered!
As he was dying, nothing remained - except his faith in his Father. The salvation of the world, hanging by the merest of threads - in the faith of one dying man!
He dies, not seeing any evidence for what he trusts is to come. As the world judges things, his life was a catastrophic failure. (Don't let the fact that you know the end of the story blind you to the crisis at this moment in history...)
Imagine, as you look back on your life when you are dying: everything you have worked hard for and cared about - come to absolutely nothing!
So was Jesus really a such a success?
He was successful only in having lived a life of total obedience to his Father. He trusted his Father to fulfil his promise, even when all appeared to have gone wrong.
We, too, have a choice: work to be a success - and perhaps gain some possessions and achieve a modicum of recognition. Or choose to be obedient - most likely being seen as a failure in the eyes of the world - but leaving room for God to work in whatever way he wishes.
Remembered for the car or house you owned? Or remembered for being the hands of God?
Thursday 7 April 2011
In praise of failure
We live in a world obsessed with success. We are interested in the rich, the famous and the powerful, the movers and the shakers, and we watch their activities, accomplishments and lifestyle on our televisions and in the magazines and papers.
We are bombarded through the media and advertising with the command, sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle: “be successful”, usually followed up with some trite message about the deodorant you should use, the way you should look, the clothes you should wear, the car you should drive.
We think that we are well able to spot the deceit and so strain out the gnat: we know that success doesn’t depend on a fragrance, or even on our car. Yet we swallow the camel, the much more insidious and repeated lie: that we should be successful.
Everywhere there is pressure to succeed and the message is that our worth is based on our performance. Achieve, and you’re worth something; otherwise you are nothing. The world commands success, and the failures in our society are airbrushed out of sight...
No, this is a piece in praise of failure! (The very idea is shocking...)
Think through some of the well-known Gospel stories with me: there are many notable successes and ignominious failures in its pages.
Here are a some of the successful people who are mentioned in the Bible:
And here are some of the notable failures mentioned in the Gospels:
There is a real bias in Jesus’ teaching – few successful people accepted Jesus, while many of the failures, the outcasts and nobodies were his friends and followers. And there are many more examples than these few I have mentioned.
Success is a very cruel god to worship! And here you are on very slippery ground; it is the domain of the Enemy.
What about us? Are we striving to be a success – don’t, for it’s fools gold. God isn’t interested in success, but he is interested in failures! Are we too proud to admit to being a failure? We only begin our Christian life when we recognise we are failures, and give up trying to succeed in our own strength, and plead for forgiveness. No, God isn’t interested in successful people, only in forgiven failures - in those who submit to Him, those who obey His commands and do His will.
Maybe you think that I’m saying that to admit to being a failure is the first step towards success? No! It is a key to being in a right relationship with God, but not to success in this life! God is more likely to ask you clear up the books after the service, or to be a friend to your neighbour, than to be successful, rich or famous. For God the Father knows that success is a temptation that few can withstand.
The world commands success, though the devilish twist is that most end up feeling a failure. Christ works with failures - who end up at peace with God.
We are bombarded through the media and advertising with the command, sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle: “be successful”, usually followed up with some trite message about the deodorant you should use, the way you should look, the clothes you should wear, the car you should drive.
We think that we are well able to spot the deceit and so strain out the gnat: we know that success doesn’t depend on a fragrance, or even on our car. Yet we swallow the camel, the much more insidious and repeated lie: that we should be successful.
Everywhere there is pressure to succeed and the message is that our worth is based on our performance. Achieve, and you’re worth something; otherwise you are nothing. The world commands success, and the failures in our society are airbrushed out of sight...
No, this is a piece in praise of failure! (The very idea is shocking...)
Think through some of the well-known Gospel stories with me: there are many notable successes and ignominious failures in its pages.
Here are a some of the successful people who are mentioned in the Bible:
- In Matt 19 v16f there was the rich man who came to follow Jesus and asked what he needed to do to enter the Kingdom of God. He went away downcast when he was told to go and sell his possessions and give to the poor, then to come and follow Jesus. After this Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.
- In Luke 12v16f we are told about a successful farmer, who had a bumper crop and decided to build new barns to horde all his produce, so that he could then retire and take life easy. But he died the next day, and Jesus used him as a warning, saying, “This is how it will be for anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich towards others”.
- The Pharisees were the religious and civic leaders of the day, the successful people, the top of the pile – but in Matt 23 Jesus repeatedly calls them ‘hypocrites’, ‘blind guides’, a ‘brood of vipers’, and compared them to ‘white-washed tombs’.
And here are some of the notable failures mentioned in the Gospels:
- In Luke 7v36f there was the prostitute who wept for her sinful life, and poured perfume on Jesus’ feet. She had her sins forgiven, while the Pharisee in whose house Jesus was feasting at the time was just indignant that Jesus would deal with such a person.
- In Luke 16 v19 there is the story of the rich man who lived in luxury, and the beggar Lazarus who lived at his gate. It was only the latter that went to heaven.
- In Luke 18 v9 there were two men praying – a Pharisee and a tax collector. It was only the tax collector, an outcast, whose prayers were heard by God.
- Then there was the repentant thief, crucified along with Jesus, who entered paradise …
There is a real bias in Jesus’ teaching – few successful people accepted Jesus, while many of the failures, the outcasts and nobodies were his friends and followers. And there are many more examples than these few I have mentioned.
Success is a very cruel god to worship! And here you are on very slippery ground; it is the domain of the Enemy.
What about us? Are we striving to be a success – don’t, for it’s fools gold. God isn’t interested in success, but he is interested in failures! Are we too proud to admit to being a failure? We only begin our Christian life when we recognise we are failures, and give up trying to succeed in our own strength, and plead for forgiveness. No, God isn’t interested in successful people, only in forgiven failures - in those who submit to Him, those who obey His commands and do His will.
Maybe you think that I’m saying that to admit to being a failure is the first step towards success? No! It is a key to being in a right relationship with God, but not to success in this life! God is more likely to ask you clear up the books after the service, or to be a friend to your neighbour, than to be successful, rich or famous. For God the Father knows that success is a temptation that few can withstand.
The world commands success, though the devilish twist is that most end up feeling a failure. Christ works with failures - who end up at peace with God.
Thursday 31 March 2011
Who sets the agenda?
I learnt many years ago that the most powerful person in a committee is not the necessarily the person in the Chair, but the one who sets the agenda - the selection of topics for discussion sets the boundaries within which you work.
So when Christians gather in church, they may say a creed, summarising their Christian beliefs, and in the sermon the word is preached - and all assent to their shared faith.
But what happens if you start with an individual's lived experience and let them set the agenda? We find one who is still overwhelmed by hurt from a past abusive relationship, another whose thoughts day and night are consumed by worry for a wayward child, and another who is busy working out how they can afford that house they have their eye on.
It's not that the same people in church saying the creed are deceitful; nor that in their daily lives they are heedless of God. But if there is no space for the church members to set the agenda and air their real and uppermost concerns, there is a disconnect between church and the rest of life! This isn't the fault of the ordinary church members; it's the responsibility of a church leadership who never dare let go of the agenda.
When and how in church do the church members have the opportunity to set the agenda, to talk about what is actually uppermost in their mind?
Of course, a church service isn't a therapy group where each person may talk about what is troubling them. And I trust that they do find in their meeting with God that their personal needs are heard, understood and met.
But the more strongly a church sets an agenda, a 'party line', the less people will feel free to be themselves, to bring their real needs, and the more people will present a false and acceptable front. In practice this means:
Ultimately, keeping tight control of the agenda leads to boredom and falsity; but it also leads to an even more serious problem - it excludes people who are seeking:
The more you want your church to be open to 'real' needy people, the more your church needs to reflect their experience - which probably means allowing for and accepting messy people with doubts, questions and plenty of real-life problems. Pretending these don't exist doesn't get rid of them; it merely shows that your God isn't as loving as you say.
Accepting each other's reality could sometimes lead to difficulty, disagreements and even the potential of conflict. But in the context of loving Christian relationships, it also leads to life!
So when Christians gather in church, they may say a creed, summarising their Christian beliefs, and in the sermon the word is preached - and all assent to their shared faith.
But what happens if you start with an individual's lived experience and let them set the agenda? We find one who is still overwhelmed by hurt from a past abusive relationship, another whose thoughts day and night are consumed by worry for a wayward child, and another who is busy working out how they can afford that house they have their eye on.
It's not that the same people in church saying the creed are deceitful; nor that in their daily lives they are heedless of God. But if there is no space for the church members to set the agenda and air their real and uppermost concerns, there is a disconnect between church and the rest of life! This isn't the fault of the ordinary church members; it's the responsibility of a church leadership who never dare let go of the agenda.
When and how in church do the church members have the opportunity to set the agenda, to talk about what is actually uppermost in their mind?
Of course, a church service isn't a therapy group where each person may talk about what is troubling them. And I trust that they do find in their meeting with God that their personal needs are heard, understood and met.
But the more strongly a church sets an agenda, a 'party line', the less people will feel free to be themselves, to bring their real needs, and the more people will present a false and acceptable front. In practice this means:
- the more structured the church is, the less the chaotic experience of people's everyday lives can be shared
- the more church is based on 'experience', the less people's honest questions can be spoken
- the more intellectually rigorous the church is, the less people's up and down experience will be voiced
- the more that questions have a clear and definite answer, the less room there is for our real doubts to surface
Ultimately, keeping tight control of the agenda leads to boredom and falsity; but it also leads to an even more serious problem - it excludes people who are seeking:
- If your church appears to be full of 'respectable' people, how can those who know they are not respectable come in?
- If your church appears to be full of 'successful' people, how can those who feel a failure gain access?
- If your church appears to be full of people of strong faith, how can those with a faltering faith gain entrance?
The more you want your church to be open to 'real' needy people, the more your church needs to reflect their experience - which probably means allowing for and accepting messy people with doubts, questions and plenty of real-life problems. Pretending these don't exist doesn't get rid of them; it merely shows that your God isn't as loving as you say.
Accepting each other's reality could sometimes lead to difficulty, disagreements and even the potential of conflict. But in the context of loving Christian relationships, it also leads to life!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)