An 'Interesting' Day

It started out as a typical Saturday. I did a visit in the morning, a few errands later and then home to prepare two Sunday services. Confession-time here: I rarely get my sermon done before Saturday and usually spend Saturday afternoon writing it.

At about 3:00, Wonderful Husband rings from work to say that he's seeing 'flashing lights and black spots' and he's booked a check-up at the Optometrist after work. Immediately, I'm thinking 'detached retina'. WH said 'I rang NHS direct and they told me to go straight to A&E ('accident & emergency' - 'Emergency Room' in American) but I thought that was a bit over the top.'

I told him I'd be happier if he went straight to A&E. Which he did. To the 'wrong' hospital which didn't have a facility to look at eyes. He finally ended up at the 'right' hospital which has an ophthalmology unit that seems to be a national centre of excellence; well, according to their website, they do eye surgeries that can't be done in any other part of of the UK.

Anyway, they found that he had a tear in his retina and they have performed laser surgery and sent him home.  He can see;  his eye isn't bandaged and there is no worry about driving or travelling.

This leaves me in awe and amazement and also reminds me that I'm getting old! I reckon 15 years ago, it would have had to have been conventional surgery with a knife. (I know someone who had this sort of surgery in the early 1980s and it was major surgery.)  Now it's a quick procedure and home. 

Right now this feels rather 'Star Trek-ish' (think walking into Sick Bay and having the doctor wave a computer at you and everything is sorted) and it also feels like an amazing blessing. It also reminds me how lucky we are in the West. In some countries, a person would just start losing their sight at this stage.

Thank you, Lord.

Credit Card Interest Rates

I'm sorry for not blogging much, but family health issues and preparing for the move to the US are somehow sapping my energy for theology blogging.

Here's an interesting experience, though.

In advance of our move to the US, I rang one of my credit card providers to cancel my card. Both Wonderful Husband and I try to pay off our credit card balances at the end of the month. In the process of canceling, I was told that because of my 'excellent' track record, they were prepared to lower the interest rate on the card by about 4 percentage points. (From about 15.5% to 11.5%)

Although that's not terribly meaningful if you pay off your balance at the end of the month, there are times when we use a credit card to take two or three months to pay for larger items.

Like many people, I've tended to leave my financial arrangements in place rather than asking for a better deal.  And, apparently, at least one company is prepared to try to offer a deal if they want to keep your custom.  It's the principle of 'If you don't ask, you don't get.'

Changes and Moving On

None of this will be news to people who know me well nor maybe even to careful readers of this blog. I blogged about this earlier in the year but forgot that: a) My husband didn't want to tell his employer so early about our impending move and b) That my husband works for a computer company so blogging about the move wasn't necessarily the wisest thing to do on my part. Nor was posting on Facebook. 'Nuff said.

Anyway, it's now 'safe' to start blogging about the move again. It's actually be safe to do so for some weeks but, after having pulled previous blog posts on the subject, I didn't feel up to writing about it again. Anyway....

On the 8th of August - God willing - Wonderful Husband and I will be moving to Ohio in order to be closer to my parents who are now both not terribly mobile. We're moving to a lovely small town just south of Cleveland where my parents are now living and, in April, we were actually able to go there and put in an offer on a house. The offer has been accepted and we expect to close on the 12th of June.

We are still waiting for an appointment with the US immigration authorities so that my British husband can get the necessary papers and neither one of us has a job lined up yet! Although my husband's (American) company doesn't do transfers, he is going to be recommended to the shop near where we will live, so he should have a job lined up when we move.

I'm sure I'll reflect more on the move as events progress, so I wanted to lay out the facts.

Moving to Ohio still feels extremely bizarre although I'm starting to get my head around it. The town to which we are moving is just under 40 miles from where I grew up. I left Northeast Ohio for university in 1975 and I've not been back there since. And I've been in the UK for 20 years and never expected to go back to the US at all; to almost go back to the place where I was raised seems very strange indeed.

Both my husband and I have a sense of peace about what we are doing and we are certain that this is the right thing to do. One of the big things I've learned is that we humans really are not in control of the events of our lives. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that God micro-manages our lives and I don't think God makes people ill; in the case of my parents, that's a consequence of the aging process and their own biology.

But our culture does give us the false impression sometimes that we can be in control of everything we do and that's simply not true. I think that both of us have found peace in the idea of doing what we believe to be the right thing rather than worrying that our life plans have radically altered. My new mantra is 'If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.'

The Stories we Tell - Just Sayin'

Over the last four or five days reading blogs on the internet, I've been struck by how negative Methodists are about themselves and about their Methodist brothers and sisters.

This negativity seems to be true not only for British Methodists but also for the United Methodist Church in the US. Reading the blogs of UMCers who I find thoughtful and whose ideas I respect, I've actually begun to wonder whether I want to be part of the UMC when I move to the States in August.

In my last job, if anyone had talked down their organisation or their colleagues in the way that Methodists talk each other down, I reckon the boss would have called them in for a talking-to about their attitude.

Martin Atkins, General Secretary of the British Methodist Church, has called us to find the positive stories and tell the positive stories. I didn't read this as a call to be unrealistically Polyanna but to actually see the good in our brothers and sisters and to 'advertise' it.

Why is this important? Basically because if we keep telling each other we're rubbish, we're going to start to believe it. This does not obviate trying to find solutions. But, in commercial-speak, we are living in an era when the demand for our 'product' is declining. Let's stop acting like we can control the demand for our product; let's stop acting like we are all individually responsible for the decline in demand. And let's find ways of increasing market-share and then spreading these ideas around. And let's see the good in those who keep trying and trying and trying and see little worldly signs of success.

Just sayin'.

Elections for the European Parliament

On 4 June 2009, every voter in the UK will have the opportunity to vote in the European Parliament Elections. The Methodist Church, The United Reformed Church and the Baptist Union are calling on Christians to turn out at the polls and use your vote.

Why is it important to turn out and vote? Because the proportional representation system of these elections allows a political party with a relatively small number of votes to win a seat on the Parliament. A seat won means additional funds given to that party.

The churches' concern is the British National Party which promotes a racist agenda. (My own Southern European ethnic background makes me an undesirable person according to their membership criteria). The BNP only need about 9% of the vote to win a seat on the European Parliament and they are campaigning to get their supporters out in force. During the last European elections in the West Midlands, the party won just over 8% of the vote. If voters who would normally vote for other parties don't turn out to vote, it is conceivable that the BNP could win a seat in the West Midlands.

Usually, I don't believe in a minister of religion telling people how to vote. And my first message here is 'Vote for any political party of your choice with a platform that promotes justice and freedom for all people.' I.e. vote for any 'mainstream' party or for any independent party with a track record of serving the community well. (Our own fine MP in the Wyre Forest is an Independent.)

My second message is don't be fooled by the BNP's campaign in which it seeks to link itself with the Christian Church ('Britain is a Christian Country. Vote BNP' and 'What would Jesus Do? Vote BNP') As The Methodist Church so succinctly put it: Jesus is one of history's most famous Jews. It's hardly likely that he would support the BNP. The BNP no longer publishes its Constitution on its website and I wouldn't want to send you there anyway. Here is a copy of the constitution that the BNP don't want you to see.

I call on all Christians in Britain to get out and use your vote on the 4th of June.

An evangelical's plea: Love the sinner

I've been hanging around Northeast Ohio this last week.  Watching the news in the US and reading US newspapers. I really appreciated this article in today's issue of USA Today: An evangelical's plea: 'Love the sinner'

Here are some home truths from the article, in my opinion:

Evangelicals often speak of lesbians and gay men as if they have some sort of medical disease that we experts have diagnosed and can easily cure with a simple, biblical prescription.

(Disclaimer: I do know people who would be far more sympathetic and far less crass than this whilst still maintaining that homosexual sex is wrong. However - especially as a minister - I frequently hear people dismiss homosexual orientation as being a 'lack of discipline' as if the monogamy that is considered an honourable discipline for heterosexual people is a wanton lack of impulse-control when it is 'committed' by gay people.)

And here is an important insight that applies not just to the issue of homosexuality but also to any other issue where Christians disagree with the prevailing culture (bolding mine):

Unfortunately, some evangelical groups, such as the Family Research Council and Vision America, oppose even minor concessions, claiming we should not "normalize" homosexuality in our culture. But, these groups seemingly fail to realize that our role as Christians is not to delegitimize the existence of those who do not share our beliefs. Our job is to mirror Christ by loving people in spite of our differences and advocating for our culture's disenfranchised groups. Only then can we effectively share with them the reasons that we believe our beliefs are most compelling.

It seems to me that much popular Christian rhetoric is devoted to trying to delegitimize the thoughts of those who don't agree with us. Even though Jesus told us that his way would always go against that of the world, we often act as if our own beliefs can't possibly be legitimate unless and until 'the world' agrees with us.  Newsflash: That ain't gonna happen.

And, a final important insight that also applies to issues beyond homosexuality:

Scripture says the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law, gives life. A spirit of love in public policy is one that all Christians can support.

If the 26-year-old self-identified evangelical author of this article is anything to go by, it would seem that there is hope for Christianity in the US after all.  Thank God for the younger generation.

Flash Mob Worship Liverpool

This is too cool. And, by the way, it's liturgy. More information at Guerrilla Worship

Is Liturgy Really a Bad Thing?

I found this post on Discovering and Escaping Liturgy interesting. Partly, I admit, because I have a love for (non-fussy) liturgical worship and I often feel that the British Methodist Church thinks that a minister or a congregant who likes liturgy does so simply because he or she doesn't want to let go of the past. In other words, that there isn't really any positive or compelling reason for the existence or use of liturgical worship beyond palliative spiritual care for the elderly.

Here's some interesting material from the post that rings true to me:

I spoke at a conference about our rediscovery of liturgy and tradition. The room was packed—by that time liturgy had become a very hot topic. During my presentation, a leader raised his hand and commented in a very disappointed tone.

"I don't understand," he said. "You're telling us that young adults are drawn to liturgy and ancient worship forms, but I serve at a liturgical church and our young people want to get away from liturgy and traditions. They think it's boring. I came to this conference to learn new ideas from contemporary churches. I want to move forward, not back."

The author concludes with a thought that seems fairly obvious to me:

We have found that the goal shouldn't be to maintain the past or to always be on the cutting edge. Our goal is to worship in a way that represents our community to God and God to our community. That means contextualizing worship for today, but not forgetting the family of God throughout history to which we belong.

I think that there is an element of 'different strokes for different folks' here and that these 'different strokes' may not necessarily be connected in every instance to one's age. I know that, in the church that I came from, the younger folk (school leavers) wanted the traditional services and the traditional hymns and it was us 'Baby Boomers' who were lobbying for The Latest From Spring Harvest. Or maybe I should have been born a generation earlier or a generation later?

If a congregation is truly worshiping God and truly has Christ at its centre, then I'm not sure that 'worship style' is the Big Deal we seem to make it out to be.

Now, having knowingly and publically uttered heresy, I put on my tin hat and wait for the flack!

It's My Husband's Fault

OK, here's a post that's got me so angry that it's managed to kick me out of my no-blogging funk.

Who would have credited it? A man who advocates male-headship who reckons that, if something goes wrong in a marriage, it's usually (not always, but usually) the husband's fault: Marriage Counseling: It's His Fault.

But wait. Perhaps there is a point here. The underlying thesis of the post seems to be that if a man sufficiently 'sacrificially loves' his wife, that the marriage will not have problems.

I have a huge 'problem of justice' here. There are three underlying assumptions that I don't agree with. One, that the husband is most likely to be the selfish partner. Two, that the wife is most likely to be the unselfish partner. And the third: that even if the wife is the selfish (abusive, addicted) one, that it's somehow the man's job as head of the family to 'cure' her by his sacrificial love.

Trying to 'fix' other people by the force of our own will or behaviour is normally called co-dependency and anyone who has tried it will tell you that, not only doesn't it work, but trying this methodology as a way to maintaining a relationship with an addicted/abusive partner is simply a recipe for heartache.

If I were a Christian man whose wife was abusing him, I'd want to stay a hundred miles away from such counsel. My heart aches for the husbands who won't be heard because the nature of their concerns doesn't fit with their pastor's preconceived ideas. Just as my heart aches for all the Christian women who are told that if they are just more submissive, their husbands will stop abusing them.

Justice demands that the true nature of what is happening in any situation be discerned. Truth is not served by assuming that women are usually 'good' and men are usually 'bad'. I despair - in either a conservative or liberal ideology - when people make claims for female moral superiority. Each one of us - no matter what gender - is capable of the most dastardly evil and the most glorious good.

The last paragraph in this post sets out where I disagree with male-headship:

1) That, to quote: the husband gets commended when it is going well and he gets the heat when it is not.
Sorry, no. If a wife is mentally or emotionally unstable, the husband is not responsible. And if a marriage is going well, it's because both partners are playing their part.

2) A happy, holy wife is a wonderful endeavor for a husband.
So, the wife is, in some sense, the husband's 'project'? This reflects what I call the attitude of male headship that a woman is never quite a full adult.

3) A husband must learn to keep the pulse of how his wife is doing (spiritually, emotionally, physically)
Again, this assumes that a husband somehow 'has control' over his wife.

Both Christian egalitarians and advocates of male-headship often present themselves as believing that husbands and wives are called to put their spouse first. The difference in the two attitudes isn't really even about 'what women are permitted to do in Church'. The big difference is the attitude of male-headship that women and our lives can be controlled and led by men. That we are not and never will be full adults. And that co-dependent relationships - with the man responsible for controlling his wife's mental, emotional and spiritual responses - are What God Wants.

Moving Methodism

Dave Warnock over at 42 is trying to 'Move Methodism'.

Check out his new Moving Methodist Website

If you want to know more about what it's about, check out his posts on:
1) Moving Methodism
2) Moving Methodism: On Power
3) Moving Methodism: 21 Ways to improve Local Preachers' Meetings; and
4) Moving Methodism Launched

The Emperor's Newly Eased Clothes?

OK, is it just me? I realise that I've been totally out of the loop in terms of market chatter and I was never a 'monetary' or an 'economic' bod anyway, but...

...I really don't get the point of 'quantitative easing'. The new liquidity is going to purchase Gilts? Aren't Gilts already overbought? How does that put money into the economy? Isn't this 'new liquidity' just going to stay in Gilts and not go anywhere because the banks are scared out of their wits to lend? And people are scared out of their wits to spend? (It seems like every other person I talk to here in the Midlands has seen colleagues at work laid off and is hoping the axe doesn't fall on them next.)

Didn't Japan try something similar and it didn't work? Can someone explain to me how this supposed to get the economy going?

Popular Spirituality?

This afternoon I was stuck in traffic behind a car with two bumper-stickers that I thought bore witness to a rather confusing form of popular spirituality:

Bumper Sticker 1: 'Caution: Never go faster than your angel can fix'
Bumper Sticker 2: 'Life's a bitch and so am I'

So, basically, 'God is there to fix up my messes but I don't need to give any consideration to others'?

The Little Things in Life

This thought was sparked by a post elsewhere in blogdom and it's not a current issue for me at the moment, so I thought I'd post it now.

If you want to do a very small thing to be kind to your minister, don't give him or her letters to deliver to other people that you could easily put in the post or deliver yourself.

Why?

1) The minister probably has a list of 50 small things like that to do and the longer the list gets, the more stress it creates. Personally speaking, I'm not kidding when I say I'm afraid I'll forget; don't laugh it off because you think 'I'm young'. It's not my age, it's the number of things on the to do list.

2) In many cases, the minister will either have to get in the car specifically to deliver your letter or will have to put it in the post himself. If she does the former, the cost of petrol might very well exceed the cost of the stamp not to mention the cost of CO2 to the environment.

3) Because who thought kindness to your minister could be bought for the price of a 2nd class stamp? Post that letter and give yourself a pat on the back and say 'Well done.'

Judgement or Judgementalism?

On my principle of never wasting a piece of writing, here's this month's attempt for the church magazine.

====

The other day I heard someone quote the text 'Judge not lest ye be judged' in a way that seemed to imply something along the lines of 'Don't disagree with my beliefs and I won't disagree with yours'.

On the other hand, some people seem to feel that the world has become a hostile place for Christians and that to express any conviction other than 'anything goes' is no longer permissible in wider society. Some Christians seem to be asking the question: 'Don't we have a right to express our views just much as anyone else? Why is that it we are seen as being judgemental when we stand up for what we believe?'

I often joke that my 'easy answer' is 'there is no easy answer' and this seems to be one of those situations. I offer this article as a think-piece in the expectation that not everyone will agree with me but perhaps it will start an interesting conversation.

To begin, you'll probably not be surprised that I believe that Christians do have a right to express our faith and our views. Indeed, I believe that Scripture tells us that we have an obligation to do so.

Of course, in a democratic society, other people also have the right to express their views. Here is where I expect some possible disagreement: I think that Christians risk being seen as judgemental when we fall into the trap of thinking that the wider would should agree with us and when we become become outraged when people don't. Sometimes the Christian media gives me the impression that it it never occurred to us that people of other faiths (or even of no faith) might have given quite a bit of thought to their position and come up with a sincerely-held and strongly-held view that is very different from our own.

When I was an adolescent, I was puzzled to be told by adults in the church 'There are no questions about faith that are out of bounds' and then to find that people got angry with my questions. Many years later, I realised that I wasn't supposed to ask questions like 'Why do we believe this?' I was supposed to ask the question 'What is the right answer to my question?'. Then, I was supposed to accept the church's answer and go away and believe as everyone else did.

I sometimes get the impression that the Christian Church has this attitude toward witnessing. It seems that we naively expect to put forward our point of view and have it gladly received. We get frustrated and maybe even angry when our seeds of wisdom fall on rocky soil, as Jesus said that some of them would most certainly do.

Scripture also tells us that no one can profess faith in Jesus as Lord except by the Holy Spirit. It's our duty as Christians to witness to the Gospel in the same way that a witness to an accident tells the court what she saw. But, just as the witness in court cannot control the court's decision, it's not our job to change the hearts of people: that's God's job. I think it's when we begin think that we must change people's hearts that we risk being seen as judgemental.

In witnessing to the Christian faith, there will inevitably be some people who see us as being judgemental; as the saying goes, 'You can't please all of the people all of the time'. There are many people in our society who think that to have a strongly-held religious conviction or belief is necessarily to be judgemental. As the person did the other day, they might quote 'Judge not lest ye be judged' in that way.

However, biblical judgement is not about having strong convictions, it's about judging someone as worthy or unworthy of being in God's Kingdom. The bible also tells us that this kind of judgement is not for us to do but is to be left to God.

Let's not fall into the world's trap of believing that to have a strongly-held view on a matter of faith or ethics or morality is to be 'judgemental'. As we come into Lent, we will need to see clearly in order to turn again and walk in God's direction. We cannot walk in God's direction if we don't have a clear idea of what constitutes godliness.

But let's also recognise that what God asks of us is to tell our story to others, to give witness to what we have seen and experienced of God. Let's recognise that it is not up to us to convert people or to change their hearts. Equally let's walk with peace, patience, kindness and gentleness toward others and leave the final judgement to God.

Feminized Church Devalues Men

Discussing the issue of 'Men and Church' around the blogosphere, I'm genuinely trying to understand the following two comments.

1) The milder comment is that the church has been 'feminized' and so it is unattractive to men - that's why men are staying away from church. It was also suggested that church leadership which consciously gives thought to not being either too feminine or masculine could be a remedy for this. (Do I say 'Phew, thank goodness I'm not "too feminine"' or 'Heavens! Am I too feminine' to this idea? It's all very strange.)

2) The comment that is more painful to hear was that the church, like general society, 'devalues' men.

I don't know of any denomination in the UK or the US which is dominated by female clergy. I'm not going to cry 'anti female' at this because I realise that there is a lot of history behind this state of affairs and I also understand that history always moves more slowly than most reformers would like.

But I am puzzled by how an institution dominated by men can be either 'feminized' or - even more strangely - have become an institution which actually devalues men. I could contemplate a congregation with a female minister as possibly being 'too feminine', but the idea that institutions dominated by men for the 2000 years could be either too feminine or anti-male eludes me.

Anyone care to explain?

Masculine Christianity

My friend Dave recently linked to a post which suggested that the church should have a masculine ethos. The premise is that 1 Corinthians 16:13 says in the original Greek that the church should 'Watch, stand firm in the faith, be men, be strong' so somehow, this means the church should have a masculine ethos.

I don't want to debate the process of translation or of exegesis that arrives at this understanding.

What bothers me is the idea of 'masculine Christianity' that appears to be becoming popular, doubtless due in no small measure to the the rantings of Mark Driscoll and his disciples who come up with amazingly anti-Gospel sound-bites like:

We are deadly serious about the great commission and loading all guns to storm hell with the gospel of grace. And we need more men.

Driscoll and his ilk are going to be macho for the Gospel? They are going to do what? Shoot anyone who doesn't love his or her neighbour? Help to usher in the Prince of Peace to his Kingdom through war and hostage-taking?  

Well, count me as one woman who grew up with this sort of doggy-do of a theology and who is not going to be silent in the face of this kind of untruth-dressed-as-truth.

Imagine 'masculine Christians' in the Desert with Jesus: Come'on Jesus! Show the devil your stuff and jump off that Temple. Take control of the world and we'll be your army. And while you're at it, sure, you can go ahead and feed the hungry by turning those rocks into bread.

Or how about in the Garden of Gethsemane Hey Jesus! Why are ya prayin'? Prayin's for girls! Now is the time for action; are you afraid to defend yourself? ****** he's putting the soldier's ear back! Stupid wimp. I guess we knew all along that he didn't have the guts to do what needs doing.

It's not about 'masculine' Christianity or 'feminine' Christianity, it's about Christ-centred Christianity. It's about the church of Christ imitating Christ. Jesus pointed out that he could have called down legions of angels rather than submit himself to the cross. Going to the cross was not an act of passivity nor was it a lack of decisiveness or courage: it was an act of faith. An act of faith in the Resurrection and in the Father's being completely without reference to death. It was an act of faith that death and evil would be defeated not by swinging swords at them, but by entering into them.

The kind of 'masculine Christianity' that is being advocated today is the same self-help idolatry that the ancient Israelites fell into and it's the same that the Roman Empire promoted and it's the same self-help idolatry that our own culture promotes: that our power rests in our own courage and strength and ability to fend for ourselves.

Those who see themselves either as being 'in power' or entitled to being 'in power' will easily fall prey to this idolatry. It's also easy to see why those who either consider themselves to be underdogs, or who have sympathy with underdogs, will grasp the meaning of Christ's gospel that the last will be first and that his strength comes when we are weak. It's obvious why those who want to see themselves as strong and macho don't like the real Gospel, but that doesn't make them right.

Topical Jokes for Your Amusement

I received the following jokes on a closed email list.  I can't hat tip the person who sent them, but I think he was probably just passing them on.  For once, these are UK-centric jokes rather than US-centric.  Enjoy.

===

I lent my brother £20 last week. Turns out I'm now the UK's fifth biggest lender.

Cadburys is to launch a chocolate bar you don't have to pay for until next year. It will be called the Credit Crunchie.

Marks and Spencers are to merge with Poundstretchers. The new stores will be called Stretch Marks.

Poundland is to restructure for the recession and will be called '50p Land'.

Northern Rock is to be rebranded Northern Pebble.

Bank Managers are to concentrate on the Big Issues. They'll all be out on the street selling them next week.

The Isle of Dogs bank collapsed today. The retrievers have been called in.

The Origami Bank has folded, and 5,000 staff got the chop at the Karate Bank.

What do you call five hedge fund managers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.

How do you define optimism?
A banker who irons five shirts on a Sunday.

What's the difference between the BBC's Business Editor Robert Peston and God?
God doesn't think he's Robert Peston.

What's the difference between an investment banker and a large pizza?
The pizza can still feed a family of four.

Why have estate agents stopped looking out of the window in the morning?
Because otherwise they'd have nothing to do in the afternoon.

What's the difference between an investment banker and a pigeon?
The pigeon is still capable of leaving a deposit on a new Ferrari.

The credit crunch has helped me get back on my feet. The car's been repossessed.

What do you say to a hedge fund manager who can't sell anything?
A quarter-pounder with fries, please.

A man went to his bank manager and said: 'I'd like to start a small business. How do I go about it?' 'Simple,' said the bank manager. 'Buy a big one and wait.'

What have an Icelandic bank and an Icelandic streaker got in common?
They both have frozen assets.

Overheard in a City bar: 'This credit crunch is worse than a divorce. I've lost half my net worth and I still have a wife.'

The bank returned a cheque to me this morning, stamped: 'insufficient funds.' Are they being ironic?

You know it's a credit crunch when the ATM cash machine asks if you can spare any change.

A Mature Faith?

I found the following article by Giles Fraser in this week's Church Times to be very interesting: Growing Up is a Moral Business

Fraser writes:

The true grown-up is the person who is able to face genuine otherness with gratitude and thanksgiving. The grown-up does not need to analyse every situation with a sharp eye for how it benefits him or her.

Winnicott put it thus: “A sign of health in the mind is the ability of one individual to enter imaginatively and accurately into the thoughts and feelings and hopes and fears of another.”

Fraser goes on to write that churches (usually? often?) take the approach with young children of teaching them the simple message 'Jesus Loves You'. But as children get older, there is also 'a call to wake up to the needs of others'.

Sometimes Christians quibble about whether 'the Gospel message' is about 'God loves you' or whether it is about service to others. Along with many other expressions of the Christian faith, Methodism has always asserted that 'the Gospel message' is about both of these things: knowing oneself to be loved by God and serving others because of having been empowered by God's love.

I've seen at close hand that damage that people do to their own lives by living life as if the primary human questions were 'What can other people do for me?' 'How can I make sure I get (more than) my share of stuff in life?' 'How can I make sure the other guy doesn't take what's mine?'

If the Christian faith is more than simply serving others, then it is also more than simply saying 'God loves me.'

Christians Against Poverty

My friend Dave is raising money for Christians Against Poverty, a charity which runs a national debt counselling charity working through a network of centres based in local churches. As I understand it, CAP teaches people basic money-management skills and offers them counselling. The services are provided free to clients and the organisation is supported through donations.

You can sponsor Dave's fund-raising here via the Just Giving website.

Reflections on the eve of an inauguration

The article below will be going to the editor of a joint Methodist Church and Anglican parish magazine tomorrow morning (20 January 2009).  This article is not meant to be a 'spiritual reflection'. It is an attempt to reflect as a Christian on world events and to show that our Christian faith and values can be brought to bear on our 'real lives'. I'm happy to hear any comments you might have about the article itself. American readers might find some comments odd as they reflect some British ideas you might not recognise (one comment I'm hearing a lot is that 'Barack Obama is not really African-American because his mother is white'). Anyway, here is the article:

====

I'm writing this article the day before Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. I hope that this reflection will be neither too political nor too much about the man himself but rather offer some ways that a Christian might reflect on world events. I ask you to indulge me as this article will not be what some would term 'spiritual'. However, as Christians we believe that God is everywhere and this means that we can use our values to reflect on the world around us as well as on our 'spiritual lives'.

I'll start by saying what you'll guess soon enough anyway: I'm very pleased that Barack Obama has been elected and I'm looking forward to returning to the United States under his Presidency in what promises to be a very challenging time for both the United States and the world.

This leads me to my first observation. President Obama has conducted an inspiring election campaign and he has captured the imagination of many Americans: African-Americans, Latino-Americans, younger Americans and Americans who are inspired by values of broad liberalism and tolerance. He has demonstrated that he is an exceedingly intelligent man who intends to appoint expert office-holders in key positions and he is an excellent communicator (dare I say 'preacher'?).

However, I hope that both America and the world remember that he is not the Messiah. Well, you'd expect a Christian minister to say that, wouldn't you? But actually, I'm serious. You already know the warnings in the bible not to put one's faith in Rome (the government, the established order, those who wield power) for salvation, so I will simply remind you of those warnings.

At a more down-to-earth level, no single man, no single government is going to be able to turn around the current world economic situation in one four-year Presidential term. It appears to me that our present age is still looking for quick fixes and short term solutions. I get the impression that we hope we've elected a Superman who bash all the bad-guys and make our problems go away. 'Patience' is one of the fruits of the Spirit and it seems to be something which society lacks these days. It is going to take patience and the diligent hard work of 'service' that Obama is calling for to change the current course of the world economy.

That leads me to my second observation. Pray for Obama's safety. I get the impression that some British people are bemused by worries surrounding the possibility of assassination, perhaps because British Prime Ministers do not tend to have threats made on their lives. I believe that there is a heightened possibility that attempts will be made on Obama's life. Not only by those who may be disappointed that there is no quick fix for current problems, but also because of the very powerful symbolism invested in being the first African-American President. (It doesn't matter that he's half white; any black heritage at all was grounds for discrimination in the past.)

This is my third observation: the powerful symbolism of being the first African-American President. As an American, I don't feel that I can fully communicate to British people just what a powerful symbol this is. I suspect that African-Americans feel that, as a white person, I can't grasp the full power of the symbol either.

As one weeping woman on television said, 'This is the first time in my life that I have real hope that my children can be anything they want to be.' Perhaps a Christian would say 'This is the first time in my life that I have real hope that my children can be what God created them to be.' As a Christian, can one do anything but weep to think that there have been - that there are still - people who know that they cannot fully be the person who God created them to be? And not just African-Americans, of course.

We too can identify people suffering similar injustices in our own town and country. We can, however, also thank God every time a barrier of discrimination falls because it is another defeat for the powers and principalities. And perhaps we can get a new insight into the Gospel - into what it meant to excluded people when Jesus recognised them as fully human and as beloved children of God. Perhaps we can get an insight into how we ourselves can be good news when we are able to see the full humanity in each individual.

My last observation is that of Barack Obama's call to 'service'. The day on which I write is not only the day before the election, it is also Martin Luther King day. A public holiday that was begun with the idea that people would set aside their daily work to perform voluntary service for others. I'm reminded of a black-and-white television clip that I saw many times when I was a child: John F. Kennedy saying 'Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.'

Such a sentiment does not have to be confined to one country, of course. I can very well imagine Jesus saying 'Ask not what your neighbour can do for you. Ask what you can do for your neighbour.' It is my hope and prayer that the election of Obama means more than the election of a capable, intelligent African-American individual to the Office of President of the United States. I hope that the American people have also seen a vision of putting others first and that we have 'elected' to change our values from self-interest to service, from racism to full human dignity for all people and from quick fixes to diligent hard work.