27 March 2006
Ordination of Males?
The world and her dog has already linked to the Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should not Be Ordained on Maggi Dawn's excellent blog which I found by reading my friend Dave Warnock's blog (pace, Dave!). But what the heck, this is brilliant parody which I think really points out how our perspective helps us to 'spin' what we already think to be true. And yes, I know I do it too!
23 March 2006
Alienating People from Christ
There are some times I think I'm Alice and that I have fallen down the rabbit-hole. I've been feeling that way these last few days.
On one of the Christian discussion groups I frequent, I have read the following statements from two different people:
1) One was a person who considered themself a heretic for having a hard time with the belief that God sends people to a torturous hell in the next life as punishment for not being a Christian. This person reckoned that they stood on the fringes of our denomination for not believing this.
2) Another was a person who reckons that they cannot be a Christian because Christianity demands the belief that God needed to hurt someone in order to satisfy his wrath and forgive humanity. Since the person could not conceive of God in this way, they reckoned that they cannot be Christian.
Frankly, it angers me no end that people have got the idea that being a Christian demands believing that God is angry and wrathful and into torture. Of course, the Church did teach about 'God The Angry and Wrathful' for centuries and we have to bear our responsibility for our history, whether or not we are personally implicated in propogating those beliefs.
But secondly, I have to wonder whether mainstream Christians like myself have been too silent in not putting these horrible beliefs to rest. Like many, I know that I've been (perhaps still am) too afraid at 'what people will think' if I get up and explicitly say that I don't believe in a God who uses violence as a means of keeping order and that I don't believe in a God who uses the threat of violence and torture as a way of getting people to behave.
Right now, I'm angry. One person has exluded themself from the Church because they can't believe in penal substitutionary atonement and the other is lurking on the margins of the church nursing a secret fear that their disbelief in a torturous hell is heretical and possibly unChristian.
Mainstream Christian preachers have to preach the Good News. *I* have to preach the Good News. We have to preach systematic theology and let people know that not only is it 'OK' to believe in a God of Grace and Mercy, but that this God is precisely what being a Christian is about. The idea that 'no-one admits that they are a sinner unless they are threatened with punishment' isn't a Christian idea, it's an idea born of sin. As Scripture says, 'the devil' is a liar and one way that Evil lies is to perpetuate the idea that God is evil and that humanity cannot be forgiven unless violence is done first. May God forgive us.
On one of the Christian discussion groups I frequent, I have read the following statements from two different people:
1) One was a person who considered themself a heretic for having a hard time with the belief that God sends people to a torturous hell in the next life as punishment for not being a Christian. This person reckoned that they stood on the fringes of our denomination for not believing this.
2) Another was a person who reckons that they cannot be a Christian because Christianity demands the belief that God needed to hurt someone in order to satisfy his wrath and forgive humanity. Since the person could not conceive of God in this way, they reckoned that they cannot be Christian.
Frankly, it angers me no end that people have got the idea that being a Christian demands believing that God is angry and wrathful and into torture. Of course, the Church did teach about 'God The Angry and Wrathful' for centuries and we have to bear our responsibility for our history, whether or not we are personally implicated in propogating those beliefs.
But secondly, I have to wonder whether mainstream Christians like myself have been too silent in not putting these horrible beliefs to rest. Like many, I know that I've been (perhaps still am) too afraid at 'what people will think' if I get up and explicitly say that I don't believe in a God who uses violence as a means of keeping order and that I don't believe in a God who uses the threat of violence and torture as a way of getting people to behave.
Right now, I'm angry. One person has exluded themself from the Church because they can't believe in penal substitutionary atonement and the other is lurking on the margins of the church nursing a secret fear that their disbelief in a torturous hell is heretical and possibly unChristian.
Mainstream Christian preachers have to preach the Good News. *I* have to preach the Good News. We have to preach systematic theology and let people know that not only is it 'OK' to believe in a God of Grace and Mercy, but that this God is precisely what being a Christian is about. The idea that 'no-one admits that they are a sinner unless they are threatened with punishment' isn't a Christian idea, it's an idea born of sin. As Scripture says, 'the devil' is a liar and one way that Evil lies is to perpetuate the idea that God is evil and that humanity cannot be forgiven unless violence is done first. May God forgive us.
12 March 2006
Us and Them
Someone has started a website on one of my favourite theologians: James Alison.
I have to confess that I am not yet able to talk about his work in 'easy sound bites', but one of the reasons I like his theology is that I believe he is able to express orthodox Christian doctrine in thought-forms that are more readily accessible to the 21st century person than the old Protestant sound bite of 'Jesus died on the cross to pay the price of your sins.'
Underpinning Alison's theology is the anthropology of Rene Girard. In very simplistic terms, Girard believes that every society in history has maintained internal cohesion by a continuing process of identifying and expelling a scapegoat. Without the mechanism of identifying a 'them', there would be no 'us' because interpersonal rivalry inside the society would destoy it. US versus USSR anyone? How about US versus Iraq / Iran / Radical Islam?
Alison sees the rivalries that would tear apart society without a scapegoat and the scapegoatting process itself as the manifestation of Original Sin. Where 'the world' (my term, not Alison's) would see the scapegoat as fully deserving of divine wrath, Jesus' resurrection turned the entire paradigm upside down. The resurrection is God's 'yes' to life and God's identification with the victim rather than the victimiser.
I cannot do his theology justice, but I would encourage a reading of his works. For my money, The Joy of Being Wrong is the most interesting, but it is also his PhD thesis and so rather academic in tone. Knowing Jesus is probably his most accessible work and Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay is very moving.
My favourite idea from The Joy of Being Wrong is that one can be forgiven for being wrong, but it is the insistance on being right that initiates a pattern of sinful violence. Fundamentalism, anyone?
I have to confess that I am not yet able to talk about his work in 'easy sound bites', but one of the reasons I like his theology is that I believe he is able to express orthodox Christian doctrine in thought-forms that are more readily accessible to the 21st century person than the old Protestant sound bite of 'Jesus died on the cross to pay the price of your sins.'
Underpinning Alison's theology is the anthropology of Rene Girard. In very simplistic terms, Girard believes that every society in history has maintained internal cohesion by a continuing process of identifying and expelling a scapegoat. Without the mechanism of identifying a 'them', there would be no 'us' because interpersonal rivalry inside the society would destoy it. US versus USSR anyone? How about US versus Iraq / Iran / Radical Islam?
Alison sees the rivalries that would tear apart society without a scapegoat and the scapegoatting process itself as the manifestation of Original Sin. Where 'the world' (my term, not Alison's) would see the scapegoat as fully deserving of divine wrath, Jesus' resurrection turned the entire paradigm upside down. The resurrection is God's 'yes' to life and God's identification with the victim rather than the victimiser.
I cannot do his theology justice, but I would encourage a reading of his works. For my money, The Joy of Being Wrong is the most interesting, but it is also his PhD thesis and so rather academic in tone. Knowing Jesus is probably his most accessible work and Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay is very moving.
My favourite idea from The Joy of Being Wrong is that one can be forgiven for being wrong, but it is the insistance on being right that initiates a pattern of sinful violence. Fundamentalism, anyone?
07 March 2006
Real Girls Don't Buy Cars
I want to buy a 1-year old Ford Fiesta. I have rung a purveyor of cars that is well-known in 'the circles in which I move'. I'm not naming names. So i've rung this place and told them what I want. No problem, madam, I'll ring you back.
A week later, I ring again. May I speak to John Smith. He's on holiday this week, may I help you? He was going to find a Ford Fiesta for me. I'll find out what is happening and ring you back, madam.
Nothing.
You'd think I'd rung them and said I wanted to turn into a pink elephant.
Maybe I'm being too much of a prima-donna. Maybe it's unreasonable to think that someone would tell me what is going on. But why do I think that if my husband rings them that they might act like we exist?
I think that Real Girls Don't Buy Cars. We drive them, but we don't buy them.
A week later, I ring again. May I speak to John Smith. He's on holiday this week, may I help you? He was going to find a Ford Fiesta for me. I'll find out what is happening and ring you back, madam.
Nothing.
You'd think I'd rung them and said I wanted to turn into a pink elephant.
Maybe I'm being too much of a prima-donna. Maybe it's unreasonable to think that someone would tell me what is going on. But why do I think that if my husband rings them that they might act like we exist?
I think that Real Girls Don't Buy Cars. We drive them, but we don't buy them.
28 February 2006
Julian of Norwich, Moi?
Here's a bit of fun.
You are Julian of Norwich! It's all about God, to
you. You're convinced that the world has a
happy ending. Everyone else is convinced that
you're a closet hippie, but you love them
anyway.
Which Saint Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
You are Julian of Norwich! It's all about God, to
you. You're convinced that the world has a
happy ending. Everyone else is convinced that
you're a closet hippie, but you love them
anyway.
Which Saint Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
27 February 2006
Blog Tag - Four Things
Apparently, people are playing blog-tag and I’ve been tagged by Dave
Four Jobs I've had (in no particular order)
• Filing clerk
• Hotel front desk assistant
• European equity manager
• Pensions consultant
Four movies I can watch over and over
• The Wizard of Oz
• It’s a Wonderful Life
• Nemo
• Any Harry Potter film
Four TV shows I love to watch
• The Simpsons
• Family Guy
• Charmed
• Have I got news for you
Four places I’ve been on vacation
• San Francisco
• Northern Michigan
• Delhi
• Lanzarote
Four favourite dishes
• Pasta Pomodoro
• Pizza Margarita
• Asparagus Rizotto
• Chocolate Chip Ice Cream
Four Web sites I visit daily
• Ship of Fools
• Beliefnet
• Connexion.net
• Google
Four places I’d rather be
• I think I’m where I’m supposed to be at the moment.
Four bloggers I am tagging
• Lutheran Chick
• Rev Rad
• Sally
• Lorna
Four Jobs I've had (in no particular order)
• Filing clerk
• Hotel front desk assistant
• European equity manager
• Pensions consultant
Four movies I can watch over and over
• The Wizard of Oz
• It’s a Wonderful Life
• Nemo
• Any Harry Potter film
Four TV shows I love to watch
• The Simpsons
• Family Guy
• Charmed
• Have I got news for you
Four places I’ve been on vacation
• San Francisco
• Northern Michigan
• Delhi
• Lanzarote
Four favourite dishes
• Pasta Pomodoro
• Pizza Margarita
• Asparagus Rizotto
• Chocolate Chip Ice Cream
Four Web sites I visit daily
• Ship of Fools
• Beliefnet
• Connexion.net
Four places I’d rather be
• I think I’m where I’m supposed to be at the moment.
Four bloggers I am tagging
• Lutheran Chick
• Rev Rad
• Sally
• Lorna
26 February 2006
Thirst for Life
On a somewhat lighter note, the organisation Thirst For Life is asking people give up drinking alcohol for Lent.
I was teasing a friend about signing up a few weeks ago, since my friend is teetotal. I'm not a teetotal Methodist, but I drink so little alcohol (probably less than 20 units / year), that I might as well be. But, as I thought about it, I realised that binge drinking is a huge issue in our society and that giving up alcohol might very well be a witness to some people.
I used to work in the City of London, and drinking after work was a way of life for many people there. Yet, several of my colleagues 'gave up alcohol for Lent' although they were not Christians. Christians might think it odd that non-Christians know about Lent, but I say let's use all the witnessing tools at our disposal. I think that witnessing by our actions is far more effective than anything we can say. I believe in St. Francis' old chestnut: 'Preach the Gospel as often as possible. If necessary, use words.'
The knowledge that they can get through 40 days without alcohol may well be Good News for someone you know.
I was teasing a friend about signing up a few weeks ago, since my friend is teetotal. I'm not a teetotal Methodist, but I drink so little alcohol (probably less than 20 units / year), that I might as well be. But, as I thought about it, I realised that binge drinking is a huge issue in our society and that giving up alcohol might very well be a witness to some people.
I used to work in the City of London, and drinking after work was a way of life for many people there. Yet, several of my colleagues 'gave up alcohol for Lent' although they were not Christians. Christians might think it odd that non-Christians know about Lent, but I say let's use all the witnessing tools at our disposal. I think that witnessing by our actions is far more effective than anything we can say. I believe in St. Francis' old chestnut: 'Preach the Gospel as often as possible. If necessary, use words.'
The knowledge that they can get through 40 days without alcohol may well be Good News for someone you know.
How Far for a Cause?
Today's edition of The Washington Post carries this article which got me thinking - to say the least. Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, is supporting a law in Nigeria that criminalises same-sex unions and denies homosexuals the right of assembly. He is supported by a number of conservative Christian groups in the US as well as by a number of socially-conservative private US enterprises.
How far does one go for the sake of a cause? Whether one is 'pro-tradition' or 'pro-gay', how can anyone condone restricting the civil rights of another human being? Most of the pro-tradition Americans and British people I know would claim that they do not promote the restriction of gay people's civil rights, but aren't we all complicit in their restriction if we tolerate this sort of action or turn a blind eye to it for the sake of a cause? At least they think homosexual acts are sinful, which is the most important thing. Or is it?
It seems to me that whenever I point out to people that Jesus did not call down punishment or damnation on the sinners he encountered in his ministry, someone chimes in with something like 'Yes, but he did tell the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more"'. Yes, indeed, he did. But that doesn't excuse us from picking up the stones and stoning her ourselves.
It seems to me that criminalising gay people is picking up the stones to stone them. I don't see how the Christian communion can turn a blind eye to this.
How far does one go for the sake of a cause? Whether one is 'pro-tradition' or 'pro-gay', how can anyone condone restricting the civil rights of another human being? Most of the pro-tradition Americans and British people I know would claim that they do not promote the restriction of gay people's civil rights, but aren't we all complicit in their restriction if we tolerate this sort of action or turn a blind eye to it for the sake of a cause? At least they think homosexual acts are sinful, which is the most important thing. Or is it?
It seems to me that whenever I point out to people that Jesus did not call down punishment or damnation on the sinners he encountered in his ministry, someone chimes in with something like 'Yes, but he did tell the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more"'. Yes, indeed, he did. But that doesn't excuse us from picking up the stones and stoning her ourselves.
It seems to me that criminalising gay people is picking up the stones to stone them. I don't see how the Christian communion can turn a blind eye to this.
25 February 2006
Collect for Justice
I've been using Common Worship Daily Prayer for my private devotions for a few years now. (You can find a free daily feed here.) Each Psalm in Daily Prayer ends with a Collect.
Today's Collect for Psalm 76 really moved me, especially in this period of fear and violence that we seem to be living through:
Majestic and gracious God,
more awesome than the agents of war,
more powerful than the wrath of nations,
restrain the violence of the peoples
and draw the despised of the earth
into the joyful life of your kingdom,
where you live and reign for ever and ever.
© The Archbishops' Council of the Church of England, 2002-2003.
Today's Collect for Psalm 76 really moved me, especially in this period of fear and violence that we seem to be living through:
Majestic and gracious God,
more awesome than the agents of war,
more powerful than the wrath of nations,
restrain the violence of the peoples
and draw the despised of the earth
into the joyful life of your kingdom,
where you live and reign for ever and ever.
© The Archbishops' Council of the Church of England, 2002-2003.
24 February 2006
Fresh Expressions / Changing Church?
At college the other night, we were privileged to have a presentation by Steve Croft of Fresh Expressions.
None of this is new to a fellow student who works as an evangelist to New Agers, but for an old fogey like me, some of the "Fresh Expressions" that we heard about were gratifyingly fresh. When I hear the term 'new ways of being church', it usually seems to be connected with old ways of being church with a few Graham Kendrick songs and a guitar. None of what I saw before looked to me to be the kind of thing that the unchurched would connect with.
Whilst this might be old hat to people like my colleague Sally, old fogeys like me need to see what real 'fresh expressions' look like. And some of this stuff doesn't fit easily into our old categories of 'church'. For example, there was a community skateboarding project with an intentional youth church at the centre; most of the attendees of the skateboarding centre do not attend the intentional worship, but some do (we did not see what their worship looked like).
There was some talk amongst students after Steve left that these Fresh Expressions are quite threatening to ministers who are engaged in ministry in the traditional mode. I think the Fresh Expressions are threatening to the tradtional-minded and not just to ministers/priests/presbyters. It seems to me that the reason that most Christians these days want to reach out to the unchurched is so that more people will join our club and we'll be able to fill our buildings.
It was quite clear to me the other night that the Fresh Expressions are inherently fragile in that they are likely to change with time and fashion - will the world still want coffee shops in 50 years' time? It also seemed clear to me that the church is simply going to have to learn to deal with this situation instead of whining about post-modern culture. We seem to think that because God is unchanging (and that's a whole separate discussion!) that the church should be unchanging as well. Sometimes I think the church worships Inertia instead of the Living Trinity.
None of this is new to a fellow student who works as an evangelist to New Agers, but for an old fogey like me, some of the "Fresh Expressions" that we heard about were gratifyingly fresh. When I hear the term 'new ways of being church', it usually seems to be connected with old ways of being church with a few Graham Kendrick songs and a guitar. None of what I saw before looked to me to be the kind of thing that the unchurched would connect with.
Whilst this might be old hat to people like my colleague Sally, old fogeys like me need to see what real 'fresh expressions' look like. And some of this stuff doesn't fit easily into our old categories of 'church'. For example, there was a community skateboarding project with an intentional youth church at the centre; most of the attendees of the skateboarding centre do not attend the intentional worship, but some do (we did not see what their worship looked like).
There was some talk amongst students after Steve left that these Fresh Expressions are quite threatening to ministers who are engaged in ministry in the traditional mode. I think the Fresh Expressions are threatening to the tradtional-minded and not just to ministers/priests/presbyters. It seems to me that the reason that most Christians these days want to reach out to the unchurched is so that more people will join our club and we'll be able to fill our buildings.
It was quite clear to me the other night that the Fresh Expressions are inherently fragile in that they are likely to change with time and fashion - will the world still want coffee shops in 50 years' time? It also seemed clear to me that the church is simply going to have to learn to deal with this situation instead of whining about post-modern culture. We seem to think that because God is unchanging (and that's a whole separate discussion!) that the church should be unchanging as well. Sometimes I think the church worships Inertia instead of the Living Trinity.
17 February 2006
Global Warming Project
The BBC is conducting a project on global warming and is asking PC owners to participate by downloading a program that acts as a screen-saver, but which also harnesses your PC's processing power.
This is a simple way of helping and the process is explained on the the BBC's website.
This is a simple way of helping and the process is explained on the the BBC's website.
12 February 2006
A Lack of Civility
The Church Times carries this article by Archbishop Rowan Williams regarding the current brou-ha-ha over 'freedom of speech'.
The Archbishop characterises the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad (PUBH) by the Western media as 'a lack of civility'. As is often the case, the Archbishop speaks wisely, in my view.
I appreciate that many Westerners and many Christians will likely disagree with me, but I believe that - at least from the point of view Christian theology - scripture itself is quite clear that the Godly use of 'freedom' is 'freedom for' not 'freedom from' (See Paul's first letter to the Corinthians).
As Christians, we are set free from sin in order to love; we are set free from selfishness in order to give service to God's Kingdom.
When a society sees 'freedom' as 'freedom to say things we know are inherently insulting to another culture, just because we can', then society is acting like a petulant teenager. This is not a responsible use of freedom, it is a gratuitous and pointless use of freedom to tear down rather than to build up.
I cherish the freedom of speech that we have in the West. There are certainly instances where, as Christians, it is legitimate to speak out against an extreme form of Islam that nurtures and engages in terrorism. But it is only a responsible use of our freedom of speech when we stand up for what we believe to be the Truth. 'Freedom to be offensive' is not, in my view, a Christian way to utilise free speech.
The Archbishop characterises the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad (PUBH) by the Western media as 'a lack of civility'. As is often the case, the Archbishop speaks wisely, in my view.
I appreciate that many Westerners and many Christians will likely disagree with me, but I believe that - at least from the point of view Christian theology - scripture itself is quite clear that the Godly use of 'freedom' is 'freedom for' not 'freedom from' (See Paul's first letter to the Corinthians).
As Christians, we are set free from sin in order to love; we are set free from selfishness in order to give service to God's Kingdom.
When a society sees 'freedom' as 'freedom to say things we know are inherently insulting to another culture, just because we can', then society is acting like a petulant teenager. This is not a responsible use of freedom, it is a gratuitous and pointless use of freedom to tear down rather than to build up.
I cherish the freedom of speech that we have in the West. There are certainly instances where, as Christians, it is legitimate to speak out against an extreme form of Islam that nurtures and engages in terrorism. But it is only a responsible use of our freedom of speech when we stand up for what we believe to be the Truth. 'Freedom to be offensive' is not, in my view, a Christian way to utilise free speech.
14 January 2006
God's Justice
'Justice is located where ever God's people are set free'
I don't know to whom to attribute this quotation, but it was given to us yesterday at the end of our three-day Racism Awareness class (the tutor also didn't know who orginally said it).
I suspect that some people, Christians included, will disagree with this statement. They might read 'setting a person free' as being the same things as 'letting a person do whatever feels good'. I don't know about you, but I hear this latter statement quite a bit whenever I say something that suggests that God is ultimately merciful, gracious, forgiving and creative.
I think that there is a reason that a lot of people won't like the idea that justice means setting someone free: In the state of original sin, humankind wants its pound of flesh back when someone does something wrong. 'You made me hurt, so I'm going to show you what it feels like. Justice will not be done until you hurt as much as I do'. If I'm being really honest what I actually mean is 'Justice won't be done until I make you hurt a lot more than you hurt me.' Is it any wonder that violence escalates in our world?
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is subversive because it turns the world's 'common-sense' upside down. The world's 'common-sense' seems to think that justice is done when the wrong-doer is punished and the victim is left to heal on his or her own. I believe that God's justice happens when the truth is told, God's people get alongside the victim in a healing ministry and the wrong-doer makes restitution and is forgiven. Restitution does not mean the wrong-doer is made to hurt for the sake of hurting, it means the wrong-doer makes a meaningful gesture to restore what was taken from his or her victim.
There is a parallel here with my previous post. In that post, I said that God calls God's children to stand up for what is right even if doing so is costly and difficult, but that God does not want us to suffer simply for suffering's sake. In God's Justice, the wrong-doer may very well suffer in the process of looking honestly at the harm that he or she has done. The wrong-doer may suffer in trying to make honest restitution; but perhaps not. It is not the suffering of the wrong-doer that is God's goal, it is the healing and the freedom of the victim that is God's goal.
'Justice is done where ever God's people are set free.' God calls disciples of Christ to look for ways to set others free. May we be given strength, nourishment and inspiration in this calling.
I don't know to whom to attribute this quotation, but it was given to us yesterday at the end of our three-day Racism Awareness class (the tutor also didn't know who orginally said it).
I suspect that some people, Christians included, will disagree with this statement. They might read 'setting a person free' as being the same things as 'letting a person do whatever feels good'. I don't know about you, but I hear this latter statement quite a bit whenever I say something that suggests that God is ultimately merciful, gracious, forgiving and creative.
I think that there is a reason that a lot of people won't like the idea that justice means setting someone free: In the state of original sin, humankind wants its pound of flesh back when someone does something wrong. 'You made me hurt, so I'm going to show you what it feels like. Justice will not be done until you hurt as much as I do'. If I'm being really honest what I actually mean is 'Justice won't be done until I make you hurt a lot more than you hurt me.' Is it any wonder that violence escalates in our world?
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is subversive because it turns the world's 'common-sense' upside down. The world's 'common-sense' seems to think that justice is done when the wrong-doer is punished and the victim is left to heal on his or her own. I believe that God's justice happens when the truth is told, God's people get alongside the victim in a healing ministry and the wrong-doer makes restitution and is forgiven. Restitution does not mean the wrong-doer is made to hurt for the sake of hurting, it means the wrong-doer makes a meaningful gesture to restore what was taken from his or her victim.
There is a parallel here with my previous post. In that post, I said that God calls God's children to stand up for what is right even if doing so is costly and difficult, but that God does not want us to suffer simply for suffering's sake. In God's Justice, the wrong-doer may very well suffer in the process of looking honestly at the harm that he or she has done. The wrong-doer may suffer in trying to make honest restitution; but perhaps not. It is not the suffering of the wrong-doer that is God's goal, it is the healing and the freedom of the victim that is God's goal.
'Justice is done where ever God's people are set free.' God calls disciples of Christ to look for ways to set others free. May we be given strength, nourishment and inspiration in this calling.
06 January 2006
Christians and Suffering
Take up your cross
Four times in the New Testament (twice in Matthew and twice in Luke), Jesus is quoted as saying that his disciples must take up their cross in order to follow him.
This shouldn't be news to any Christian who has attempted to live by any Kingdom value that is unpopular in the secular world.
* Whether it be the Christian teenager who witnesses that binge-drinking isn't cool (or whatever the current term is!)
* Be it the Christian Londoner who stands against racism in the wake of the 7 July bombings
* Be it the Christian Texan who stands up for good stewardship of the environment.
But there is a way that this saying often gets mis-used by Christians and someone was advocating it again on a Christian discussion group the other day. It is a mis-use of this saying to suggest that every time a Christian has to make a choice that he or she ought always to make the choice that is difficult or self-sacrifical regardless of any other consideration.
There should be other more important considerations: the Kingdom values of truth, justice, honesty, and respect for human life.
To use an extreme but straight-forward example, God does not require Christians to 'sacrifice' themselves to domestic abuse. To use a mundane example, God does not require us to always avoid pleasure or to seek out pain.
So what is the point of 'take up your cross' if God does not require this sort of self-sacrifice?
The point is to stand up for the Kingdom values of truth, justice honesty and respect for human life even in the face of suffering. Faced with a choice to take up the cross for Kingdom values, I believe God calls us to choose the cross. Faced with the choice to take up the cross to resist evil, I believe that God calls us to choose the cross.
What God does not call us to do is to suffer pointlessly. And God certainly does not call us to suffer in order to appease another's unreasonable demands made in a state of what Paul would call captivity to the flesh (i.e. sin).
If we truly seek to live by Kingdom values, then it is inevitable that we will have to take up our cross at many points in our discipleship. This is simply a fact.
God also wants us to enjoy his creation: the natural world and the people around us. We are not required to seek out ways to make ourselves miserable at every turn. We will not have the strength to stand up for Truth if we have not allowed God to bless us and to refresh us.
May God bless you and refresh you and empower you to stand for Kingdom values.
Four times in the New Testament (twice in Matthew and twice in Luke), Jesus is quoted as saying that his disciples must take up their cross in order to follow him.
This shouldn't be news to any Christian who has attempted to live by any Kingdom value that is unpopular in the secular world.
* Whether it be the Christian teenager who witnesses that binge-drinking isn't cool (or whatever the current term is!)
* Be it the Christian Londoner who stands against racism in the wake of the 7 July bombings
* Be it the Christian Texan who stands up for good stewardship of the environment.
But there is a way that this saying often gets mis-used by Christians and someone was advocating it again on a Christian discussion group the other day. It is a mis-use of this saying to suggest that every time a Christian has to make a choice that he or she ought always to make the choice that is difficult or self-sacrifical regardless of any other consideration.
There should be other more important considerations: the Kingdom values of truth, justice, honesty, and respect for human life.
To use an extreme but straight-forward example, God does not require Christians to 'sacrifice' themselves to domestic abuse. To use a mundane example, God does not require us to always avoid pleasure or to seek out pain.
So what is the point of 'take up your cross' if God does not require this sort of self-sacrifice?
The point is to stand up for the Kingdom values of truth, justice honesty and respect for human life even in the face of suffering. Faced with a choice to take up the cross for Kingdom values, I believe God calls us to choose the cross. Faced with the choice to take up the cross to resist evil, I believe that God calls us to choose the cross.
What God does not call us to do is to suffer pointlessly. And God certainly does not call us to suffer in order to appease another's unreasonable demands made in a state of what Paul would call captivity to the flesh (i.e. sin).
If we truly seek to live by Kingdom values, then it is inevitable that we will have to take up our cross at many points in our discipleship. This is simply a fact.
God also wants us to enjoy his creation: the natural world and the people around us. We are not required to seek out ways to make ourselves miserable at every turn. We will not have the strength to stand up for Truth if we have not allowed God to bless us and to refresh us.
May God bless you and refresh you and empower you to stand for Kingdom values.
04 January 2006
Debt, debt and more debt
I hate the advertisements on television for debt consolidation companies. I don't know what sorts of interest rates they charge, but my main concern is the whole advertising strategy. I think there are a good number of people who don't know what they are getting themselves into and, often, the advertising urges people to engage in financially irresponsible acts.
Rant 1: "Put all your debts together and lower your monthly payments". What the loan company is going to do is to tie you into a loan that lasts a long time - maybe 10 or 20 years. Of course your monthly payments are going to be low over that long a time. But you'll end up paying them a lot more money in total than you would have done otherwise. So, if you can afford it, it's really MUCH better to pay off your debts sooner rather than later. (I'll be happy to demonstrate the maths if anyone is interested.)
Rant 2: "Think of what you could do with the extra money every month"
It's not "extra money" people! Whatever you do, DO NOT run up more debt on your credit cards!! You cannot afford to run up another £500 on your credit card because you think you "can afford" an extra £20/month minimum payment. All you are doing is getting yourself into more debt.
Rant 3: "We were able to pay off our credit card debt and with the extra money we were able to buy a car and take a holiday."
The debt wasn't "paid off" - it was just transferred to another debtor. Very possibly putting your house at risk (was having a mortgage part of what qualified you to get the loan?), and almost certainly at an interest rate that is higher than someone with good credit.
Also, it's not "extra money" - if you borrowed more money than you needed to "pay off" your other debts, you just actually borrowed more money.
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute financial, investment or tax advice. It does not attempt to give you advice that relates to your specific circumstances. You are advised to discuss your specific requirements with an independent financial adviser prior to entering into any binding contracts or taking any other financial action.
Rant 1: "Put all your debts together and lower your monthly payments". What the loan company is going to do is to tie you into a loan that lasts a long time - maybe 10 or 20 years. Of course your monthly payments are going to be low over that long a time. But you'll end up paying them a lot more money in total than you would have done otherwise. So, if you can afford it, it's really MUCH better to pay off your debts sooner rather than later. (I'll be happy to demonstrate the maths if anyone is interested.)
Rant 2: "Think of what you could do with the extra money every month"
It's not "extra money" people! Whatever you do, DO NOT run up more debt on your credit cards!! You cannot afford to run up another £500 on your credit card because you think you "can afford" an extra £20/month minimum payment. All you are doing is getting yourself into more debt.
Rant 3: "We were able to pay off our credit card debt and with the extra money we were able to buy a car and take a holiday."
The debt wasn't "paid off" - it was just transferred to another debtor. Very possibly putting your house at risk (was having a mortgage part of what qualified you to get the loan?), and almost certainly at an interest rate that is higher than someone with good credit.
Also, it's not "extra money" - if you borrowed more money than you needed to "pay off" your other debts, you just actually borrowed more money.
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute financial, investment or tax advice. It does not attempt to give you advice that relates to your specific circumstances. You are advised to discuss your specific requirements with an independent financial adviser prior to entering into any binding contracts or taking any other financial action.
03 January 2006
Glory be to God on High
We're still in the liturgical season of Christmas and I'm just starting to blog, so I offer you my favourite Christmas hymn by Charles Wesley. Many Methodists don't seem to be familiar with this hymn, but I think it's worth 'resurrecting'. Normally sung to Amsterdam
Glory be to God on high,
And peace on earth descend:
God comes down, he bows the sky,
And shows himself our friend:
God the invisible appears:
God, the blest, the great I AM,
Sojourns in this vale of tears,
And Jesus is his name.
Him the angels all adored,
Their Maker and their King;
Tidings of their humbled Lord
They now to mortals bring.
Emptied of his majesty,
Of his dazzling glories shorn,
Beings source begins to be,
And God himself is born!
See the eternal Son of God
A mortal son of man
Dwelling in an earthly clod
Whom heaven cannot contain!
Stand amazed, ye heavens, at this!
See the Lord of earth and skies;
Humbled to the dust he is,
And in a manger lies.
We, earth's children, now rejoice,
The Prince of Peace proclaim;
With heaven's host lift up our voice,
And shout Immanuel's name:
Knees and hearts to him we bow;
Of our flesh and of our bone,
Jesus is our brother now,
And God is all our own.
The third verse is my favourite. I often wish I were more demonstrative than I am, because when I sing 'Stand amazed, ye heavens, at this!' I'd really like to shout it out. (When I read the words, I get the feeling that Charles Wesley would have liked to shout out the words too.)
It's a familar doctrine, that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, but when one stops to think what it means that the uncreated Creator took on human form, one begins to get a small glimpse of God's love and God's mystery.
Glory be to God on high,
And peace on earth descend:
God comes down, he bows the sky,
And shows himself our friend:
God the invisible appears:
God, the blest, the great I AM,
Sojourns in this vale of tears,
And Jesus is his name.
Him the angels all adored,
Their Maker and their King;
Tidings of their humbled Lord
They now to mortals bring.
Emptied of his majesty,
Of his dazzling glories shorn,
Beings source begins to be,
And God himself is born!
See the eternal Son of God
A mortal son of man
Dwelling in an earthly clod
Whom heaven cannot contain!
Stand amazed, ye heavens, at this!
See the Lord of earth and skies;
Humbled to the dust he is,
And in a manger lies.
We, earth's children, now rejoice,
The Prince of Peace proclaim;
With heaven's host lift up our voice,
And shout Immanuel's name:
Knees and hearts to him we bow;
Of our flesh and of our bone,
Jesus is our brother now,
And God is all our own.
The third verse is my favourite. I often wish I were more demonstrative than I am, because when I sing 'Stand amazed, ye heavens, at this!' I'd really like to shout it out. (When I read the words, I get the feeling that Charles Wesley would have liked to shout out the words too.)
It's a familar doctrine, that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, but when one stops to think what it means that the uncreated Creator took on human form, one begins to get a small glimpse of God's love and God's mystery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
