Appeal for Zimbabwe

I'm blatently stealing from Olive's post on Octomusing

===

This is an appeal for Zimbabwe as the aid ban is lifted and nearly 4 million people will go hungry in October if no action is taken

As the ban on aid agencies operating in Zimbabwe is lifted, the Methodist Relief and Development Fund (MRDF) is supporting an appeal by ACT International that will deliver food and agricultural support to some of the country’s most vulnerable people.

Over 2 million people were in need of urgent food supplies when the Zimbabwean government ordered all aid agencies to suspend their humanitarian and development work on June 4. The ban only worsened an already desperate situation in a country with growing political instability, 85% of the population out of work and inflation levels that were spiralling out of control.

Amanda Norman, MRDF Supporter Relations Director, said: ‘We might think that the financial situation in Britain is grim, but the economic disaster faced by those in Zimbabwe puts things well and truly into perspective. Millions of Zimbabweans have been caught up in this complex humanitarian crisis and it’s hard to know how to even begin to make a difference. This appeal enables us to work with others to alleviate some of the suffering in the short term, and empower people to begin rebuilding their lives.’

It is estimated that nearly 4 million people could go hungry in October, with this number peaking at 5 million between January and March 2009. Now that the ban has been lifted, many will now be able to access much-needed food supplies.

The appeal through Action by Churches Together (ACT) will distribute monthly food rations of maize, cooking oil and beans to over 26,000 people in some of the most vulnerable communities. Farmers will be able to rebuild their livelihoods thanks to the provision of seeds, fertilisers and training in conservation farming that will help them to guard against the impact of drought.

Donations to MRDF’s appeal for Zimbabwe can be made by debit or credit card on 020 7224 4814, or by cheque, payable to “MRDF (Zimbabwe emergency)”, posted to MRDF, Methodist Church House, 25 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5JR.

Taxpayers are encouraged to gift aid their donations where possible, adding a value of 28p to every pound they give, at no extra personal cost.

MRDF makes small miracles possible for people living in the world’s poorest communities. For more information, visit www.mrdf.org.uk


Source: Methodist Church News Release 26/09/08

I am an opinionated catholic

Twice this week online I've encountered the argument that 'liberals' like me - and I put that word in scare-quotes for a reason - allegedly believe that 'all opinions are valid' and so, therefore, we do not have the right to disagree strenuously with conservatives. The argument seems to be that if we're going to argue that all opinions are valid that therefore the conservative opinion is valid as one among many.

What's wrong with this picture? First of all, I don't actually consider myself to be a theological 'liberal'. I don't hold the view that a person can call themself a Christian and believe just anything. For instance, I do not believe that it is orthodox Christianity to deny the divinity of Christ nor orthodox Christianity to deny the Trinity. Of course, an individual may struggle with these concepts, but - in my opinion - the church community may not deny them.

I do not consider myself a 'liberal', I consider myself a 'catholic'. A catholic Christian believes in the universal offer of God's salvation to all of creation. We believe that there is no person to whom God omits to offer his salvation: 'All shall be invited to the feast of life! Good news!' I do not know who is damned - if anyone - and I'm glad it's not my decision to make; that decision belongs to God.

I can see where some people might think my view is 'liberal', but it's not about 'anything goes'. It's about 'all are invited'.

This is actually a strongly-held conviction. I don't believe that all opinions are valid. When someone tells me that God excludes some people from his offer of salvation and that human beings can identify these individuals by their wrong ideas, I will disagree strenuously. Because I don't believe that all opinions are valid.

I am an opinionated catholic and I will disagree with you if I think you are wrong. And I'll try to do so in a civil and cordial manner.

Non-Apocalyptic Science

A 'real life' friend of mine has posted on the subject of Why the Large Hadron Collider won't destroy the world.

He has tried to write for the general public so that even people like me will understand the article. And I think I pretty much did understand.

As he says in his post, my friend is upset by the news coverage suggesting that the LHC will destroy the world. He says that there is as much chance of that happening as of falling off the edge of the world if you sail to the horizon.

And for those of you who keep lists of Methodist bloggers, my friend is a Local Preacher although I suspect that most of his posts won't be theological.

Apocalyptic Fun

You may be interested to know that, according to The International Earth Destruction Advisory Board that 'as of 7:35:05am UTC on September 10, 2008, the Earth has been destroyed.'

The site gives advice as to what to do in the event of earth-destruction, aka 'geocide'.

Other gods?

My friend Sally has written an interesting post on the subject of whether the followers of other world religions worship a different God from the Christian God. I have a lot of respect for Sally and her views even when I disagree with her;  and this is one of the rare times we disagree! Anyway what she said, as well as some of the other comments on the post, got me thinking.

The most intriguing comment was by my blog-friend Tim Chesterton who suggested that when people say that other religions worship 'different Gods', that they are saying that they believe different things about the God they worship than people of other religions.

The problem I have with Tim's suggestion is that I often feel I'm worshipping a 'different God' from many people who call themselves Christians. And I sometimes feel that my concept of God has more similarity with people of other religions - particularly progressive Jews, Sikhs and Baha'i.

What I specifically mean is that there are many Christians who seem to worship a hard God who is eagerly waiting for human beings to slip up so that he can punish them. These individuals wouldn't say that this is their official doctrine, but they act that way. They also voice objections to my brand of 'soft and fluffy' Christianity that really believes that Jesus meant 'forgive your enemies' when he uttered these words. On the other hand, many progressive Jews, Sikhs and Baha'i would say that a merciful God who calls us to forgiveness is at the centre of their beliefs. I often feel that I have more in common with some of these individuals than with other Christians, yet I feel it is my duty not to reject my Christian brothers and sisters.

As Sally noted, this is a very complicated question and I'm not claiming to have all the answers to it.  I thought it was an interesting discussion, though.

Durham Cathedral Bookshop

Phil Broom Groom has initiated a petition to the authorities of Durham Cathedral to take control of the Cathedral bookshop, currently being run by SSG.  I could not make a direct link to the petition, but it can be found here: 

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/durhamcathedralbookshop/ 

Once there are 50 signatories, Phil is going to forward the petition to the Dean and Chapter of Durham Cathedral.

You may be interested in signing the petition and passing the word along.

Yikes! How did that happen?

Fourteen years ago, my husband and I attended my university's 15-year reunion.

Today, I've just received an invitation to our 30th reunion.

Yikes! Where did those 15 years go? It doesn't seem that long ago.  The 30 years since graduation does seem 'long ago', but it seems more like 20 years than 30.

And yes, I'm waiting to be told that time only goes faster as one gets older, so go for it! ;-)

Challenge and Comfort

I stumbled across a blog post two days ago on a blog I don't normally read.  It was an expression of an idea that I've come to be familiar with over the last ten years of Christian internetting: that the Church in general is 'too nice' and that we need to start being tougher on people: both people in the church and people in 'the world'.

I'm also currently reading Ken Costa's book God at Work[1]. On page 43, he uses slightly different words to a phrase I've heard before. Costa writes:

As we engage with society's issues, we are called to confront anything that draws people away from God, but at the same time to comfort those who are struggling. But how often does our society end up confronting those who need comforting and comforting those who need confronting?

I've head this saying before as 'afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted' but I think I prefer Costa's 'confront the comfortable and comfort those who need comforting', even if the phrase doesn't have the same word-play. I think Costa is absolutely right that there is something about human nature that makes us want to 'get in good' with those who are in power rather than to confront them with their wrong-doing. Similarly, the sinful part of human nature means that we are often tempted to hurt those who need help: be it on a macro-scale (e.g. rich countries exploiting poor countries) or at a one-to-one level (e.g. taking out our frustrations on someone who we perceive can't hurt us).

When we say that 'the church is too nice' do we mean that we are not challenging those who are comfortable in their wrongdoing? If so, then we need to think and pray about how we can have the courage to speak God's truth in a challenging but constructive way. By the same token, there will always be people in society and in the church who need comforting and we are most certainly called to comfort those who need it.

It's not just 'the world' that is tempted to confront those who need comforting: the Church has also fallen into this temptation and succumbing to it is probably an excellent way to serve The Enemy and to be a bad witness for Christ.

[1] God At Work: living every day with purpose by Ken Costa, London, Continuum Books, 2007.

It Hurts

We've been in the United States and rented an automobile from a well-known rental company (let the reader understand).

We rented the car at Cleveland Hopkins Airport which is about 40 miles from where my parents live in Hudson, Ohio. Most of the driving from the airport to Hudson is on the freeway (motorway).

On Tuesday morning, the front right tyre had a blow-out and we rang for roadside assistance. No problem. Someone showed up in about 45 minutes and put the spare tyre on the car. So far, so good.

But, of course we don't want to drive around with the spare tyre and we would want to have a standard tyre fitted. This is where the problems started.

Well, the company said, you can swap your car for another. Except none of the concessions - other than the one at the airport - have any extra cars. OK, no problem, the company says. Here's the name of a garage; you can go there and they will fit a new tyre. Good job we rang the garage. No, we won't fit the new tyre unless you pay for it because The Famous Car Rental Company don't pay their bills.

We are not happy bunnies. We have left the rental car in my parents' driveway and we're using their car for the duration of our visit. We'll still have to drive the 40 miles to the airport tomorrow on the motorway at 50 miles an hour. Going this slow on the motorway is a terrifying experience if you've never tried it.

Heard on the Television

Gotta love US television. Sometimes non-Christians have great perspective. Here's a short sound-bite that captures everything that's wrong with 'taking the bible literally':

The bible has nothing to say about selling beer to minors!

Have a nice day! ;-)

Thought-Provoking

A thought-provoking post from Sam Norton: Who did Jesus most criticise?

Sam writes:

Who did Jesus most criticise?
I used to think that it was the people who were sure of their own salvation.
I now see that as misleading.
I think Jesus most criticised those who were sure of somebody else's damnation.
Those were the people whom Jesus damned.

We're all different and I'd not use precisely the same language as Sam.

I think I'd say 'I used to think that the people Jesus was criticising was those who were sure of their own salvation. I now think that he was criticising those who were sure of the damnation of others.'

I'm not sure that Jesus 'damns' those who think that they know who is damned.  But I do think that we are enjoined many times in the New Testament not to make these judgements.

There are those who wonder how can I say that Jesus is Lord if I don't know who is damned?  My response is that I know who is saved and I don't need to know who is damned.  That's God's job.  

Steve Colbert on The Lambeth Conference

Sometimes you just gotta laugh. Hat tip to Ask the Priest

'This year's Lambeth Conference has been steeped in controversy. And, unlike the good old days, it can't be settled by beheading your wife.'

Pretres Academy

This week's edition of The Church Times has very interesting article on Pretres Academy.

These are short videos (in French!) produced by The Diocese of Besancon. They follow the pattern of the television show Star Academy presenting the every-day lives and activities of priests in short videos. Fascinating.

1993 Resolutions on Human Sexuality

I have just received some summary documents from The Annual Conference of The British Methodist Church. I note that one of the resolutions we passed was

'...the need to transcend the common habit of discussing the 1993 Resolutions as if they were solely about homosexuality.'

This got me wondering how many Methodists have actually read the resolutions? Because homosexuality isn't really their main focus. They are - as the title suggests - about human sexuality.  

Here is a link to the resolutions on the official Methodist Website: Human Sexuality The page also includes a bit of further discussion and some links.

As I understand the 'debate' about reviewing these resolutions within our denomination, there are people on 'both sides' of the homosexuality issue who want the possibility of individual interpretation closed on the matter of homosexual acts. Some want a clear condemnation of all homosexual acts. Others want a clear permission to bless Civil Partnerships in church.

Why were these resolutions not reviewed?  I was present at Conference when the possible review of the resolutions was discussed. Conference had asked for written responses from the Methodist people and the response was huge by normal standards.  I don't remember the exact number, but David Gamble said that on most consultations if they received 5 responses from churches or Methodist members, this could be considered 'a deluge of opinion'. There were apparently hundreds of responses to the consultation request on Human Sexuality ('Pilgrimage of Faith') and the results indicated that views were about equally divided on both sides of the homosexuality issue.  Results also indicated that most respondents did not want to review the Resolutions.

In light of what is happening at Lambeth, our decision not to review might seem contentious, but it didn't seem that way at the time at Conference.  The mind of Conference seemed to be that the most preferable solution was to hold Methodism together.  

I agree with this decision because I believe that the ability to live peaceably with those with whom we don't agree is actually a more important issue of discipleship and behaviour than the sexual activity (or not) of members.  Sex is, of course - er - a 'sexier' topic than reconciliation and being able to get along with each other.  Of course, as human beings, we resist being disciplined for the sin of refusal to reconcile because we all want to save other people from themselves.  And we all commit the sin of non-reconciliation.  

(And before anyone asks, yes, this does mean that I hold myself accountable for civil interaction with people with whom I disagree.)

Marriage

I blame it on Dave's 20th Wedding Anniversary but I'm going to go where angels fear to tread and dare to offer just a few thoughts on marriage. Not a treatise, mind. And not a worked-out systematic theology. Just a few thoughts.

Why am I doing this? Well the post that Dave links to, Will Positive Examples be Taken Seriously? throws out the thought that Christians don't offer many 'positive' thoughts on 'how to have a good marriage'.

So, as an egalitarian - someone who believes men and women are equal - I have a few simple but related thoughts:  

1) Never take your spouse for granted.

2) Ask yourself every day 'What can I do to make my spouse's life easier today?' Or 'What can I do to bring joy to my spouse?'

3) Never forget to say 'Thank you'. Say 'thank you' when she takes out the rubbish and say 'thank you' when he does the washing-up. You may think that s/he 'should' do these things, but say 'thank you' anyway.

What's my theological basis for this? Agape love. A love that looks first outside oneself and asks the question 'How can I serve another'? Or as the old-fashioned language used to say 'Self-sacrificial love'. This is not only the basis for marriage, it's the basis for Christian discipleship.

Many Christians say that these ideas are unbiblical and that husbands have authority over wives. I'm still trying to understand how agape love is unbiblical.  I know from experience that this sort of attitude does work as a path to a loving marriage.  I also know that I'd be very wary of marrying any man who insisted on retaining the option of always having 'final authority' over me. 

Quote of the day

This text from The Life You've Always Wanted by John Ortberg struck me very powerfully this morning. I 'preach' to no-one but myself and simply share this text if it resonates with anyone else.

Jesus took a little child in his arms and said [to the disciples], in effect, "Here's your ministry. Give yourselves to those who can bring you no status or clout. Just help people. You need this little child. You need to help this little child, not just for her sake, but more for you sake. For if you don't, your whole life will be thrown away on an idiotic contest to see who is the greatest. But if you serve her - often and well and cheerfully and out of the limelight - then the day may come when you do it without thinking, 'What a wonderful thing I've done.' Then you will begin serving naturally, effortlessly, for the joy of it. Then you will begin to understand how life in the kingdom works."

Aren't most of the values of 'the world' centred around 'An idiotic contest to see who is the greatest' in one way or another?  This is the big way that I think The Church of Christ can be 'counter cultural'.

Those Christian Bookshops

I'm late to this piece of news as I've had (still have) a fairly nasty bug and have only been able to do the bare minimum since last Thursday.

A number of Methodist bloggers have already reported about the silencing of Dave Walker on the subject of the decimation of the former 'SPCK' bookshops. The blog 'Connexions' provides a number of links here.  Dave Walkers's posts on this subject have been characteristic of his style: factual, humorous and gentle. 

The anonymous blog Asingleblog's Weblog provides further information as well as a a prayer for Stephen Jeynes, the manager of the Worcester shop who took his own life. My husband and I talked to Stephen in the shop about a month before he died. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.

Further words fail me in the face of what has been a terrible tragedy for many people.

She's Her Own Blogger Now

Speaking of Methodist bloggers, I see that Ruby Beech is now blogging over at A good woman's price is far above rubies.

The President Blogs

The new President of Methodist Conference, Stephen Poxon, has posted the first blog of his Presidency: At Last!.

I'm under the impression that Stephen and Vice President David Walton are new to blogging, so howz about going and encouraging them with a comment?

How to Comment / Blogging Policy

How to Comment

There are two ways to comment on my blog if you don't have a 'Blogger' account and don't want to have one.

1) The simplest way is to go to the bottom of a post and look for the link to 'Post a Comment'. You will be given a comment box where you can write your comment. Choosing 'Anonymous' is the most straightforward way to comment but you will need to type the letters of the 'Word Verification' in the box. This to to prevent automated SPAM commenting. I'd appreciate it if you felt able to use either your first name (e.g. 'Howard') or give yourself a pseudonym (e.g. 'Good Girl'); however, this is not mandatory.

2) Another way to comment without having a 'Blogger' account is to choose to post using a name or URL. Here you can give yourself a name: either a real name or a pseudonym.

My Policy on Commenting

1) First of all, I reserve the right to be the supreme judge and Grand Poobah when it comes to making decisions about removing posts. No point arguing with me. This is my blog and I reserve editorial rights.

2) That said, I will normally allow all comments that address the substance of an issue and which do not attack a person or persons.

3) I will not normally remove posts that disagree with my views but I reserve the right to decide what is and what is not a personal attack. I also reserve the right to make a judgement call about repetitive posts if a conversation is not advancing; there is a point beyond which I will lose patience with fisking and repetition.

4) I will normally not enable the comment approval function unless I plan on being away from my computer. Because I'm not particularly organised, I reserve the right to initiate the comment approval function without notice. Again, no point arguing with me; it's my blog.

5) All posts of an explicitly sexual or violent nature will be removed immediately and legal steps taken, where indicated.