ARGUMENTATION!
A few weeks ago I received a 'freebie' from
http://www.teach12.com/ in the form of an article
called "38 Ways to Win an Argument from
Arthur Schopenhauer's 'The Art of Controversy'."
It makes fascinating reading for someone like
myself who takes an interest in Christian
Apologetics.
The strategies suggested involve misrepresenting
your opponents position, making them angry,
confusing them and twisting their language. Also
by using the innocence of a non-expert audience
you can ridicule a perfectly valid argument made
by your opponent. "For it is with victory that you
are concerned, not with truth"! There is something
unkind - if not downright cruel - about it all, but
perhaps this should not surprise us because
all that is false is cruel by that very fact.
Well, frankly I find the strategies suggested totally
deplorable. Of course I am saying this as a
Christian for whom the 9th Commandment against
"bearing false witness" is a cardinal principle.
Furthermore underhand strategies are antithetical
to the spirit of the Gospel; they imply that the truth
will not do. Integrity requires that one
understands and represents ones opponent's views
fairly.
I can only conclude that there are people out there
who are prepared to publicly argue a case they
know to be false, because these strategies can serve
no other purpose; unless the whole article is meant
to be 'tongue in cheek' of course, but somehow I
doubt it.
I have no interest in arguing something I suspect
is false; my philosophy of argumentation is this:
my primary goal is to understand the truth and
if I am wrong it is a kindness to put me right. In
that sense an argument requires good faith on
both sides to engage with an issue fairly and,
no matter how difficult the discussion is, it will
ultimately be collaborative and enlightening.
Even an insult may contain some flash of insight
from which one might benefit. The alternative
of cheap point scoring at someone else's expense
is mindlessly adversarial and results in nothing
of worth.
The only"victory" worth having is to know the
truth. Ultimately the facts are their own best
argument.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN.
"If only there were evil people some where
insidiously committing evil deeds and it were
necessary only to separate them from the rest
of us and destroy them. But the line dividing
good and evil cuts through the heart of every
human being."
Alexandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn
"The Gulag Archipelago".
"If only there were evil people some where
insidiously committing evil deeds and it were
necessary only to separate them from the rest
of us and destroy them. But the line dividing
good and evil cuts through the heart of every
human being."
Alexandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn
"The Gulag Archipelago".
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Buffalo Wings?!
On a recent visit to my local supermarket I came across "Buffalo Wings" in the meat section. I'm concerned that Tesco may have butchered one of the creatures from Revelation chapter 4! Judging from the quantity available there has to be more than one of them too. Could Tesco have a battery farm somewhere mass producing these "Living Creatures"?
Can I urge you to write to Tesco to enquire about the welfare of these angelic beings? Are they 'free range' and is there an 'organic' version? Are there any EU directives concerning the production of these creatures?
Or could this produce be some hideous genetic mutation being foisted onto an unsuspecting public?
If it is one of the 'Four Living Creatures' what are the implications for our understanding of the 'End Times'?
ps It tastes like chicken!
On a recent visit to my local supermarket I came across "Buffalo Wings" in the meat section. I'm concerned that Tesco may have butchered one of the creatures from Revelation chapter 4! Judging from the quantity available there has to be more than one of them too. Could Tesco have a battery farm somewhere mass producing these "Living Creatures"?
Can I urge you to write to Tesco to enquire about the welfare of these angelic beings? Are they 'free range' and is there an 'organic' version? Are there any EU directives concerning the production of these creatures?
Or could this produce be some hideous genetic mutation being foisted onto an unsuspecting public?
If it is one of the 'Four Living Creatures' what are the implications for our understanding of the 'End Times'?
ps It tastes like chicken!
Thursday, February 01, 2007
FAITH in "FAITH" or FAITH in GOD?
One of the most perplexing problems that occasionally
arises for Christian health care workers is when a
purported divine promise is quoted for a terminally ill
patient's healing.
The scenario I have in mind is a conflation of several
real incidents; combined to blur particularities and so
aid confidentiality and for dramatic effect. The situation
develops like this: a young child is admitted to intensive
care with irreparable brain damage.The senior elder in
their faith community gives a prophecy to the believing
parents that the child will recover.This is certainly the
outcome everyone wants - including the staff on the unit.
But 'the wish becomes father to the thought' and the
parents home church rejoice in the promise given. The
parents are urged to trust in "God's Word" and not give
way to the fear Satan would attack them with.
I was the senior nurse in charge when this very situation
arose. One of my colleagues was reduced to tears when
the childs mother turned her wrath on her for 'undermining
their faith' when she sought to raise the grave nature of
their childs condition. I spoke to the parents who told me
that there was a conspiracy to undermine their faith and
all the staff were party to it. If only their child were back at
their home rather than here - they "knew" all would
be well....the perceived barriers to their childs wellbeing
were the very medical and nursing staff caring for them!
(To them the child was dying because he was in hospital
- he was not in hospital because he was dying!) One
might wonder why they brought him to the Accident and
Emergency Department in the first place: they brought him
only because they realised that he needed some suction
to clear his airway, the staff had to restrain them from
removing him even as the team resuscitated him.
It struck me that their concept of 'faith' was much more to
do with 'the power of positive thinking'. Almost as if "faith"
was some sort of inanimate spiritual force to be manipulated
by sheer will power, it was certainly nothing I could describe
as biblical faith, which is always a personal expression of
trust rather than an abstraction. In many ways this view of
"faith" is more pagan than Christian. It is more akin to 'spirit
channelling' - only in this case the 'spirit' being so channelled
is, ostensiby, The Holy Spirit: as if He is an impersonal
force rather than God: if only the 'right' spiritual conditions
could be engineered then a healing must inevitably follow.
I spoke to them at some length, seeking to assure them that
we are on the side of 'health' and affirmed that their child was
in better hands than ours and no-one would be more delighted
than me for us all to be proven wrong and for God to be glorified
by their child's miraculous recovery. "We are not against miracles",
I said, "but I would be failing in my responsibility if I didn't tell you
what we are up against". They listened politely to what I had
to say but were unmoved.
A few days later some members of the church youth group
came to visit along with the senior pastor. They were visibly
shocked by what they witnessed of the patients condition;
comatose and ventilated. I spoke to the pastor who was
baffled by the conflicting reports he had heard. What had
been reported to him was the child was indeed staging a
miraculous recovery - and that the patient would be well
enough to receive visitors. My interpretation of this hearsay
was that their particular church had received back the vibes
it was transmitting. In short the parents fed back to the church
every scintilla of positive news (which was largely imaginary)
and edited out all the negative (which was overwhelming).
The parents and their church were effectively caught in a
cycle of mutual deception masquerading as 'faith building'.
At this point I want to flag up a practice common among
some faith ministries of encouraging public testimony
of a healing which has yet to occur as if it already has.
This is justiified on the dubious basis of "declaring that
which is not, as if it were!" Or by suggesting to the supplicant
that the healing will occur as the testimony is given.This in
my opinion is fundamentally dishonest and is indefensible
as a practice.True faith cannot be bolstered by such
(let's face it) manipulation. The lack of integrity belies the
Spirit of God invoked.
The pastor and I spoke together for a while. It seemed
to me that he was too keen (given his miraculous convictions)
to explore further courses of treatment and investigation. The
parting comments indicated that he felt that the onus was
wholly on the parents faith whether the child was healed or
not - he had done all he could. The youth group was ushered
out in an embarrassed silence. He was clearly positioning
himself ready for failure.
It is difficult to imagine what a parent feels when they
lose a child. It is even more difficult to imagine what it
is like to feel that their fate was determined by one's own
lack of faith and to feel estranged from the church
community one had had implicit faith in: and that is where
their "faith" does lie. Stranger still is the notion that the
unbelief' of the medical and nursing staff was the principal
cause of death. The child did die as anticipated and the
promise of miraculous recovery proved false. Unable to
countenance such a loss of face and to reconcile their
conflicting feelings the parents phoned the police to
report that their child had been murdered! Their official
theological position was that the parents and their
community were all on board for a miracle - it could only
have been thwarted by Satan using a staff member as
an agent of his will. This rationalisation was as inevitable
as it was preposterous. How do we unravel a situation
like this? First by realising that every one starts by
meaning well - everyone wants the child to get better.
But that natural wish clouds people's judgement and
problems arise because the people directly involved
do not have a theology of suffering. Don Carson in his
book "How Long, O Lord?"*, says we need to have our
theology of suffering in place before we enter such a
time of trial - unfortunately such a theology is anathema
among believers who have a theology of 'glory now'.
In their 'time-line' we are not in an in-between phase
(between the First and Second Comings of Jesus Christ)
in their minds eye it is all 'Glory' now. To reconcile reality
with their theology when 'glory' fails to materialise
requires a fundamental shift in focus - from God to
Satan as the one in ultimate control. And whether this
is a psychologically tenable position must be disputed;
regardless of the dubious theology involved.
In my own feeble way I attempted to challenge such a
view of events. Surely it is more of a comfort to know
that the child died in God's arms, and not as a
consequence of Satan's activity? Apparently not!
Over and above the usual grieving process of anger,
denial, bargaining, resignation and acceptance over
the dying patient, there was a parallel process over
their "faith", each interwoven with the other, and
conflicting with their immediate church community.
In such a situation I would regard the parents as victims
of false teaching and syncretism.The onus actually lies
with the church leadership who had created an environ-
ment of unrealisable expectations in general and then
spoke a falsehood in particular invoking God's name
as their authority; and who, when confronted with the
reality of the situation, sought to shift responsibility for
their failure elsewhere rather than actually guide their
flock through a pastorally challenging time. One elder
was more concerned with saving face. It was a classic
failure of leadership. By their teaching and actions these
leaders had actually created a nightmare world for
acutely vulnerable people - I have no sympathy for
such wolves in sheeps clothing. False teaching has
nasty consequences and opposition to it is motivated
by compassion; not by dogmatic nit-picking.
A few years ago I attended a Christian convention and
during a meeting and greeting session I happened to
mention where I worked. An individual commented to
me that I must have witnessed a well known event when
a famous healer had healed everyone on the intensive
care unit. I replied that I was indeed working there at the
time and have no such recollection. We both smiled at
each other and made eye contact; my interlocutor
moved on to more fruitful conversations elsewhere.
I could not help feeling that if he had genuinely believed
in these miracles I could have expected a more robust
response: either for him to feel utterly deflated or for
him to denounce me as a liar. I could understand either
response but I cannot understand this 'easy come,
easy go' attitude to such claims. This is no casual matter
for those personally involved; and perhaps that relaxed
approach to God's honour actually belies a lack of true
faith.
Let me suggest some criteria for assessing prophetic
promises of a healing miracle: first there has to be a
confirmed diagnosis by a qualified diagnostician. I have
worked extensively as a nurse in adult and childrens
intensive care and could probably make an educated
guess about someone's symptoms, but I would never
claim to be a diagnostician: it would be unethical and
unprofessional to do so. My best guess would be no
substitute for a proper medical diagnosis. Also self
diagnoses by attention seekers known as the "worried
well" aren't good enough either. Nor is a "spiritual"
diagnosis by the healer themselves sufficient evidence
of a genuine medical problem. Secondly, the person
issuing such a prophetic promise cannot delegate
responsibility for its fulfillment elsewhere in order to
indemnify themselves against failure - they would
(I'm sure) be the first to claim some credit if a healing
did come to pass. Manipulative strategies invariably
indicate false teaching, especially when there is an
abuse of a position of trust, and even more so where
the manipulated are emotionally vulnerable.
Thirdly, a miracle proper only exists when all treatment
has ceased, for example the recovery of patients being
actively treated in Intensive Care is hardly evidence of
a visitors miraculous healing ministry whatever self
serving claims they might make for themselves! And
that brings me to my fourth point; is the "prophet/healer"
more concerned with building their own reputation than
they are about actually serving God's people? These
are some of the key issues I would flag up.
I should also mention the pastoral care of ones work
colleagues in a situation where the Gospel is seemingly
compromised and where they too have been abused in
the name of God. It is important to share that the display
of "faith" they have witnessed should not be attributed to
all Bible affirming Christians. Perhaps it may even be
an opportunity to talk about what true faith is! This may
be the only positive thing which can be redeemed from
such a situation.
As a Christian and a health care worker I see no conflict
in using my God given skills to help relieve the suffering
of others - in fact it is quite perverse to suggest otherwise.
Perhaps my decision to move into nursing was partly
motivated by a Christian urge to be part of God's answer
to a suffering world; I don't believe I am unique in this
because you will find many Christians within all the caring
professions and in public service. You will also find many
Christians serving their Lord in the voluntary sector in their
own time.
Sadly there are occasions when one has to break bad news
and that needs to be done truthfully and compassionately.
Even children die and children of believing Christians die
- we do not live in Disneyland we live in the real world. It is
entirely appropriate to pray to God for his help, and it is
also entirely appropriate to pray for those who care for our
loved ones to enable them to bring about a speedy recovery
....and when that is not possible to continue to care to enable
the patient to die in a dignified and comfortable way. In fact,
for those who die in Christ, we can by faith rejoice, knowing
that death will not have the last word. The Gospel enables
us to face reality and to do so without despair. I must add
that that has been the gracious response of the vast
majority of Bible believing Christians I've met in the course
of my career; the scenario outlined above was a minority
view.
Death and suffering are part of the common human
experience; that is the clear teaching of scripture. One
day Jesus will restore the creation and death itself will
be destroyed - but that time isn't yet. True faith looks
to the future when God himself will wipe away our tears.
Come, Lord Jesus!
* "How Long, O Lord?" by DA Carson, published by IVP.
Don Carson also wrote a helpful little book called
"The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God" also published
by IVP.
post-script; A shortened version of the above article
was subsequently published in the Spring 2007 issue
of "CNM News" (No 17).
One of the most perplexing problems that occasionally
arises for Christian health care workers is when a
purported divine promise is quoted for a terminally ill
patient's healing.
The scenario I have in mind is a conflation of several
real incidents; combined to blur particularities and so
aid confidentiality and for dramatic effect. The situation
develops like this: a young child is admitted to intensive
care with irreparable brain damage.The senior elder in
their faith community gives a prophecy to the believing
parents that the child will recover.This is certainly the
outcome everyone wants - including the staff on the unit.
But 'the wish becomes father to the thought' and the
parents home church rejoice in the promise given. The
parents are urged to trust in "God's Word" and not give
way to the fear Satan would attack them with.
I was the senior nurse in charge when this very situation
arose. One of my colleagues was reduced to tears when
the childs mother turned her wrath on her for 'undermining
their faith' when she sought to raise the grave nature of
their childs condition. I spoke to the parents who told me
that there was a conspiracy to undermine their faith and
all the staff were party to it. If only their child were back at
their home rather than here - they "knew" all would
be well....the perceived barriers to their childs wellbeing
were the very medical and nursing staff caring for them!
(To them the child was dying because he was in hospital
- he was not in hospital because he was dying!) One
might wonder why they brought him to the Accident and
Emergency Department in the first place: they brought him
only because they realised that he needed some suction
to clear his airway, the staff had to restrain them from
removing him even as the team resuscitated him.
It struck me that their concept of 'faith' was much more to
do with 'the power of positive thinking'. Almost as if "faith"
was some sort of inanimate spiritual force to be manipulated
by sheer will power, it was certainly nothing I could describe
as biblical faith, which is always a personal expression of
trust rather than an abstraction. In many ways this view of
"faith" is more pagan than Christian. It is more akin to 'spirit
channelling' - only in this case the 'spirit' being so channelled
is, ostensiby, The Holy Spirit: as if He is an impersonal
force rather than God: if only the 'right' spiritual conditions
could be engineered then a healing must inevitably follow.
I spoke to them at some length, seeking to assure them that
we are on the side of 'health' and affirmed that their child was
in better hands than ours and no-one would be more delighted
than me for us all to be proven wrong and for God to be glorified
by their child's miraculous recovery. "We are not against miracles",
I said, "but I would be failing in my responsibility if I didn't tell you
what we are up against". They listened politely to what I had
to say but were unmoved.
A few days later some members of the church youth group
came to visit along with the senior pastor. They were visibly
shocked by what they witnessed of the patients condition;
comatose and ventilated. I spoke to the pastor who was
baffled by the conflicting reports he had heard. What had
been reported to him was the child was indeed staging a
miraculous recovery - and that the patient would be well
enough to receive visitors. My interpretation of this hearsay
was that their particular church had received back the vibes
it was transmitting. In short the parents fed back to the church
every scintilla of positive news (which was largely imaginary)
and edited out all the negative (which was overwhelming).
The parents and their church were effectively caught in a
cycle of mutual deception masquerading as 'faith building'.
At this point I want to flag up a practice common among
some faith ministries of encouraging public testimony
of a healing which has yet to occur as if it already has.
This is justiified on the dubious basis of "declaring that
which is not, as if it were!" Or by suggesting to the supplicant
that the healing will occur as the testimony is given.This in
my opinion is fundamentally dishonest and is indefensible
as a practice.True faith cannot be bolstered by such
(let's face it) manipulation. The lack of integrity belies the
Spirit of God invoked.
The pastor and I spoke together for a while. It seemed
to me that he was too keen (given his miraculous convictions)
to explore further courses of treatment and investigation. The
parting comments indicated that he felt that the onus was
wholly on the parents faith whether the child was healed or
not - he had done all he could. The youth group was ushered
out in an embarrassed silence. He was clearly positioning
himself ready for failure.
It is difficult to imagine what a parent feels when they
lose a child. It is even more difficult to imagine what it
is like to feel that their fate was determined by one's own
lack of faith and to feel estranged from the church
community one had had implicit faith in: and that is where
their "faith" does lie. Stranger still is the notion that the
unbelief' of the medical and nursing staff was the principal
cause of death. The child did die as anticipated and the
promise of miraculous recovery proved false. Unable to
countenance such a loss of face and to reconcile their
conflicting feelings the parents phoned the police to
report that their child had been murdered! Their official
theological position was that the parents and their
community were all on board for a miracle - it could only
have been thwarted by Satan using a staff member as
an agent of his will. This rationalisation was as inevitable
as it was preposterous. How do we unravel a situation
like this? First by realising that every one starts by
meaning well - everyone wants the child to get better.
But that natural wish clouds people's judgement and
problems arise because the people directly involved
do not have a theology of suffering. Don Carson in his
book "How Long, O Lord?"*, says we need to have our
theology of suffering in place before we enter such a
time of trial - unfortunately such a theology is anathema
among believers who have a theology of 'glory now'.
In their 'time-line' we are not in an in-between phase
(between the First and Second Comings of Jesus Christ)
in their minds eye it is all 'Glory' now. To reconcile reality
with their theology when 'glory' fails to materialise
requires a fundamental shift in focus - from God to
Satan as the one in ultimate control. And whether this
is a psychologically tenable position must be disputed;
regardless of the dubious theology involved.
In my own feeble way I attempted to challenge such a
view of events. Surely it is more of a comfort to know
that the child died in God's arms, and not as a
consequence of Satan's activity? Apparently not!
Over and above the usual grieving process of anger,
denial, bargaining, resignation and acceptance over
the dying patient, there was a parallel process over
their "faith", each interwoven with the other, and
conflicting with their immediate church community.
In such a situation I would regard the parents as victims
of false teaching and syncretism.The onus actually lies
with the church leadership who had created an environ-
ment of unrealisable expectations in general and then
spoke a falsehood in particular invoking God's name
as their authority; and who, when confronted with the
reality of the situation, sought to shift responsibility for
their failure elsewhere rather than actually guide their
flock through a pastorally challenging time. One elder
was more concerned with saving face. It was a classic
failure of leadership. By their teaching and actions these
leaders had actually created a nightmare world for
acutely vulnerable people - I have no sympathy for
such wolves in sheeps clothing. False teaching has
nasty consequences and opposition to it is motivated
by compassion; not by dogmatic nit-picking.
A few years ago I attended a Christian convention and
during a meeting and greeting session I happened to
mention where I worked. An individual commented to
me that I must have witnessed a well known event when
a famous healer had healed everyone on the intensive
care unit. I replied that I was indeed working there at the
time and have no such recollection. We both smiled at
each other and made eye contact; my interlocutor
moved on to more fruitful conversations elsewhere.
I could not help feeling that if he had genuinely believed
in these miracles I could have expected a more robust
response: either for him to feel utterly deflated or for
him to denounce me as a liar. I could understand either
response but I cannot understand this 'easy come,
easy go' attitude to such claims. This is no casual matter
for those personally involved; and perhaps that relaxed
approach to God's honour actually belies a lack of true
faith.
Let me suggest some criteria for assessing prophetic
promises of a healing miracle: first there has to be a
confirmed diagnosis by a qualified diagnostician. I have
worked extensively as a nurse in adult and childrens
intensive care and could probably make an educated
guess about someone's symptoms, but I would never
claim to be a diagnostician: it would be unethical and
unprofessional to do so. My best guess would be no
substitute for a proper medical diagnosis. Also self
diagnoses by attention seekers known as the "worried
well" aren't good enough either. Nor is a "spiritual"
diagnosis by the healer themselves sufficient evidence
of a genuine medical problem. Secondly, the person
issuing such a prophetic promise cannot delegate
responsibility for its fulfillment elsewhere in order to
indemnify themselves against failure - they would
(I'm sure) be the first to claim some credit if a healing
did come to pass. Manipulative strategies invariably
indicate false teaching, especially when there is an
abuse of a position of trust, and even more so where
the manipulated are emotionally vulnerable.
Thirdly, a miracle proper only exists when all treatment
has ceased, for example the recovery of patients being
actively treated in Intensive Care is hardly evidence of
a visitors miraculous healing ministry whatever self
serving claims they might make for themselves! And
that brings me to my fourth point; is the "prophet/healer"
more concerned with building their own reputation than
they are about actually serving God's people? These
are some of the key issues I would flag up.
I should also mention the pastoral care of ones work
colleagues in a situation where the Gospel is seemingly
compromised and where they too have been abused in
the name of God. It is important to share that the display
of "faith" they have witnessed should not be attributed to
all Bible affirming Christians. Perhaps it may even be
an opportunity to talk about what true faith is! This may
be the only positive thing which can be redeemed from
such a situation.
As a Christian and a health care worker I see no conflict
in using my God given skills to help relieve the suffering
of others - in fact it is quite perverse to suggest otherwise.
Perhaps my decision to move into nursing was partly
motivated by a Christian urge to be part of God's answer
to a suffering world; I don't believe I am unique in this
because you will find many Christians within all the caring
professions and in public service. You will also find many
Christians serving their Lord in the voluntary sector in their
own time.
Sadly there are occasions when one has to break bad news
and that needs to be done truthfully and compassionately.
Even children die and children of believing Christians die
- we do not live in Disneyland we live in the real world. It is
entirely appropriate to pray to God for his help, and it is
also entirely appropriate to pray for those who care for our
loved ones to enable them to bring about a speedy recovery
....and when that is not possible to continue to care to enable
the patient to die in a dignified and comfortable way. In fact,
for those who die in Christ, we can by faith rejoice, knowing
that death will not have the last word. The Gospel enables
us to face reality and to do so without despair. I must add
that that has been the gracious response of the vast
majority of Bible believing Christians I've met in the course
of my career; the scenario outlined above was a minority
view.
Death and suffering are part of the common human
experience; that is the clear teaching of scripture. One
day Jesus will restore the creation and death itself will
be destroyed - but that time isn't yet. True faith looks
to the future when God himself will wipe away our tears.
Come, Lord Jesus!
* "How Long, O Lord?" by DA Carson, published by IVP.
Don Carson also wrote a helpful little book called
"The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God" also published
by IVP.
post-script; A shortened version of the above article
was subsequently published in the Spring 2007 issue
of "CNM News" (No 17).
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
C.S. LEWIS.
During the Second World War CS Lewis gave a
series of radio talks on the BBC. These talks were
subsequently published as "Mere Christianity".
In one talk on 'Forgiveness' Lewis said this:-
"Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in
the paper. Then suppose that something turns up
suggesting that the story might not be quite true,
or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's
first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite
so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment,
and even a determination to cling to the first story
for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as
bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am
afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed
to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is
beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If
we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to
see grey as black, and then to see white itself as
black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything -
God and our friends and ourselves included - as
bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be
fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.
During the Second World War CS Lewis gave a
series of radio talks on the BBC. These talks were
subsequently published as "Mere Christianity".
In one talk on 'Forgiveness' Lewis said this:-
"Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in
the paper. Then suppose that something turns up
suggesting that the story might not be quite true,
or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's
first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite
so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment,
and even a determination to cling to the first story
for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as
bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am
afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed
to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is
beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If
we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to
see grey as black, and then to see white itself as
black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything -
God and our friends and ourselves included - as
bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be
fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Mr Grumpy.
With the start of a new year I generally dust of my old 'New Years'
resolutions and simply carry them forward into the next twelve months;
2007 is no exception! I'm usually full of good intentions but often lack
the application. James Baird once said, 'we judge other people by
their actions and ourselves by our intentions'.
So one thing I would love to have some resolution on is a little Christ
like humility. If I evaluate myself by my intentions then I'm an
amazingly creative, friendly, thoughtful omni-competent man, but in
actuality I know that I'm not. And no sooner do I think I've acheived
a state of humility that I realise that that very thought indicates the total
opposite. Humility is a slippery customer that is difficult to pin down,
like trying to grasp droplet of mercury. Perhaps humility is less of a
destination and more of a path. The instant that you think that you
are humble - you're not! Eventually you have simply to learn to laugh
at yourself. Was it CS Lewis that said 'humility is not thinking less of
yourself, but thinking of yourself less'? Whoever it was I think that
that has to be right. In lieu of humility maybe the next best thing is
simply to lay my soul bare and cut out all the fudging - isn't that what
Psalm 32 v2 is really about? Blogging - with all its self attentive
fussiness - isn't a medium conducive to humility is it? (So watch out for
my forthcoming lit obit this year!)
I had some discussion a while back in someone else's blog about the
nature of love. 'What is the opposite of love?' they had asked ('hate'
being the usual suspect) that particular blogger had suggested 'fear'
as the answer: an acquaintance of mine suggested that 'indifference'
might be a good candidate. While these answers have their merits I
believe the Biblical answer to that question of love's antithesis is
self-love. Love is not so much about feeling/not feeling something;
in reality it is all about focus. Who is the object of my primary affection?
Is it myself? Or is it another? And again we come back to that same
answer of self-forgetfulness as we have for 'humility'! In fact true
freedom surely means release from self-centredness and self-seeking.
John Piper in his brilliant book "Future Grace"* talks about self-pity
as a form of pride because it arises out of a sense of 'unrecognised
worthiness'. I found that definition very helpful because that certainly
gets under the skin of my pride! Frustration and irritability are functions
of disappointed expectations; and I've had to examine myself as to why
I get irritable and grumpy.
My conclusion is that [at times] I'm a functional unbeliever!
(Or is that a dysfunctional believer?! Or, more likely, is that the
normal Christian experience?) Sure I can tick all the boxes to do
with my Christian doctrine but I don't always live as if I believe;
my natural default setting is to be rather worldly and self reliant......
hence the pride and self-pity. I'm full of good intentions but often fail
to live out the doctrine I profess. Isn't that what Paul meant by
"what a wretched man I am!" in Romans 7 v24? Fortunately in the
next verse is the solution and that's found in Christ. Thank God.
*"Future Grace" by John Piper is published by Multnomah/IVP,
US ISBN 1-57673-337-8 / UK ISBN 0-85111-162-9.
With the start of a new year I generally dust of my old 'New Years'
resolutions and simply carry them forward into the next twelve months;
2007 is no exception! I'm usually full of good intentions but often lack
the application. James Baird once said, 'we judge other people by
their actions and ourselves by our intentions'.
So one thing I would love to have some resolution on is a little Christ
like humility. If I evaluate myself by my intentions then I'm an
amazingly creative, friendly, thoughtful omni-competent man, but in
actuality I know that I'm not. And no sooner do I think I've acheived
a state of humility that I realise that that very thought indicates the total
opposite. Humility is a slippery customer that is difficult to pin down,
like trying to grasp droplet of mercury. Perhaps humility is less of a
destination and more of a path. The instant that you think that you
are humble - you're not! Eventually you have simply to learn to laugh
at yourself. Was it CS Lewis that said 'humility is not thinking less of
yourself, but thinking of yourself less'? Whoever it was I think that
that has to be right. In lieu of humility maybe the next best thing is
simply to lay my soul bare and cut out all the fudging - isn't that what
Psalm 32 v2 is really about? Blogging - with all its self attentive
fussiness - isn't a medium conducive to humility is it? (So watch out for
my forthcoming lit obit this year!)
I had some discussion a while back in someone else's blog about the
nature of love. 'What is the opposite of love?' they had asked ('hate'
being the usual suspect) that particular blogger had suggested 'fear'
as the answer: an acquaintance of mine suggested that 'indifference'
might be a good candidate. While these answers have their merits I
believe the Biblical answer to that question of love's antithesis is
self-love. Love is not so much about feeling/not feeling something;
in reality it is all about focus. Who is the object of my primary affection?
Is it myself? Or is it another? And again we come back to that same
answer of self-forgetfulness as we have for 'humility'! In fact true
freedom surely means release from self-centredness and self-seeking.
John Piper in his brilliant book "Future Grace"* talks about self-pity
as a form of pride because it arises out of a sense of 'unrecognised
worthiness'. I found that definition very helpful because that certainly
gets under the skin of my pride! Frustration and irritability are functions
of disappointed expectations; and I've had to examine myself as to why
I get irritable and grumpy.
My conclusion is that [at times] I'm a functional unbeliever!
(Or is that a dysfunctional believer?! Or, more likely, is that the
normal Christian experience?) Sure I can tick all the boxes to do
with my Christian doctrine but I don't always live as if I believe;
my natural default setting is to be rather worldly and self reliant......
hence the pride and self-pity. I'm full of good intentions but often fail
to live out the doctrine I profess. Isn't that what Paul meant by
"what a wretched man I am!" in Romans 7 v24? Fortunately in the
next verse is the solution and that's found in Christ. Thank God.
*"Future Grace" by John Piper is published by Multnomah/IVP,
US ISBN 1-57673-337-8 / UK ISBN 0-85111-162-9.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Villa Isinda; a Solar Eclipse
and a New Year.
This Christmas it was my turn to cover the shifts on the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit at 'The Saline Nerve Child Hospital' [which is a new children's hospital based on the Sonata Smith's site]. I spent it looking after a three and a half year old with Leukaemia. Helen was 'on call' and got
called in to work too - she works as a nurse at 'The Humanity Lives Wiser Hospital'. So Christmas was a bit of a wash-out from our point of view. My back pain flared up again in mid
December but I would have been mortified not to have covered my allocated shifts over the bank holidays, so I'm grateful to God to help me in this. In fact I've generally come to realise just what a blessing good health is - something I've hitherto taken for granted.
"Christmas" proper started on the 29th December with our flight to the south coast of Turkey to join some good friends there at their holiday home in Kas (pronounced 'cash'). Villa Isinda is a modern build with a swimming pool overlooking the town of Kas on The Lycian Coast...check out the website at www.villaisinda.co.uk Kas is a two hour transfer from Dalaman Airport, but on the plus side that means that the town is well off the tourist trail. [Marmaris by contrast is a hideous tourist trap popular with loutish Brits - and I've never felt so embarrassed to be British!] Turkey is a fascinating country steeped in history; this was our sixth visit. The country is predominantly Muslim but has a secular constitution.
The weather at this time of year can be unpredictable; we had a couple of days of rain but several days of sunshine - and it was warm enough to have breakfast on the veranda! It did turn chilly once the Sun set though. Some of our party went for a drive in the mountains and got caught in a blizzard - the next morning the distant mountains were covered in brilliant white snow while we enjoyed the Sun on the coast.
We were all here for the Total Eclipse of the Sun in March 2006. That was a unique experience! As the Moon crossed the disc of the Sun and we neared totality the light became very peculiar as if it had had its power washed out. The Sun was reduced to a bright ]star and then winked out. The dark side of the Moon was a black disc surrounded by a glowing white light. A distant cheer went up from the town. The horizon - all 360 degrees - was lit up like a strange sunset with red and grey cloud and the planet Venus stood out like a jewel in the sky. We all gasped in amazement at such an eerie scene. It was utterly amazing, standing there in this strange
twilight world. Then a tiny chink of sunlight appeared and rapidly grew brighter until the gloom lifted. Then large banks of cloud drifted in and we could see the crescent shaped Sun through them.
We saw in the New Year warming ourselves by a brazier outside a bar in the harbour square and then back at Isinda. I may not know what this year has in store but that was starting it in some style!
and a New Year.
This Christmas it was my turn to cover the shifts on the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit at 'The Saline Nerve Child Hospital' [which is a new children's hospital based on the Sonata Smith's site]. I spent it looking after a three and a half year old with Leukaemia. Helen was 'on call' and got
called in to work too - she works as a nurse at 'The Humanity Lives Wiser Hospital'. So Christmas was a bit of a wash-out from our point of view. My back pain flared up again in mid
December but I would have been mortified not to have covered my allocated shifts over the bank holidays, so I'm grateful to God to help me in this. In fact I've generally come to realise just what a blessing good health is - something I've hitherto taken for granted.
"Christmas" proper started on the 29th December with our flight to the south coast of Turkey to join some good friends there at their holiday home in Kas (pronounced 'cash'). Villa Isinda is a modern build with a swimming pool overlooking the town of Kas on The Lycian Coast...check out the website at www.villaisinda.co.uk Kas is a two hour transfer from Dalaman Airport, but on the plus side that means that the town is well off the tourist trail. [Marmaris by contrast is a hideous tourist trap popular with loutish Brits - and I've never felt so embarrassed to be British!] Turkey is a fascinating country steeped in history; this was our sixth visit. The country is predominantly Muslim but has a secular constitution.
The weather at this time of year can be unpredictable; we had a couple of days of rain but several days of sunshine - and it was warm enough to have breakfast on the veranda! It did turn chilly once the Sun set though. Some of our party went for a drive in the mountains and got caught in a blizzard - the next morning the distant mountains were covered in brilliant white snow while we enjoyed the Sun on the coast.
We were all here for the Total Eclipse of the Sun in March 2006. That was a unique experience! As the Moon crossed the disc of the Sun and we neared totality the light became very peculiar as if it had had its power washed out. The Sun was reduced to a bright ]star and then winked out. The dark side of the Moon was a black disc surrounded by a glowing white light. A distant cheer went up from the town. The horizon - all 360 degrees - was lit up like a strange sunset with red and grey cloud and the planet Venus stood out like a jewel in the sky. We all gasped in amazement at such an eerie scene. It was utterly amazing, standing there in this strange
twilight world. Then a tiny chink of sunlight appeared and rapidly grew brighter until the gloom lifted. Then large banks of cloud drifted in and we could see the crescent shaped Sun through them.
We saw in the New Year warming ourselves by a brazier outside a bar in the harbour square and then back at Isinda. I may not know what this year has in store but that was starting it in some style!
Monday, January 01, 2007
KIDOLOGY OF DOOM!
Epilogue to an Agnostic Calendar.
Followers of this blog will recall that for
Christmas 2005 I was given an agnostic calendar
which featured quotations from a variety of
sources, the purpose of which was (I assume) to
challenge, in a gentle way, my trust in Jesus.
Over the course of 2006 we have been examining
those quotes which often touched on the handful
of issues most frequently raised by people in
conversation with Christians.
Early on I decided to make good use of these
quotations as material for my 'blog'. The
calendar, which I impishly called "The Calendar
of Doom", was just too good not to make more of.
Even though my agnostic friend had not required
a reply it struck me that it would be a 'poor
show' if I had nothing to say by way of rebuttal.
This doesn't neccesarily mean that my arguments
win the day, it merely indicates that I'm prepared
to answer back. This could be because I am a
naturally supercilious sort of person, or it may
mean that I genuinely believe in the merit of
Jesus Christ, or it might, confusingly, be both of
these, in which case I hope that my ego does not
obscure the truth (that might make me a hypocrite
- but it wouldn't make me wrong!) And you, dear
reader, will have to work that one out.
Having concluded "The Calendar of Doom" series
I'd like to end with this epilogue by saying
how much I benefitted from the exercise, and yet
the most striking aspect of these quotations
is how many were founded on a false premise.
This is surprising because one would logically
think that there should be sufficient grounds
for disagreement without recourse to invention.
It is fair to say that the God my agnostic
friend doesn't believe in I don't believe in
either!
Epilogue to an Agnostic Calendar.
Followers of this blog will recall that for
Christmas 2005 I was given an agnostic calendar
which featured quotations from a variety of
sources, the purpose of which was (I assume) to
challenge, in a gentle way, my trust in Jesus.
Over the course of 2006 we have been examining
those quotes which often touched on the handful
of issues most frequently raised by people in
conversation with Christians.
Early on I decided to make good use of these
quotations as material for my 'blog'. The
calendar, which I impishly called "The Calendar
of Doom", was just too good not to make more of.
Even though my agnostic friend had not required
a reply it struck me that it would be a 'poor
show' if I had nothing to say by way of rebuttal.
This doesn't neccesarily mean that my arguments
win the day, it merely indicates that I'm prepared
to answer back. This could be because I am a
naturally supercilious sort of person, or it may
mean that I genuinely believe in the merit of
Jesus Christ, or it might, confusingly, be both of
these, in which case I hope that my ego does not
obscure the truth (that might make me a hypocrite
- but it wouldn't make me wrong!) And you, dear
reader, will have to work that one out.
Having concluded "The Calendar of Doom" series
I'd like to end with this epilogue by saying
how much I benefitted from the exercise, and yet
the most striking aspect of these quotations
is how many were founded on a false premise.
This is surprising because one would logically
think that there should be sufficient grounds
for disagreement without recourse to invention.
It is fair to say that the God my agnostic
friend doesn't believe in I don't believe in
either!
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
THE GOD DELUSION.
As a prelude to the Christmas season can I make a plea
to all my fans out there in blog-world? Please do not put
a copy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" in my
Christmas stocking!
It seems to me that this guy has achieved a prominence
way beyond his abilities by making a career out of winding
up Christians like myself. Our protestations of innocence at
his anti-religion scattergun diatribes only boost his notoriety
and his subsequent book sales. The real challenge Dawkins
presents us with is not his huffing and puffing but our own
internal urge to rise to his bait!
The best thing to do is ignore him. So my New Year's
Resolution is; his name will not appear again in this blog.
For Richard Dawkins' fans out there let me pose a challenge
to you. In "The Sunday Telegraph" review section 'Seven'
published in the UK on 17th the Dawkins' line about religion
is repeated that killing is 'something you might well do if
you've been taught from babyhood upwards that your God
will approve of such behaviour. You don't have to produce
evidence to support your belief. You simply say, "It's my
faith", and are blind to any argument. If part of your faith is
the righteousness of killing infidels or apostates, then that
does seem to me to go further than the ordinary aggression
which you [the interviewer] attribute to humans anyway.'
Well I suppose you might think that given such a scenario
- just as any secular demagogue did with their dissidents.
The issue is; is the nature of religious faith inherently evil
in a way that, say, totalitarianism is not? Apparently
Dawkins would say 'yes'. I don't rate his chances at having
a cosy chat with the likes of Robespierre, Stalin or Pol Pot....
but hey what do I know? I suspect that what Dawkins really
means is not that rational argument is impossible with those
of a religious persuasion, but that such a dialogue is
impossible for him! And that is quite a different matter.
Dawkins may well lack the empathy required for reasoned
discussion but it is illogical to conclude that no-one else can
do it either. To have a rational argument requires making
some attempt to understand the other person's rationale and
just because it is not his rationale does not mean that there
is not a rationale; Dawkins doesn't have to agree with it to
try to understand it. At least you and I are managing to have
a reasonable discussion right now aren't we?
I don't know why I take this so personally because I don't
recognise Dawkins' caricature - maybe I'm more sensitive
than most. Okay the challenge is this: let's get down to
cases, search my blog and find some evidence for the
notion that I advocate killing people. Go a step further -
search the audio library of my church - there are several
decades worth of talks there - where is the evidence that
anyone there has ever urged violence? http://www.shmedia.org.uk/
He says it's from babyhood - okay; check out the Sunday
School material at http://www.tntministries.org.uk/ - where is the
proof that children are being taught to kill in God's name?
And remember - in all of this - we are not discussing
whether Christians fail to live by the principles they advocate,
but whether those principles are themselves inherently evil
....that is the 'Dawkins Doctrine'.
The Christian position is that God alone has the right to
judge an individuals' heart - I cannot do it because I do
not know what God knows. Not only that but I have no
right to do this in God's name because I too am a sinner,
who will be judged against the measure I use! And there's
the rub - one would have to construe God's deferred
judgement as a present day mandate. The Gospel requires
me to forgive others on the basis that God in Christ has
forgiven me. The petty grievances I nurture must be
relinquished in the light of the forgiveness of God I've
received. Those of you who have suffered some dreadful
crime must also seek to forgive but that ability to forgive
one's enemies is not founded upon a shrug of the shoulders
in a "it doesn't matter", vague, sort of way. It is founded on
the ability to commit our deepest wounds to a just God, who
sees all our hurts and who judges wisely, and to whom we
and our assailants will one day be required to give a full
account. Furthermore as a Christian I cannot despise a fellow
sinner because 'there but for the grace of God go I!' God's
love is expressed in two ways - his love of mercy and his love
of justice. I cannot see how he'll square that circle - but I
trust that he can do it - and in reality that is what 'faith' is,
trusting in the character of God revealed in Christ.
If you find this murderous evidence I'll join you on your side
of the barricade - and you know who else will be there?
Jesus! You might not have heard that he taught his disciples
to 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemies' etc and
the apostle Paul also concurs in Romans 12v14-21. [I do not
mean to be patronising in saying all this; if you source your
information from the likes of Dawkins you may well not know
that it is upon Jesus that the Christian attitude to others is
to be founded]. Of course you will find 'crack pots' if
you look hard enough [you find them in every society] but
it is entirely disingenuous to talk up these examples as
representative.
In fact there is an interesting scrap between Jesus and
his disciples in Luke chapter 9 v51-56 which is very inform-
ative. Jesus is en route to Jerusalem and is passing through
a Samaritan village which rejects him; his disciples ask if
he wants them to call down fire from heaven on the villagers.
Jesus rebukes his apostles and continues his weary way to
The Cross.
tagline: Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Dawkins' God Delusion.
Postscript: for further reading can I recommend Alister McGrath's
"Dawkins' God". Blackwell Publishing ISBN-13: 978-11-4051-2538-3.
As a prelude to the Christmas season can I make a plea
to all my fans out there in blog-world? Please do not put
a copy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" in my
Christmas stocking!
It seems to me that this guy has achieved a prominence
way beyond his abilities by making a career out of winding
up Christians like myself. Our protestations of innocence at
his anti-religion scattergun diatribes only boost his notoriety
and his subsequent book sales. The real challenge Dawkins
presents us with is not his huffing and puffing but our own
internal urge to rise to his bait!
The best thing to do is ignore him. So my New Year's
Resolution is; his name will not appear again in this blog.
For Richard Dawkins' fans out there let me pose a challenge
to you. In "The Sunday Telegraph" review section 'Seven'
published in the UK on 17th the Dawkins' line about religion
is repeated that killing is 'something you might well do if
you've been taught from babyhood upwards that your God
will approve of such behaviour. You don't have to produce
evidence to support your belief. You simply say, "It's my
faith", and are blind to any argument. If part of your faith is
the righteousness of killing infidels or apostates, then that
does seem to me to go further than the ordinary aggression
which you [the interviewer] attribute to humans anyway.'
Well I suppose you might think that given such a scenario
- just as any secular demagogue did with their dissidents.
The issue is; is the nature of religious faith inherently evil
in a way that, say, totalitarianism is not? Apparently
Dawkins would say 'yes'. I don't rate his chances at having
a cosy chat with the likes of Robespierre, Stalin or Pol Pot....
but hey what do I know? I suspect that what Dawkins really
means is not that rational argument is impossible with those
of a religious persuasion, but that such a dialogue is
impossible for him! And that is quite a different matter.
Dawkins may well lack the empathy required for reasoned
discussion but it is illogical to conclude that no-one else can
do it either. To have a rational argument requires making
some attempt to understand the other person's rationale and
just because it is not his rationale does not mean that there
is not a rationale; Dawkins doesn't have to agree with it to
try to understand it. At least you and I are managing to have
a reasonable discussion right now aren't we?
I don't know why I take this so personally because I don't
recognise Dawkins' caricature - maybe I'm more sensitive
than most. Okay the challenge is this: let's get down to
cases, search my blog and find some evidence for the
notion that I advocate killing people. Go a step further -
search the audio library of my church - there are several
decades worth of talks there - where is the evidence that
anyone there has ever urged violence? http://www.shmedia.org.uk/
He says it's from babyhood - okay; check out the Sunday
School material at http://www.tntministries.org.uk/ - where is the
proof that children are being taught to kill in God's name?
And remember - in all of this - we are not discussing
whether Christians fail to live by the principles they advocate,
but whether those principles are themselves inherently evil
....that is the 'Dawkins Doctrine'.
The Christian position is that God alone has the right to
judge an individuals' heart - I cannot do it because I do
not know what God knows. Not only that but I have no
right to do this in God's name because I too am a sinner,
who will be judged against the measure I use! And there's
the rub - one would have to construe God's deferred
judgement as a present day mandate. The Gospel requires
me to forgive others on the basis that God in Christ has
forgiven me. The petty grievances I nurture must be
relinquished in the light of the forgiveness of God I've
received. Those of you who have suffered some dreadful
crime must also seek to forgive but that ability to forgive
one's enemies is not founded upon a shrug of the shoulders
in a "it doesn't matter", vague, sort of way. It is founded on
the ability to commit our deepest wounds to a just God, who
sees all our hurts and who judges wisely, and to whom we
and our assailants will one day be required to give a full
account. Furthermore as a Christian I cannot despise a fellow
sinner because 'there but for the grace of God go I!' God's
love is expressed in two ways - his love of mercy and his love
of justice. I cannot see how he'll square that circle - but I
trust that he can do it - and in reality that is what 'faith' is,
trusting in the character of God revealed in Christ.
If you find this murderous evidence I'll join you on your side
of the barricade - and you know who else will be there?
Jesus! You might not have heard that he taught his disciples
to 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemies' etc and
the apostle Paul also concurs in Romans 12v14-21. [I do not
mean to be patronising in saying all this; if you source your
information from the likes of Dawkins you may well not know
that it is upon Jesus that the Christian attitude to others is
to be founded]. Of course you will find 'crack pots' if
you look hard enough [you find them in every society] but
it is entirely disingenuous to talk up these examples as
representative.
In fact there is an interesting scrap between Jesus and
his disciples in Luke chapter 9 v51-56 which is very inform-
ative. Jesus is en route to Jerusalem and is passing through
a Samaritan village which rejects him; his disciples ask if
he wants them to call down fire from heaven on the villagers.
Jesus rebukes his apostles and continues his weary way to
The Cross.
tagline: Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Dawkins' God Delusion.
Postscript: for further reading can I recommend Alister McGrath's
"Dawkins' God". Blackwell Publishing ISBN-13: 978-11-4051-2538-3.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Laodicea.
This is the seventh (and final) church in the opening chapters of
the Book of Revelation; and it is here that the Autumn term of
"Central Focus" concludes. Our Bible Study resumes in January in
chapter 4. These seven churches are being evaluated by the Risen
Christ; they all face challenges; a couple are commended, most
are censured, none are without hope.
It seems to me that unless "religion" results in meaningful, self-
critical reflection then such belief systems can only ever serve as
'flags of convenience' for whatever tribe we identify with. It marks
out "us" from "them" in our tribal conflicts and the values we
ostensibly hold to are in reality subverted to other ends. We take
God's name in vain when we claim his endorsement of such conflict
and we will have to give an account for that one day. The chief
problem of the Laodicean church is its complacency and self
satisfaction - the horrifying thing about it is that Jesus Christ is
outside seeking admission! This is a church where the 'life' of the
organisation happily ticks over and Christ is not at the heart of
it.
The challenge is to examine our own hearts and see where we
have subtly excluded Jesus and settled for mediocrity. It is that
lukewarm notion of 'faith' that the Lord finds so nauseating. "Be
zealous and repent" he says. This is not to be zealous for the sake
of being zealous - this is to be passionate about Jesus and the
priorities he has. Of course being a 'zealot' is so un-english and is
so uncool; but maybe that is the cost of discipleship for us!
This is the seventh (and final) church in the opening chapters of
the Book of Revelation; and it is here that the Autumn term of
"Central Focus" concludes. Our Bible Study resumes in January in
chapter 4. These seven churches are being evaluated by the Risen
Christ; they all face challenges; a couple are commended, most
are censured, none are without hope.
It seems to me that unless "religion" results in meaningful, self-
critical reflection then such belief systems can only ever serve as
'flags of convenience' for whatever tribe we identify with. It marks
out "us" from "them" in our tribal conflicts and the values we
ostensibly hold to are in reality subverted to other ends. We take
God's name in vain when we claim his endorsement of such conflict
and we will have to give an account for that one day. The chief
problem of the Laodicean church is its complacency and self
satisfaction - the horrifying thing about it is that Jesus Christ is
outside seeking admission! This is a church where the 'life' of the
organisation happily ticks over and Christ is not at the heart of
it.
The challenge is to examine our own hearts and see where we
have subtly excluded Jesus and settled for mediocrity. It is that
lukewarm notion of 'faith' that the Lord finds so nauseating. "Be
zealous and repent" he says. This is not to be zealous for the sake
of being zealous - this is to be passionate about Jesus and the
priorities he has. Of course being a 'zealot' is so un-english and is
so uncool; but maybe that is the cost of discipleship for us!
Thursday, December 07, 2006
A Tale of Two Cities.
Leeds and Bradford are two West Yorkshire cities less than ten miles apart
but their fortunes could hardly be more different. Bradford is my home town
and every time I visit it I genuinely want to like the place but such efforts on
my part are tinged with pathos. Even now I still love the night-time view from
Carr Lane across the city. But the close knit (not to mention stifling) working
class suburbs with flagstone paving and cobbled streets have long since vanished.
I find it sad to hear my relatives speak of the place in more prosperous
times when Bradford was at the heart of the worsted (wool textile) industry.
Once upon a time it hosted several department stores and had some real
civic pride. But textiles went into decline decades ago and Bradford hasn't
been able to find a new niche in the world; or so it seems to me.
The poverty of the place is reflected in the shops in the town centre - all
the major stores have relocated and have been replaced by shop squats
and discount stores. How many such shops does a place need?
Leeds in contrast seems ever more prosperous, having sensibly
pedestrianised the city centre [though this makes for some fiendishly difficult
traffic systems!] The range of shops there is quite astonishing; Helen & I
often do our Christmas shopping here rather than London! Leeds has a
cafe culture 'buzz' about it. I certainly enjoyed living in Leeds during the
1980s before I moved to London.
Another feature of the contrasting cities is how in the 1960's Leeds kept its
Victorian buildings when Bradford was happily demolishing what was then
regarded as its thoroughly unfashionable heritage. I bet the city fathers
regret that now! Anonymous, lookalike steel and glass boxes were erected
to replace the Victoriana but these now seem shabby and soul-less. Plans
are afoot to regenerate the city centre but one wonders how can a town
recapture its sense of place?
My temptation is to look back and feel rootless; so I'm glad to have been
reminded of where my true citizenship really lies. Last night in our penultimate
Bible study of the year we looked at the church in Philadelphia (Revelation 3).
They were a church that felt under the cosh but Jesus tells them that they
belong in the New Jerusalem. And that is where my home really is.....that's
not in the past but is a present reality and an eternal future........the place
where Ithaca and Darien meet!
Post Script: 23rd December 06. I should add that the village of Saltaire on the
outskirts of Bradford was recently given the status of "World Heritage Site".
The village was created by a local mill owner called Titus Salt for his workers
back in the 19th Century.
The grid of streets named after Titus Salt's family has become home to the
world's largest Hockney collection and has been joined by other arts, hi-tech
firms and shops. So maybe there is some room for optimism after all!
Leeds and Bradford are two West Yorkshire cities less than ten miles apart
but their fortunes could hardly be more different. Bradford is my home town
and every time I visit it I genuinely want to like the place but such efforts on
my part are tinged with pathos. Even now I still love the night-time view from
Carr Lane across the city. But the close knit (not to mention stifling) working
class suburbs with flagstone paving and cobbled streets have long since vanished.
I find it sad to hear my relatives speak of the place in more prosperous
times when Bradford was at the heart of the worsted (wool textile) industry.
Once upon a time it hosted several department stores and had some real
civic pride. But textiles went into decline decades ago and Bradford hasn't
been able to find a new niche in the world; or so it seems to me.
The poverty of the place is reflected in the shops in the town centre - all
the major stores have relocated and have been replaced by shop squats
and discount stores. How many such shops does a place need?
Leeds in contrast seems ever more prosperous, having sensibly
pedestrianised the city centre [though this makes for some fiendishly difficult
traffic systems!] The range of shops there is quite astonishing; Helen & I
often do our Christmas shopping here rather than London! Leeds has a
cafe culture 'buzz' about it. I certainly enjoyed living in Leeds during the
1980s before I moved to London.
Another feature of the contrasting cities is how in the 1960's Leeds kept its
Victorian buildings when Bradford was happily demolishing what was then
regarded as its thoroughly unfashionable heritage. I bet the city fathers
regret that now! Anonymous, lookalike steel and glass boxes were erected
to replace the Victoriana but these now seem shabby and soul-less. Plans
are afoot to regenerate the city centre but one wonders how can a town
recapture its sense of place?
My temptation is to look back and feel rootless; so I'm glad to have been
reminded of where my true citizenship really lies. Last night in our penultimate
Bible study of the year we looked at the church in Philadelphia (Revelation 3).
They were a church that felt under the cosh but Jesus tells them that they
belong in the New Jerusalem. And that is where my home really is.....that's
not in the past but is a present reality and an eternal future........the place
where Ithaca and Darien meet!
Post Script: 23rd December 06. I should add that the village of Saltaire on the
outskirts of Bradford was recently given the status of "World Heritage Site".
The village was created by a local mill owner called Titus Salt for his workers
back in the 19th Century.
The grid of streets named after Titus Salt's family has become home to the
world's largest Hockney collection and has been joined by other arts, hi-tech
firms and shops. So maybe there is some room for optimism after all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)