home | board | compass | prayer | eCard

Weblog Archives: May 2003

Saturday, May 31, 2003

In just a couple short weeks John Wesley will be 300 years old. Actually, what's left of him will be, but the heritage he has left us lives on. In many places Methodist type people are celebrating his birth with special services, pilgrimages to London and other Wesley sites and by other means.

At our Annual Conference where clergy and lay delegates gather each year for about 4 or 5 days in Lakeland, Florida, we celebrated in fine fashion. Dr. Reginald Mallett was our guest preacher for Tuesday and Wednesday nights and did a wonderful job of challenging us American, Floridian United Methodist Christians. He even preached in full Wesley garb (like Richard wore for the folks here in Fruitland Park). On Wednesday evening at our Historical Society meeting and dinner we were held captivated by Peggy Miller portraying Susanah Wesley in a very profound, moving and acurate way. She even through in how she thought dear Samuel and even John might have sounded in conversation with Susanah.

Our Archives Commission had a bust of John Wesely commissioned to help raise money for our new heritage center and we were able to distribute several of those as a part of the 300th anniversary.

It dawned on me that the way we conducted our conference, ordained our clergy and dealt with business all have their origins in the rules and regulations set down by John Wesley over 200 years ago. It's nice to feel connected to our heritage, both historically and theologically.

Happy Birthday, J.W., on June 17th!

Ivan The Crank

Posted by Ivanthecrank @ 09:48 PM BST [Link]

The WikiWord of the Day is Christmas.
Please, don't leave it as it is.

Posted by Richard @ 12:53 PM BST [Link]

Please, tell me this is a spoof. Please.

Thanks to Randy McCrob for the smile.

Posted by Richard @ 08:00 AM BST [Link]

Anybody know what's happened to The Bible Geek? His blog seems to have disappeared completely.

Posted by Richard @ 01:07 AM BST [Link]

Friday, May 30, 2003

It's a wiki day.
From McGee's musings via Ian's Messy Desk I came across this gem on Seb's Open Research

Hopefully, as the Wiki way slowly seeps into the mainstream Internet mentality, its perceived weirdness will subside and collaborative hypermedia communities like this one will get the recognition (and linkage) they deserve.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Update: While we're on the subject, Bene Diction put me on to this helpful article in which Ward Cunningham "hits the nail on the head" about the differnece between a wiki and a blog:

"Blogs and wikis are polar opposites in many ways, though they're seen as similar" he says. "A blog tends to reflect the biases and opinions of an author, while a wiki is more like an open cocktail party. In a wiki you try to speak without a strong voice, seeking consensus to create something permanent, while on a blog you're developing your own voice and it's very much about your voice."

And if anyone is qualified to speak on this, it's him.

Posted by Richard @ 11:45 PM BST [Link]

Ok, here goes.

The WikiWord of the day is Liturgy

Posted by Richard @ 08:34 PM BST [Link]

The fuss about Bruce Almighty and the Matrix Reloaded prompted me to think about those films which lead to questions about faith. My 5 favourites, in no particular order and subject to change at very short notice, are

• The Shawshank Redemption (obviously!)
• Dark Star (John Carpenter's classic)
• Babette's Feast
• Robocop
• Keeping the Faith

What're your's?

Posted by Richard @ 05:54 PM BST [Link]

I haven't gone on about the benefits of wiki for a good while. Although I'm a big fan of this model of dialogue, I haven't managed to communicate that enthusiasm to others with any degree of success.

So I was delighted to discover two new wiki sites, WikiTromm by Jason Tromm and HR wiki from Ian's Messy Desk.

My very best wishes to both. Now let's see if I can persuade more people to participate in compass. Maybe I'll bring back the "WikiWord of the Day".

Posted by Richard @ 04:50 PM BST [Link]

Thursday, May 29, 2003

Maybe the most widely quoted (and mis-quoted) of John Wesley's sermons is "The use of money". Ever since Mrs Thatcher quoted it to justify her odious political programme it has been widely misunderstood, as this abridgement will (I hope) clarify:

John Wesley's Sermon No. 44

"The Use of Money"

An Abridgement in Modern English

I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourself, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings."       Luke 16:9

The right use of money is of the utmost importance to the Christian, yet it is a subject given too little attention. Wealth has often been regarded by poets and philosophers as a source of evil and yet the fault lies, not with money, but with those who use it. Indeed, money should be regarded as a gift of God for the benefits that it brings in ordering the affairs of civilisation and the opportunities it offers for doing good. In the hands of God's children, money is food for the hungry, clothing for the naked and shelter for the stranger. With money we can care for the widow and the fatherless, defend the oppressed, meet the need of those who are sick or in pain.

It is therefore most urgent that God's people know how to make use of their money for his glory. All the necessary instructions can be condensed into 3 simple rules:

• GAIN ALL YOU CAN
• SAVE ALL YOU CAN
• GIVE ALL YOU CAN

Gain all you can

With this first rule, we sound like children of the world, and it is our bounden duty to do this. There are, however, limits to this rule. We should not gain money at the expense of life or health. No sum of money, however large, should induce us to accept employment which would injure our bodies. Neither should we begin (or continue in) any business which deprives us of the food and sleep that we need. We may draw a distinction between businesses which are absolutely unhealthy, such as those that deal directly with dangerous materials, and those employments which would be harmful to those of a weak constitution. If our reason or experience shows that a job is unhealthy for us, then we should leave it as soon as possible even if this means that our income is reduced.

The rule is further limited by the necessity not to undertake any employment which might injure our minds. This includes the pursuit of any trade which is against the law of God or the law of the land. It is just as wrong to defraud the king of taxes as it is to steal from our fellow citizens. There are businesses which might be innocent in themselves but which, at least in England at this time require cheating, lying or other customs which are contrary to good conscience, to provide an adequate income. These, too, we should avoid. There are other trades which many may pursue with complete innocence but which you may not because of some peculiarity of your nature. For example, I am convinced that I could not study mathematics without losing my faith, yet many others pursue a lifetime study in that field without harm. Everyone must judge for themselves and refrain from whatever may harm their mind and soul.

What is true of ourselves is equally true of our neighbour. We should not "gain all we can" by causing injury to another, whether to his trade, his body or his soul. We should not sell our goods below their market price nor should we entice away, or receive, the workers' that a brother has need of. It is quite wrong to make a living from selling those things which would harm a neighbour's health and physicians should not deliberately prolong a patient's illness in order to improve his own income.

With these restrictions, it is every Christian's duty to observe this first rule: 'Gain all you can'. Gain all you can by honest work with all diligence. Lose no time in silly diversions and do not put off until tomorrow what may be done today. Do nothing by halves; use all the common sense that God has given you and study continually that you may improve on those who have gone before you. Make the best of all that is in your hands.

Save all you can

This is the second rule. Money is a precious gift. It should not be wasted on trivialities. Do not spend money on luxury foods, but be content with simple things that your body needs. Ornaments too, whether of the body, house or garden are a waste and should be avoided. Do not spend in order to gratify your vanity or to gain the admiration of others. The more you feed your pride in this way, the more it will grow within you.

And why should you spoil your children in this way? Fine clothes and luxury are a snare to them as they are to you. Why would you want to provide them with more pride and vanity? They have enough already! If you have good reason to believe that they would waste your wealth then do not leave it to them. Do not tempt them in this way. I am amazed at those parents who think that they can never leave their children enough. Have they no fear of hell? If there is only one child in the family who knows the value of money and there is a fortune to be inherited, then it is that one who should receive the bulk of it. If no child can be trusted in this way then it is the Christian's duty to leave them only what will keep them from being in need. The rest should be distributed in order to bring glory to God.

Give all you can

Observing the first two rules is far from enough. Storing away money without using it is to throw it away. You might just as well cast your money into the sea as keep it in the bank. Having gained and saved all you can, then give all you can.

If you wish to be a good steward of that which God has given to you on loan the rules are simple enough. First provide sufficient food and clothing for yourself and your household. If there is a surplus after this is done, then use what remains for the good of your Christian brothers and sisters. If there is still a surplus, then do good to all people, as you have the opportunity. If at any time you have a doubt about any particular expenditure, ask yourself honestly:

1. Will I be acting, not as an owner, but as a steward of the Lord's goods?
2. Am I acting in obedience to the word of God?
3. Is this expense a sacrifice to God through Jesus Christ?
4. Do I believe that this expense will bring reward at the day of resurrection?

If you are still in doubt, put these questions as statements to God in prayer: "Lord, you see that I am going to spend this money on ... and you know that I am acting as your trusted steward according to your design." If you can make this prayer with a good conscience then you will know that your expense is right and good.

These, then, are the simple rules for the Christian use of money. Gain all you can, without bringing harm to yourself or neighbour. Save all you can by avoiding waste and unnecessary luxuries. Finally, give all you can. Do not limit yourself to a proportion. Do not give God a tenth or even half what he already owns, but give all that is his by using your wealth to preserve yourself and family, the Church of God and the rest of humanity. In this way you will be able to give a good account of your stewardship when the Lord comes with all his saints.

I plead with you in the name of the Lord Jesus, no more delay! Whatever task is before you, do it with all your strength. No more waste or luxury or envy. Use whatever God has loaned to you to do good to your fellow Christians and to all people. Give all that you have, as well as all that you are, to him who did not even withold his own Son for your sake.

Posted by Richard @ 11:25 PM BST [Link]

One of the best things about being away is the "space" it gives to consider situations objectively. I've been too close to things recently, and consequently been unable to see the wood for the trees. I've come back ready to make a fresh start, with a couple of important resolutions made. Even if I'm able to keep them, I doubt anyone else will notice but I know that I will feel better about my life and work and, frankly, I really need that. I'd be grateful for your prayers if you have any spare.

Self-indulgent introspection over - normal service will now be resumed.

Posted by Richard @ 10:39 AM BST [Link]

Wednesday, May 28, 2003

Well, I'm back.

Did you miss me? I've had a great few days at the other side of the UK in Essex, visiting our daughters' godparents. Had some fun times doing "family stuff" and got back to an box full of email and an answerphone groaning with messages. So that's tomorrow taken care of.

I've spent most of today on the motorway, including Britain's busiest road the M25. (aka the London orbital car park). What a delight that was! O! the joy of sitting in a traffic queue, breathing the healthful aroma of exhaust gases! The child-like pleasure of knowing you're making a contribution to warming the world just a little! The release of yelling at the kids that, no, we're not nearly here and it isn't my fault we're not going anywhere and will you stop fighting and talk nicely?!

Everyone agrees that there are too many cars on Britain's roads. Other people's cars, of course. What we don't agree about is what to do about it. Some say, "Build more roads." Others, "Make driving more expensive." I'm sure that there's a case to be made for shifting the economics of private vs public transport, but that's a long term issue and we have traffic congestion now. Something needs to be done right speedily if the place is not going to come to a complete standstill.

I have a partial solution to offer. which I confidently predict will be ignored completely by anyone with any authority to actually do anything about it.

We could create more space on the network without building a single yard of road. The simple expedient of reducing the speed limit to 55 mph would automatically allow more vehicles in. Secondly, the existing matrix could impose further reductions in top speed when traffic is heavy. Theoretically, this already happens on parts of the M25, but my experience today suggests that the temporary speed limits are completely ignored. As well as keeping the traffic moving (which is, after all, what traffic is supposed to do) these measures would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve road safety to boot - without costing anyone anything in tax or toll.

It won't happen of course. Cars are bought and sold with speed being a key selling point. Most motorists would argue that speed limits on motorways are too low - even when they're sitting in a line of stationary traffic.

Perhaps "queueing theory" should be intoduced into the national curriculum?

Posted by Richard @ 10:11 PM BST [Link]

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

Writing 101

It is a reasonably safe assumption to conclude bloggers like to write.
(It's safer than coming up with a definitive reason bloggers blog. :^)

Writing is a learned skill, a discipline, and a gift. The more you write, the better you get.

Those of us that write professionally can and do make every single mistake a non-professional does.
And, I'd encourage you to never to be intimidated by the term 'professional.' The word 'amateur' does not mean lesser.
Life isn't fair. The are some excellent bloggers that will never make a cent writing, and there are some professional writers that shouldn't be. :^)

Writers wouldn't make a living without editors. A good editor is worth their weight in gold.
A good edit doesn't need to be painful, and though blogging is a hobby, occasionally I run some of my posts past others. I need editing from time to time because I make mistakes, get too verbose, and trip all over my words.
If you blog, you've probably learned some self-editing skills.
My favorite rule is the K.I.S.S. rule. (keep-it-simple-stupid)

Here are 10 basics I recommend reviewing, when you tangle, toil, trammel and twist yourself up with thorny posts.
Although these tips apply to business writing, they work quite well for this medium when you are mired in the murky morass on your own words.

Blog on!

Posted by Bene Diction @ 09:14 PM BST [Link]

Monday, May 26, 2003

An embattled GG

Signposts and Shalom who are both strong Australian bloggers post on the resignation of embattled Governor-General Peter Hollingsworth.

Posted by Bene Diction @ 04:27 AM BST [Link]

This is Memorial Day Weekend and most years we here in the States need a reminder that this is more than just a 3 day weekend. I've included one history that I found that helps us reconnect and remember. Ivan The Crank

Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service. There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women's groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, "Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping" by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication "To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead" (Source: Duke University's Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920). While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it's difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings.

General John A. Logan
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, [LC-B8172- 6403 DLC (b&w film neg.)]

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war). It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act, P.L. 90 - 363, in 1971 to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis' birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.

In 1915, inspired by the poem "In Flanders Fields," Moina Michael replied with her own poem:

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

She then conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war. She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need. Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms.Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children's League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help. Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans' organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their "Buddy" Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.
Since the late 50's on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3d U.S. Infantry place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing.

And since 1998, on the Saturday before the observed day for Memorial Day, the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts place a candle at each of approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye's Heights (the Luminaria Program).

But most Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day.

To help Americans re-educate and remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, the "National Moment of Remembrance" resolution was passed on Dec 2000 which asks that at 3 p.m. local time, for all Americans "To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to 'Taps." In an added development, this year [2001] on Memorial Day, the "Calling America s Heroes" Memorial Day campaign will provide free AT&T phone cards to the first 100 armed forces members or veterans who request them at participating 7-Eleven stores to "remind Americans of the real purpose of Memorial Day and thank veterans and members of the armed forces for their service to our great country."

Additionally, on January 19, 1999 Senator Inouye introduced bill S 189 to the Senate which proposes to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day back to May 30th instead of "the last Monday in May". On April 19, 1999 Representative Gibbons introduced the bill to the House (H.R. 1474). The bills were referred the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform.

To date, there has been no further developments on the bill. Please write your Representative and your Senators, urging them to support these bills. You can also contact Mr. Inouye and Mr. Gibbons to let them know of your support.

© 1994 - 2003 David Merchant
Updated 13 May 2003

Posted by Ivanthecrank @ 02:20 AM BST [Link]

Memorable Picnics

The US is celebrating Memorial Day weekend, and I've noticed the blogosphere is a bit quieter than normal, as people take time out for family and friends.

Earlier today a friend asked an interesting question.....what is your favorite picnic memory?

Good question eh? What made it special and why? Comment section is wide open. Talk to me. :^)

Posted by Bene Diction @ 01:21 AM BST [Link]

Saturday, May 24, 2003

Meaningful Messengers

Canadians and tourists have developed a love affair with Inukshuks.
You see them built everywhere...along highways, beaches, in the woods. They have captured our imagination.
Inukshuks have been used by the Inuit for thousands of years. (ee-nook-shook) means 'in the image of man.' These stone cairns are still used in the Arctic to guide travellers toward the Arctic Ocean. They are symbols of trust, community and reassurance in the vast wasteland of the north.

In the Baffin region, an inukshuk on land with two arms and legs means there is a valley, and at the end of the valley, you are able to go in two directions.
The same inukshuk near the sea means there is a channel, and at the end of the channel, you will be able to go in two directions.
An inukshuk on land with no arms, and two legs, means one-way passage. The same inukshuk by the sea means there is a channel that allows for a one-way passage. An inukshuk with no arms and legs is simply a guide for a hunter in unknown territory.
The cairns were used extensively in the cariboo hunt.

They are a beacon that means, "I've been here before, you are on the right path."

Posted by Bene Diction @ 04:38 PM BST [Link]

Friday, May 23, 2003

"Many Happy Returns" to Bene Diction. Blog on!

Posted by Richard @ 04:31 PM BST [Link]

One of my dogs, Bizet (don't ask!), regularly has a problem with his ears. To prevent infections they need to be cleaned regularly, and though he's now coming up to 10 years old he has never got used to this procedure.
Actually, that's an understatement. He hates it it with a will, so that it takes two of us to get it done. What should be a slightly uncomfortable experience becomes much worse for him because of his determination to get out of it. Our lives would be smoother if we just gave in and let nature take its course -- I don't like fighting him.

But it has to be done. The struggle is necessary to his well-being, and ultimately to mine, since I'd have to pay the vet's bill if they did get infected. So we fight on.

I'm not sure what the lesson is, but there's one there somewhere.

Posted by Richard @ 03:09 PM BST [Link]

Thursday, May 22, 2003

One of my favourite of John Wesley's Sermons (required reading for Methodist preachers!) is "Catholic Spirit", number 34 in the standard collection we use. The trouble is, his language is eighteenth century (what else?!) and he doesn't always seem very accessible. So I've modernised (and abbreviated) the old boy to give you the flavour. If you enjoy it you could read the full version. Starting from what looks like an unpromising text, Wesley builds something which still has alot to say to us today.

And when he departed from there, he met Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him; and he greeted him, and said to him, "Is your heart true to my heart as mine is to yours?" And Jehonadab answered, "It is." Jehu said, "If it is, give me your hand."
(2 Kings 10:15)

Introduction
Whilst it is true that we are called to love all people, there is a special love we owe towards those who love God. (John 13: 34,35; 1 John 3: 11 et al) All Christians accept this, but how many practise it? There are two great hinderances: first, that Christians cannot all think alike and second (in consequence) they cannot all worship alike. But though we may have different opinions, and use different forms of worship, these should not stop us being united in love. We may not be of one mind, but we can surely be of one heart. The character of Jehu is worthy of our attention. We shall look at our text in two parts, first a question and then an offer.

A Question...

First, the question put to Jehu to Jehonadab,"Is your heart true to my heart, as mine is to yours?"
He does not ask about Jehonadab's opinions. We know that Jehonadab, being a Rechabite, would have very different views from those of Jehu, but Jehu is not concerned. Human beings, in their weakness will always be divided in their understanding. Though each person believes their opinions to be correct, even so we know that there will be some matters in which we are mistaken. It follows that the wise person does not insist on others agreeing with his opinions, but bears with them and asks only, "Is your heart true to my heart, as mine is to yours."
Neither does Jehu ask about Jehonadab's preferred style of worship, though again we can be sure that there would be differences between them. Human beings have always differed in their manner of worshipping God and this is as true amongst Christians as it is amongst the heathen. In matters of worship everyone must follow their own conscience and no one should be compelled to join any particular congregation (though every Christian is obliged to belong to some worshipping community). I would not impose my forms of worship on another, though I believe them to be true to the teaching of the apostles: my opinion is not a rule for another. I do not ask someone else to be of my church, to agree with me about forms of church government or the manner in which the sacraments should be administered. These things are important, but not fundamental. My only question for now is this, "Is your heart true to my heart, as mine is to yours?"
We may ask what a follower of Christ might mean by this question. It implies all of the following: Do you believe in God and trust in his power? Do you know Jesus Christ? Is your faith filled with the energy of love? Above all, do you "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength" and "your neighbour as yourself"? Do you show this love by your actions? If these questions are answered positively, then "your heart is true to my heart, as mine is to yours."

An Offer

Second comes the offer: "If it be, give me your hand".
I do not mean, "be of my opinion" nor "I will be of your opinion". Let each of us continue to keep our own views without disputing them. I do not mean, "Let us worship in the same way," for each of us must act as we think is best. I believe in the Episcopal form of church government; if you are persuaded that the Presbyterian or Independent forms are better, so be it. Act according to the light that you have, and I shall do the same. "Give me your hand."
First, I ask that you love me as a brother in Christ, a fellow citizen of heaven. Love me with patience and kindness, despite my faults and shortcomings. Second, I ask you to pray for me, that my faith and love may increase. Third, I ask you to provoke me to love and good works whenever you have the opportunity. Fourth, love me not only in your words, but in your deeds too and join with me in the work of God. I shall do the same for you. All Christians should live in mutual love as Christ has loved us.

Conclusion
What, then, is "a catholic spirit"? It most certainly is not an indifference to all opinions, or an inability to come to a settled view. A person of truly catholic spirit is firm in his own mind on the main points of Christian doctrine, though he will always be open to hear an alternative point of view. Nor does a catholic spirit mean indifference towards forms of worship; the person of catholic spirit will be convinced that a particular manner of worship is 'the most scriptural and rational'. The "catholic spirit" is settled in a particular congregation, sharing in worship, prayer and fellowship. But in all this the "catholic spirit" looks outwards to the world embracing all with love; neighbour and stranger, friend and enemy.

Posted by Richard @ 11:50 PM BST [Link]

Wednesday, May 21, 2003

Before I became a minister, I worked for 6 years in the Co-operative Movement. I am a democrat. I believe that if democracy is a just system for running a country (it is, isn't it?) then by the same token it is also a just system for running a commercial operation. I know that many reading this will immediately write me off as a horrid socialist, with no more right to live on God's clean earth than a weasel, but let me tell you something of those who may be called the founders of the British co-operative movement, the "Rochdale Pioneers".

The Rochdale Equitable Pioneers' Society, founded in 1844 by a group of artisans in the north of England, is regarded as the prototype of the modern co-operative society in all of its various guises. The line of descent from this society leads directly to the modern high street "co-op shop", but this has often obscured the fact that the Pioneers are also the ancestors of contemporary industrial co-operatives. This is not to suggest that Rochdale was the first co-operative society. Several such existed around Britain before 1844. What gives Rochdale a unique place in the history of the co-operative movement is the set of principles derived by the founders to govern their affairs as a society. It is probably true that even here the Pioneers were not completely original. Several other societies operated on some of the principles used by the Pioneers. The originality of the Rochdale society lay, in part at least, in the combination of these principles:

• democratic control ("One Member, One Vote")
  
• open membership
  
• limited return on capital ("Labour Hires Capital")
  
• distribution of surplus in proportion to a member's contribution to the society
  
• cash trading only
  
• selling only pure, unadulterated goods
  
• providing for the education of members in co-operative principles
  
• political and religious neutrality

[more]

Posted by Richard @ 11:45 PM BST [Link]

Signposts is acting as host to an irc chat session on Friday - at least, it's Friday in Sydney. If I've understood the time difference thingy properly (by no means certain!) I think it's scheduled for 11.30pm on Thursday here in Britain. if I'm wrong, would somebody please tell me?
If you don't have an irc client, you can use the Signpost web interface. Hey, I've never used irc before either, but this could be a great occasion to try it out.

Under the headline Jesus saves, Martin Roth asks Would Jesus have a home mortgage? Would He invest in a retirement fund?
I mention it partly because it reminded me of a banner you used to see at football matches a long (long!) time ago:

Jesus Saves! (But Shannon hits the rebound)

The Gutless Pacificist has been picking a fight. Actually that's not fair - he was provoked. In the Blue corner we have "Pacifism is a sin. ... you are only granted the privilege of calling yourselves pacifists and playing at martyrdom because real heroes fought and died for you. You are parasites." Pen stands firm in the red corner with "I know that I am playing at martyrdom because a real hero was crucified and died for me."
Seconds away. Round 2.

Lastly, Wood has recently started a new story that's shaping up to be an interesting read. Go on -- widen your horizons!

Posted by Richard @ 12:11 AM BST [Link]

Monday, May 19, 2003

I'd have missed this story if it hadn't been for Ian's Messy Desk. Thanks Ian!

Posted by Richard @ 11:49 PM BST [Link]

Spam is a pain in the whatsit, isn't it? And nobody is immune to it. I'm not qualified to offer advice about fighting off the spammers, but I did think I'd pass on this hint that I've just read in Internet Magazine. Apparently, adding this code

to your web page will cause the address harvester to add itself to its own spam list. It doesn't do anything to reduce your own spam, but (and I quote the magazine) It's nice to know that spammers will end up spamming themselves.

It is a nice thought, isn't it?

Posted by Richard @ 01:19 PM BST [Link]

I'm privileged to live on the edge of one of the most beautiful parts of Britain. A member of one of our Circuit churches runs a website to promote the delights of Gower and it is well worth a visit. Why not pop over - and don't forget to say I sent you!

Posted by Richard @ 09:56 AM BST [Link]

Sunday, May 18, 2003

My colleague and friend Kim Fabricius has written a hymn which I think sheds some useful light on the recent conversations about going to church. It isn't written in particularly churchy language -- it's the first hymn I've ever sung that mentions pubs, for example -- and it addresses some of the issues that have been discussed around the blogosphere over the last few days. I'm grateful for his permission to reproduce it here. If you want to sing it, it was written for the Scottish tune Kelvingrove

Why do people go to church?

Why do people go to church?
  Why do we worship God?
While our neighbours lie in bed,
  why do we act so odd?
As we fold our hands and pray,
as we hear what preachers say,
as we pass around the tray,
  we would become the church.

Why do people go to church?
  Why do we get enthused?
While our neighbours work or play,
  why do we pack the pews?
As we sing our psalms and songs,
as we learn what's right and wrong,
as we try to get along,
  we would become the church.

Why do people go to church?
  Why do we offer praise?
While our neighbours sit in pubs,
  why do we stand amazed?
As forgiven we forgive,
as in gratitude we give,
as we practise how to live,
  we would become the church.

Here's why Christians come to church:
  because we've heard the call,
we're responding to the grace
  of God, the Lord of all.
We're not here because we choose,
we're not here to be amused,
we are here to hear Good News
  and so to be the church.

            ©Kim Fabricius 2003
             Used by permission

Posted by Richard @ 11:34 PM BST [Link]

A previously unpublished poem by Siegfried Sassoon has been discovered recently. I just heard it on the radio and, though I'm not usually much of a lad for poems and stuff, I found it moving and thought I'd share it.

GOD IN BATTLE

I moved in a vast night of gloom & fire,
Gazing across the battle-blasted plain:
Low on the black horizon burned the pyre, -
The crimson fluttering pyre of mortal pain.

I thought, 'The men who're crouching in that show
Are crying on God to make their burdens less:
And some of them are praying still to know
A little of His ancient tenderness.'

September 1918

Posted by Richard @ 05:39 PM BST [Link]

Just a quick one this.

I've been thinking a bit about the "going to church or not" discussion and just wanted to put in a word about the decision to leave the fellowship of one group for another.

We often talk as though this were a simple matter of an individual exercising a personal choice. Shall I buy my groceries at the supermarket or the "local shop"? Shall I stick with the Baptists or give the new independent place a try? They look like equivalent questions, but they aren't.

A church is a community. A flawed community to be sure, but a community none the less. It has more in common with a family than a shop. A church is not selling a product, but offering a relationship. Breaking relationships causes pain. It may sometimes be necessary, but it should never be done lightly, because there is always a price to be paid by someone.

In our present culture, we do not take to being told that we should sometimes bear with situations that do not seem entirely conducive to us, and many Christians are quick to jump on the consequences of rising divorce rates. Why can we not see that the same is true of our church life?

Posted by Richard @ 01:49 PM BST [Link]

A hymn of dedication from the pen of Charles Wesley

LET Him to whom we now belong
His sovereign right assert,
And take up every thankful song,
And every loving heart.

He justly claims us for his own,
Who bought us with a price;
The Christian lives to Christ alone,
To Christ alone he dies!

Jesus, thine own at last receive,
Fulfil our hearts' desire,
And let us to thy glory live,
And in thy cause expire.

Our souls and bodies we resign;
With joy we render thee
Our all, no longer ours, but thine
To all eternity.

Posted by Richard @ 09:15 AM BST [Link]

Saturday, May 17, 2003

Rachel has been the catalyst for an interesting discussion under the heading "listening to a non-church goer". It's reached 9 parts so far, and has been fascinating. Today she links to this article, Why I don't go to church anymore and I felt a strong need to respond to some of the points it raises.

Asking "Where do you go to church?" the author says

I have never liked this question, even when I was able to answer it with a specific organization. I know what it means culturally, but it is based on a false premise--that church is something you can go to as in a specific event, location or organized group. I think Jesus looks at the church quite differently. He didn't talk about it as a place to go to, but a way of living in relationship to him and to other followers of his.

I take the point, but the fact is that the New Testament does speak about the church as a specific gathering of people. Gathering requires a "place" -- not necessarily a building of course -- and a time. Our experience of church is by necessity rooted in specific locations. "Going to" church and "being" church are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I continue to claim that the one requires the other. Yes, there are circumstances in which fellowship with others is impossible. But those are exceptional circumstances. If being part of the church is like being a part of a body as Paul said, then the body needs all its parts together if it is to be complete.

Acknowledging the importance of fellowship, we read But sometimes that kind of fellowship is not easy to find. Periodically on this journey we may go through times when we can't seem to find any other believers who share our hunger. That's especially true for those who find that conforming to the expectations of the religious institutions around them diminishes their relationship with Jesus. I think that is dangerously close to saying that the wrong sort of church is worse than no church at all. It's an argument I've heard before, and I disagree absolutely and utterly. What I most object to is the slight sense that those who express their faith differently, who don't appear (to us!) to "share our hunger", are not on the same journey as we are and are therefore not worth engaging in fellowship with.

Of the question "Shouldn't we be committed to a local fellowship?" we read,

That has been said so often today, that most of us assume it is in the Bible somewhere. I haven't found it yet.

There's a good reason for that. The local fellowship is assumed. How else would Christians meet together, except in a local fellowship? How else can we be "be committed to one another", except by being together? It is true that "we make a huge mistake when we assume that fellowship takes place just because we attend the same event together, even regularly, or because we belong to the same organization", but it is equally true that we can be fairly sure that fellowship does not exist at all if meeting nver takes place. (There's a discussion to be had about whether that meeting has today to be a physical one, but that's for another time)

The small group house church is an immensely attractive proposition, but if a group grows beyond the dozen or so that can fit comfortably into the average domestic living room decisions have to be made which lead inevitably to some kind of organisation. Call it "non-denominational" all you like, organising a crowd of people takes some system of order whether you label it or not.

I was glad to read that

I realize some people who leave traditional congregations end up abusing that freedom to satisfy their own desires and thus miss out on church life altogether. Neither am I a fan of 'church hoppers', who whip around to one place after another looking for the latest fad or the best opportunity to fulfill their own selfish desires

but found it difficult to distinguish this from the following paragraph

once you've tasted of living fellowship between passionate believers, it is impossible to settle for anything less.

I don't want to seem over-critical, because I think there are many important issues being raised here, but it seemed to me that the authenticity of "church" is being judged on the criteria of what it does "for me". But the way (perhaps I should say The Way) of Jesus is not about personal satisfaction or individual spiritual improvement. It has always been about sacrifice, and that is true of our life within the church as it is without. "What do I get?" is (or should be) a much less important question than "What do I give?"

Posted by Richard @ 05:09 PM BST [Link]

I found this article about US right-wing pundit Ann Coulter chilling reading today, not least because of this bit at the end:

But above all, Coulter is thriving because America itself is changing. The country is shifting rightward, the more so since September 11. The Bush administration is not a freak of nature; it enjoys wide public support. Its belief, put crudely, that the US is number one on the planet and that anyone who stands in its way is either a terrorist or an appeaser of terror, is not on the wacky fringes but commands broad endorsement. And Ann Coulter gives it a voice. We may not want to hear it, but if we are going to understand where the mightiest power on earth is heading, we may have to start listening.

Posted by Wood @ 01:57 PM BST [Link]

Returning briefly to those axes of faith I brought up from last night's lecture, just a couple of words about the third and fourth.
Number three might be called the axis of engagement - how far is the church committed to the world. There was a time when the church would not be thought of as apart fom the world. Bishop Tim quoted the intercessory prayers in the Book of Common Prayer which speak of "the Church in the world". More modern liturgies tend to speak of "the church and the world", a telling difference. A church which is seperate from the world must sell itself, and we do see the church using all the techniques of niche marketing, branding, product placement and so on to attract members. This is part of what he called "the market driven retreat from the world." Part of the Bishops vision for the church was for it to be deeply immersed in the issues about which people feel most strongly.
The fourth axis was that of provisionality, slightly more difficult to define than the others but just as important. This is the axis which is about our resistance to change, turning a healthy respect for tradition into a determination that everything must stay the same. I'm sure you know the old joke:
Q. How many (insert name of denomination)s does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. What do you mean, "change"?
How far are we able to live a life of risk, living in faith now and being prepared to accept the consequences of failure?
The Bishop suggested that one helpful step would be to think less about "membership" of the church and give more attention to discipleship, which if you think about it is what Jesus called us to do.

Posted by Richard @ 12:09 AM BST [Link]

Friday, May 16, 2003

The Daily Telegraph says  
Rise up, England, and save the map churches. Here's a magnificent quote:

Methodist churches, for example, tell you of a spirit of freedom, of the courage of poor people who were already paying tithes to the Church of England, yet were prepared to go to the expense of building a dissident church of their own. Architecturally, they are usually undistinguished: but as structural statements of independence, they tell you vast amounts. You can follow the movement of the industrial revolution through the spread of Methodist halls: a history lesson on a map.

Thanks to The Wibsite for finding this.

Posted by Richard @ 07:26 PM BST [Link]

A small group have been working on a new brochure for our Methodist Circuit here in Swansea. I'm a bit pleased with it, so couldn't resist offering this sneak preview. If you don't mind a biggish download, you could even look at the pdf proof. Of course, the final paper version will be better still!

Posted by Richard @ 05:55 PM BST [Link]

The second of those axes I mentioned last night was what Tim Thornton called the "eschatalogical range", the now/future line. Where in time does the church put its focus? The dangers of being drawn by either end of the spectrum are, I suppose, obvious -- and yet both continue to lure the church. It has been easy for the church to become a branch of social work or activism, never mentioning a future hope. Equally alluring is the tendency to become so future-oriented that the church ends up completely detatched from the world, offering "pie in the sky when you die" instead of a vision for life in the world as it is. How are these tendencies kept in balance?

Posted by Richard @ 09:46 AM BST [Link]

Thursday, May 15, 2003

I've been at another public lecture in the Chaplaincy tonight, this one given by Rt Revd Tim Thornton, (Anglican) Bishop of Sherborne. His title was A Vision for the Christian Church Today and I have to say it was very stimulating.
As a tool to our thinking he invited us to replace the old labels -- "liberal", "evangelical" and so on -- with 4 distinct ranges (I'd have preferred axes, but that's only because I kid myself I once knew some mathematics). He claimed (justifiably I think) that the old labels which were once a useful shorthand are no longer so useful. The "ranges" are more useful because they allow for a more dynamic presentation of faith. In offering this tool Tim acknowledged a debt to Gillian Evans, from whose book the idea comes.
The four are

Transcendence-------------------------------Immanence
Now-------------------------------Not Yet
Engaged-------------------------------Disengaged
Provisionality-------------------------------Permanence

I'm not going to be able to go through all of these tonight, so I'll stick with the first and return to the others in the next day or two.
He characterised much contemporary Christianity as lying at the "immanence" end of his first axis, that is, focussed less on the transcendence of the Almighty than the Immanence of God in Jesus Christ. He found evidence of this in the index of more than one modern hymn book, citing the number of hymn beginning with "I" and which emphasise the individual relationship with Jesus. He drew a parallel with much of modern culture, suggesting that "immanence" is most appealling to an individualised, fragmented world. An outcome of this is the tendency for churches to proliferate, and also for churches to "divide internally", having seperate congregations for old, young and so on. Later in the lecture he spoke of the temptation facing the church to be "market driven", and I think I know what he meant.
How does the church become truly "counter cultural"? Perhaps by recovering a sense of the "otherness", the holiness, of God and offering his living presence to the world. The "slogan" he used more than once was "A church which asks God questions not church questions". Dare we focus more on God than on our own success or failure?

Posted by Richard @ 11:29 PM BST [Link]

Wednesday, May 14, 2003

The author of The Life and Times of Me is clearly a woman who's made of the right stuff. First, because she supports Christian Aid. Second, because she shows such good taste on her blogroll. It would be churlish of me not to say hello, wouldn't it?

Posted by Richard @ 01:38 PM BST [Link]

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

I've just watched a fairly chilling "docu-drama", The Day Britain Stopped, about a near future transport catastrophe. It begins with a rail strike, becomes motorway gridlock and ends with airline disaster.

But I'm sure it's just liberal scaremongering and there's nothing really to worry about.

Posted by Richard @ 11:23 PM BST [Link]

One of my favourite of the stories of St Paul's missionary travels is the account of his address at the Areopagus in Athens. Reading this, it is clear that Paul had made some effort to learn about the religion practised there already. He used that as the starting place for his own preaching. In other words, he did not treat the gospel in a "one size fits all" way but recognised the importance of -- and this is a hoary old liberal cliché, but it's still true -- "starting where people are". How the gospel is shared, unchanging and eternal though it is, should be determined by the time and place in which it is preached.

One of the biggest issues facing the church today is the cultural distance that often exists between those within and without. How do we find ways of talking to one another? (Today, I was reading an article in the Student Union newspaper and discovered that I literally didn't understand what it was about. I could make sense of the words, but the meaning of the article eluded me completely. And I'm not old. Not very old, anyhow)

I thought that this was so obvious as to be hardly worth saying, but today I heard about a young man who is going with a missionary organisation to a Muslim country to share the gospel. By his own admission, he knows nothing about Islam or the country to which his team is being sent. He is filling the gaps in his knowledge by reading a book written from an evangelical perspective which is so full of inaccuracies and half-truths that it would be laughable were it not so serious.

Sometimes I despair.

Posted by Richard @ 04:55 PM BST [Link]

Monday, May 12, 2003

The cat is now well-and-truly among the government pigeons with the resignation of Clare Short. I don't suppose she is very well known outside of Britain, and she is the sort of left-winger that the USA has nightmares about. Even so, she has been a loyal member of Tony Blair's cabinet since his election victory in 1997, if an often outspoken one. Her position was becoming increasingly untenable just before the Iraq war, but she stayed in the government despite the damage that remaining did to her own reputation. Now it seems as if she can take no more. How much harm she has done the government is very much an open question. I find it ironic that the Opposition, who have been so strongly supportive of Tony Blair over Iraq and to whom Ms Short is anathema, will now use her resignation to their political advantage.

But, it has to be said, they need all the help they can get.

Elswhere on the BBC, I discovered that a survey amongst British Police Officers has revealed that 78% are opposed to routinely carrying guns, a figure virtually unchanged since the last survey in 1995. I find that reassuring.

Posted by Richard @ 11:22 PM BST [Link]

Real Live Preacher describes sexual awakening - and almost made me spit my coffee over my computer.
If you take my advice, you won't be eating or drinking if you read it!

Posted by Richard @ 04:51 PM BST [Link]

I came across this Christian Zionist petition today - what follows here is a response to it, couched in the same terms:

I Stand With All Who face Oppression Today!

WHEREAS we the undersigned recognize the Bible as the Word of God, eternal, unchanging, and of the authority of God. (2 Timothy 3:16)
WE AFFIRM the steadfast and permanent love of God for all people, including the Jewish people, as clearly declared in the Word of God. (Genesis 9:16)
WE AFFIRM the New Covenant sealed by the blood of Christ as stated in the Bible, which declares that all things are reconciled to God through Christ (Mark 14:24; Colossians 1:20; 1 John 2:2)
WE AFFIRM that within this New Covenant there are no barriers of race, class or gender (Romans 10:12-13; Galatians 3:28)
WE AFFIRM that the land of Israel (Leviticus 25:23) and the whole earth (Psalm 24:1) belong in perpetuity to God
WE AFFIRM the judgement of God on those who oppress the poor (Amos 4:1-2) and who fail to comfort the needy (Matthew 25:31-46)
WE AFFIRM the call of God for all nations and governments to deal justly with all, by His decree. (Psalm 58)

THEREFORE WE PETITION the President and the United States Government, and all the govenments of the world, to unequivocally commit themselves to the ending of poverty, oppression and injustice in all the nations of the earth, and especially in the land of Israel which is sacred to the three peoples who trace their heritage to Abraham.

Posted by Richard @ 01:31 PM BST [Link]

Sunday, May 11, 2003

When I posted the story below, I did so because my immediate reaction was how good it was to hear conservative evangelical leaders talking that way. After a bit of thought, I'm not sure they went far enough. I may be nit-picking, but let's not condemn assaults on Islam because of the effects it might have on evangelism, or the potential threat it poses to lives and livelihoods. Let's condemn the rubbishing of Islam because it's wrong in itself and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Posted by Richard @ 01:47 PM BST [Link]

Leading evangelical Christians for the first time have publicly condemned assaults on Islam by the Rev. Franklin Graham and other fellow religious conservatives and pledged to heal rifts with Muslims that threaten missionary work overseas.

The evangelicals said that the derisive comments endangered Christians working in the Muslim world, strained already tense interfaith relations and fed the perception in the Mideast and beyond that the war on terrorism is a Christian crusade against Islam.

"We must temper our speech," said the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents more than 43,000 congregations and helped organize a meeting on the issue Wednesday. "There has to be a way to do good works without raising alarms."

[Full story...]

Posted by Richard @ 12:16 PM BST [Link]

A fresh look at Psalm 23 from Bene Diction

THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD I SHALL NOT WANT
But I want.

HE MAKETH ME TO LIE DOWN IN GREEN PASTURES
I no longer see green, only burnt brown.

HE LEADETH ME BESIDE THE STILL WATERS,
I am in turmoil, not still.

HE RESTORETH MY SOUL.
Somehow I crumbled again.

HE LEADETH ME IN THE PATHS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR HIS NAMES SAKE.
I stumbled and lost my way. Is that for Your names sake?

YEA, THOUGH I WALK THROUGH THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH
Endless, welcoming, no longer a valley to fear

I WILL FEAR NO EVIL.
I fear me.

FOR THOU ART WITH ME
Are You here now, Lord?

THY ROD AND THY STAFF THEY COMFORT ME.
There is no comfort from anywhere anymore, can they?

THOU PREPAREST A TABLE BEFORE ME
There is no hunger.

IN THE PRESENCE OF MY ENEMIES.
I have no enemies but me.

THOU ANOINTEST MY HEAD WITH OIL
Anointed, do I heal?

MY CUP RUNNETH OVER.
I thirst.

SURELY GOODNESS AND MERCY SHALL FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF MY LIFE
Have they? Will they? Or is mercy gone forever?

AND I SHALL DWELL IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, FOREVER.
Selah.

Posted by Richard @ 09:43 AM BST [Link]

Richard Bott swaps a computer for fountain pen and has a "Harry Potter" moment.
(Saturday's entry - the permalink doesn't appear to work)

Posted by Richard @ 08:33 AM BST [Link]

Here's another of Charles Wesley's lesser known hymns, "For the Society on meeting"

JESU, we look to thee,
Thy promised presence claim!
Thou in the midst of us shalt be,
Assembled in thy name:
Thy name salvation is,
Which here we come to prove;
Thy name is life, and health, and peace,
And everlasting love.

Not in the name of pride
Or selfishness we meet;
From nature's paths we turn aside,
And worldly thoughts forget.
We meet, the grace to take
Which thou hast freely given;
We meet on earth for thy dear sake,
That we may meet in heaven.

Present we know thou art,
But O thyself reveal!
Now, Lord, let every bounding heart
The mighty comfort feel.
O may thy quickening voice
The death of sin remove;
And bid our inmost souls rejoice
In hope of perfect love!

Posted by Richard @ 12:43 AM BST [Link]

Saturday, May 10, 2003

Quite an interesting day, fulfilling my obligation to attend the District Representative Synod. It's something that ministers tend to grumble about, but I do think that it's a valuable occasion. We heard about some of the work of Methodist Homes with dementia sufferers, recognised as some of the finest care in the UK. A report from our children's charity NCH led us to debate the Children are Unbeatable campaign and (eventually!) to pass a resolution calling for abolition of the common law defence of reasonable chastisement which has been used successfully by parents in cases of quite extreme violence. It would be fair to say that the vote wasn't overwhelmingly in favour, and I hope that this won't become a divisive issue. It can be a real test of a democratic structure, living with (and even defending) the decisions that are made collectively which we may not have agreed with.

Posted by Richard @ 08:28 PM BST [Link]

King Gibber Bob is an Australian Baptist, at present at a global mission conference in Swanwick, UK. We know he's a good bloke, because he's a mate of Darren. Anyway, he's turning out some good stuff, so why not drop over?

Posted by Richard @ 07:25 AM BST [Link]

Last night I sat through a two hour report on the scandal involved with Britain's version of "So You Want to be a Millionaire". After seeing the report, it is hard to believe that the well timed coughs of a Welsh professor from Cardiff (oh the shame for us of Welsh origin) and even the wife of the obviously clueless and oft befuddled Major had nothing to do with his getting the right answers in many, many instances. I find it interesting that, despite being found guilty, they all maintian they are not guilty of the charges. While I realize that there are a lot more important things in the world than cheaters in a game show (although 1 million pounds is nothing to sneeze, or should I say, cough at?!), I see this as one more symptom of a world that is addicted to television and growing cold to the ideas of honesty, pride and, when caught doing wrong, confession and accountability.

So, I've thrown this out there. I wonder what others are thinking of this whole thing.

Ivan

Posted by Ivanthecrank @ 02:27 AM BST [Link]

Friday, May 9, 2003

While I was in conference with my colleagues at ministerial synod, the students were in a workshop with Marie Pattison of SCM. This picture -- which apparently depicts the ideal church -- is the result.
The question is: Can anyone explain how or why??

Posted by Richard @ 05:28 PM BST [Link]

The charges to make use of Britain's first toll motorway were announced the other day, and eyebrows were raised at them, especially for lorries. It'll cost £5 for a car and £11 for a lorry to use any part of the new 27 mile Midland Expressway in both directions.
So now we turn to our good friend Martin Roth who posts from Australia. He quotes from this story in The Australian

MIG director of infrastructure investment Denis Eager said: "The Midlands Expressway tolling concession is very unusual in that there is absolutely no regulation of tolling or tolling increases.

"We can put up the tolls by whatever we like and, almost as importantly, we can start the tolls on day one by whatever we like," said Mr Eager, confirming that Midlands is one of only three toll roads in the world with such a generous concession.

...

He also confirmed that MIG had advised local councils on how to avoid "rat runners" by closing lanes on the adjacent A5 motorway, effectively feeding more traffic on to the tollway. "Clearly we had our own interests at heart," he said.

MIG predicts that if there isn't a "massive political backlash" after the opening of the road, the Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce "a whole heap more toll roads".

"We're the biggest developer of toll roads in the world, so we'll be standing there ready to go," Mr Eager said.

I'm sure they will. Ain't private enterprise wonderful.

UPDATE:>The story has been picked up by the Birmingham Evening Mail

Posted by Richard @ 09:37 AM BST [Link]

I've been at a very special lecture tonight, given by the Rev Canon Andrew White (pictured right), Co-Director of the International Centre for Reconcilation and the Archbishop of Canterbury's Special Representative to the Middle East. He spoke about his work as a negotiator in Israel and the continuing efforts of the group responsible for the Alexandria Declaration to secure a just peace in the Middle East.
I can't possible do a summary of the lecture, though I hope that I will be able to offer a link to a transcript shortly. Equally, I have to say something about this most thought provoking occasion.
His starting point was the need to recognise that all sides in the Israel conflict are in a sense minorities, and minorities that have endured suffering. Any resolution to this conflict will require a commitment and respect for the 3 peoples involved in it, their integrity and rights. It may appear that religion is part of the problem rather than the basis for a solution, but any attempt to leave religion out of the equation is bound to fail. He suggested that this was the chief reson for the failure of the Oslo process - that was essentially a secular process led by secular people, for a land which is holy to the three faiths involved.
The influence of Christian zionists, chiefly in the USA, cannot be ignored either. Indeed, he suggested that the Jewish lobby in the USA is insignificant compared to them.
The situation is most dangerous when one side cannot (or will not) hear the story of the other. There is little to be achieved from a "competition of pain", instead through a process of listening and honesty each side needs to feel the other's suffering and accept that they are real people loved by God. We cannot refuse to meet those we disapprove of. None of the leaders in this situation have an unblemished past and unbloodied hands. As he put it, "We're not dealing with your Sunday School teachers here," and dialogue will be necessary to get beyond the past. Even so, progress is being made. The Saudis have agreed to meet the Alexandria group, including the Israelis and this is a great step forward. The "road map" offers an opportunity for a peaceful settlement but all sides will need to be prepared to make some concessions to the others.
Alongside this new opportunity there is the threat of a widening gulf between the Islamic and western worlds and it is this area which provides most of us with our opportunity to contribute to the peace process by living as good neighbours and making the effort to grow in understanding of those we live alongside.
Peace and reconciliation do not just happen -- they have to be worked at

Posted by Richard @ 12:00 AM BST [Link]

Thursday, May 8, 2003

Following a link from the fragrant Josh Claybourn, I strayed upon -- WARNING!! Irony ahead! -- this delightful little site which claims it strikes at the intellectual solar plexus of the Left. There you can buy a t-shirt bering the slogan

Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything

"Wear this shirt and make even the most fervent pacifist squirm!," the site declares.

Well, I hate to rain on the parade, but slavery in Europe was abolished without war. Fascism is alive and well. The collapse of communism had more to do with economics than warfare.

Not that they'll be listening to me, but I thought I'd mention it.

Posted by Richard @ 04:38 PM BST [Link]

As I wait, in a letter to her future husband, writes I don't care if it's old-fashioned of me; I believe the man should be the initiator in a relationship. The basis of this belief is in the creation story, that woman was made as the helper to man. She quotes with approval from a book I haven't come across, Quest For Love by Elizabeth Elliott:

Eve took the initiative in disobeying God by eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, a fruit forbidden by the Lord... Eve took the word of the serpent as more trustworthy than God's, and Adam went along with it.
She initiated. He responded. Sin, sorrow, and death were the result.

I'm disturbed by this. If it is really true that the the result of women taking the initiative is Sin, sorrow, and death then the Church is in big trouble. But the Bible doesn't always imply that women should merely respond to men. Deborah was a leader and prophetess. Esther delivers her people from pesecution. It is an unnamed little girl and equally nameless wife who initiate Naaman's visit to Elisha. In the New Testament, a Syro-Phoenician woman argues with Jesus (and wins!). An anonymous woman with a haemorrhage obtains healing for herself. In the young church, Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2) were clearly in positions of leadership. Romans 16 records women among the deacons, apostles and missionaries. Lydia (Acts 16) was a merchant and head of her household.
It is sometimes right to wait, sometimes better to take the initiative. But neither should be determined by your sex.

Posted by Richard @ 03:35 PM BST [Link]

Jan Arriens was so moved by a 1987 BBC film about a US death row prisoner, he wrote to the executed man's cellmates. The replies inspired him to found a group - now boasting 1,700 members - to correspond with condemned convicts.
[More...]

Posted by Richard @ 12:57 PM BST [Link]

A great story, told by Tony Campolo:

While teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, I became good friends with a young Jewish student who eventually made a commitment to Christ. As I tried to mentor him and give him a direction as to how to live the Christian life, I advised him to go to a particular church that was well known for its biblically based preaching, to help him get a better handle on what the Bible is all about.
When I met my friend several weeks later, he said to me, "You know, if you put together a committee and asked them to take the Beatitudes and create a religon that contradicted every one of them, you could come pretty close to what I'm hearing down there at that church. Whereas Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor." down there they make it clear it is the rich who are blessed.
"Jesus said, 'Blessed are they that mourn,' but the people at that church has a religion that promises happiness with no crucifixions.
"Whereas Jesus talked about the meek being blessed, they talk as if they took assertiveness-training courses. Jesus may have talked about the merciful and peacemakers, but those people are the most enthusiastic supporters of American militarism and capital punishment I have ever met.
"Jesus may have lifted up those who endured persecution because they dared to embrace a radical gospel, but that church declares a gospel that espouses middle-class success and affirms a lifestyle marked by social prestige"
As I listened to my friend's accusing words about the church, I realized it could just as well be aimed at me. Since that conversation, I've spent a lot of time reflecting on whether or not my lifestyle is really Christian.
Soren Kierkegaard once said, "If you mean by Christian what the Sermon on the Mount says about being a Christian, then in any given time in history, there might be four or five such persons who would have the right to call themselves Christians".

[Shamelessly stolen from Jordon Cooper -- wander over and say "Thank You" -- via The Upward Way Press. Fine fellows both.]

Posted by Richard @ 11:21 AM BST [Link]

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

I've just returned from a meeting of a new group that students have established at the university to enable inter-faith conversations. The basis of the group is not uncontroversial, and certainly there are Christians who deny its relevance and legitimacy. No doubt many Muslims feel the same way. I'd been asked to speak on "peace in the Christian tradition". Sitting alongside me was a Muslim man and also a Buddhist nun. Each speaker made a brief presentation and then there was an opportunity for questions.
I make no claims for the quality of my own contribution, but I am convinced that there needs to be many more of these occasions -- and not just in Swansea. The purpose of the meeting was to increase our mutual understanding. There was no attempt at syncretism. No one tried to claim that "we're all the same really". Nor was there any invective or intemperate language. Each speaker, without apology, gave the perspective of their own faith and listened with respect to the others. I'd summarise the three contributions like this:

• Christian - Peace is established by the person and work of Jesus; we find peace by being joined with Christ and responding to his call
• Muslim - Peace comes from submitting to the will of God and living by God's commandments
• Buddhist - Peace is made through the process of self-purification that leads to being freed from negativity

Obviously, a one sentence summary is bound to be incomplete, but I think that gives the flavour of the event.

I was interested that when the Buddhist nun said that there was a need for society to re-discover it's moral discipline, I could sense Christians in the audience stirring in agreement. There was no argument from the Muslims either. Theologically, we are poles apart. Our motivations and beliefs are completely different. But here was something where we could usefully work together because there is (I think) broad agreement. The denial of selfishness, greed and avarice is common to us all, and foreign to the society we have created.

If members of different faiths can get together to learn about one another, with no other motivation than mutual understanding, we might well find that there are common areas of interest in which co-operation is not only possible but highly desirable. It isn't about "tolerance", which is a word I would get rid of tomorrow if I could. Still less should it be about some kind of bogus relativism that none really believes. But respect and co-operation between the faiths is not something I think Jesus would try to deflect, whatever some of his followers might say.

Posted by Richard @ 08:39 PM BST [Link]

Cruciform Chronicle is back.
Pop over and say something friendly!

Posted by Richard @ 02:35 PM BST [Link]

Tuesday, May 6, 2003

I've come across the notion of toilet humour many times (and, to my shame!) indulged in it. But I've never come across toilet theology before. I'm grateful to the Post-Modern Pilgrim for completing my education.
From there, you'll be able to go to 12 Steps for the Recovering Pharisee. Good stuff.

Posted by Richard @ 11:10 AM BST [Link]

I am quickly coming to terms with what one of my parishoners and good friends has been calling me: a LDP. A "LDP" is a lame duck pastor and that I am. I've known since March that my family and I will be leaving our church and home town of 8 years at our request and by God's will and guidance. Our last Sunday in Fruitland Park is June 8. The next Sunday I will be preaching for the first time at our new congregation in DeLand, Florida (only about 50 miles or less from Fruitland Park). Our successor, Michael Fordham, his wife Terri and their four children will be moving into what is now our house on Tuesday, June 10 the afternoon after we've moved out in the morning. Michael and Terri came to visit our staff and key church leaders last Friday, took a tour of their new home and church and made a great impression with all of us. In fact, my wife, Debbie, and I commented that our folks are taking to them way too easily and quickly. We'll be forgotten in no time! Actually, we are very pleased that they are being received so well. Not every change of appointment goes smoothly, but it appears God has orchestrated a good transition. We find out this Wednesday if it looks that way where we are going, but first conversations and communication indicate that God is at work all the way around.

So, I'm finding that I am spending more time packing my books and things and less worrying about meetings. Debbie and I are both busy finishing commitments on committees and in school and community activities and organizations. I am having very gracious visits from members of the congregation to say good bye before the actual farewell on June 8. Our season of service and life here in Fruitland Park has been very fulfilling and memorable, and we leave with mixed emotions. We are also very happy that we were able to complete the pulpit exchange with Richard, Jayne and the girls last summer for that will stand out for both famiies and churches as a true high light in our lives and ministries.

Though I find that being a LDP gives me the ability to prepare to leave, I don't want to feel like I'm not being effective my last month here. Pray that God will use us as He always has and that this transition will go according to His will.

Ivan

Posted by Ivanthecrank @ 03:31 AM BST [Link]

Monday, May 5, 2003

A "Bank Holiday" today, so we met up with 2 other families from church at the National Botanical Gardens, only a short drive from home. Centre piece of the gardens is a fantastic domed glasshouse, in which a variety of habitats from around the world have been re-created. The Meditteranean, Australia, the Americas - all under one roof, and I'm sure there's a sermon there somewhere!

We had a great day out, but the truth is I hadn't really wanted to go. The weather didn't look promising. If it had rained the children wouldn't have been able to play and were sure to be bored. It would have been miserable.

But we took the chance and went -- and were blessed! The sun came out, the picnic we shared was a treat, the children played together happily. It's hard to see how it could have turned out better.

Steps of faith can be like that.

Posted by Richard @ 09:00 PM BST [Link]

Sunday, May 4, 2003

The third Sunday of Easter -- I'm still preaching on the Resurrection. (Of course, in a sense all Christian preaching has the Resurrection behind it, but I think you know what I mean)

Tonight I took my favourite of the resurrection accounts, Mark 16: 1-8. Sometimes Mark has been dismissed as primitive and artless, and this ending for the gospel has not always been appreciated. (Hence the various alternative endings that various Bible translations offer) For myself, I'm convinced that Mark ends with the fear and silence of the women, and indeed the non-appearance of Jesus, very deliberately and for a purpose.

Why? Because Jesus keeps his promises. He said he would meet his disciples in Galilee and he will. We know that, even if those who first witnessed the Resurrection did not. They may not have said anything to anyone -- but the gospel could not be silenced any more than Jesus could be confined to the tomb. He is alive! But to meet him, you have to trust him and take a step of faith. "He's not here," said the angel. "He's gone ahead to Galilee just as he said he would. What did you expect?"

As at the beginning, so at the end. Jesus calls, the disciples must follow. True for them -- and just as true for us today.

Posted by Richard @ 08:49 PM BST [Link]

LivingRoom should definitely receive the "Pun of the Day" award.

Nice one, Darren.

Posted by Richard @ 01:10 PM BST [Link]

Rick Stilwell at blogs4God: If we're going to have real and challenging conversation, we've got to be free to agree and to disagree with mutual respect, honor, and seeking to lift the other up, while also remaining open to being changed ourselves. It's called "vulnerabilty"; it's called "loving and being loved."

To which I only add: Amen!

Posted by Richard @ 12:09 PM BST [Link]

A devotional beginning to Sunday, with this translation of a German hymn by John Wesley.

O GOD, what offering shall I give
To thee, the Lord of earth and skies?
My spirit, soul, and flesh receive,
A holy, living sacrifice;
Small as it is, 'tis all my store;
More shouldst thou have, if I had more.

Now then, my God, thou hast my soul,
No longer mine, but thine I am;
Guard thou thine own, possess it whole,
Cheer it with hope, with love inflame;
Thou hast my spirit, there display
Thy glory to the perfect day.

Thou hast my flesh, thy hallowed shrine,
Devoted solely to thy will;
Here let thy light for ever shine,
This house still let thy presence fill;
O Source of life, live, dwell, and move
In me, till all my life be love!

O never in these veils of shame,
Sad fruits of sin, my glorying be!
Clothe with salvation, through thy name,
My soul, and let me put on thee!
Be living faith my costly dress,
And my best robe thy righteousness.

Send down thy likeness from above,
And let this my adorning be;
Clothe me with wisdom, patience, love,
With lowliness and purity,
Than gold and pearls more precious far,
And brighter than the morning star.

Lord, arm me with thy Spirit's might,
Since I am called by thy great name;
In thee let all my thoughts unite,
Of all my works be thou the aim;
Thy love attend me all my days,
And my sole business be thy praise!

Posted by Richard @ 07:43 AM BST [Link]

Saturday, May 3, 2003

"Don't say it's 'nice'!" my teachers used to say. "Think of a better word!"
But they never told me that the word "nice" had such a history.

Apparently its first recorded use was in 1290, when it meant stupid and foolish.
Chaucer used it to mean lascivious and wanton.
Over the next 4 centuries its meanings included: extravagent, elegant, strange, slothful, unmanly, modest, luxurious, precise, thin, shy, dainty
By 1769 it had come to mean pleasant and agreeable.

I don't know why I blogged this, except that it interested me. The source of these fascinating facts was Bill Bryson, in the book Mother Tongue

I thought you should know.

Posted by Richard @ 11:21 PM BST [Link]

A British journalist has been killed in Israel, apparently shot by Israeli soldiers.

Update: From the BBC

Posted by Richard @ 06:29 PM BST [Link]

NBC's Andrea Mitchell takes a fresh look at Secretary of State Colin Powell's statements regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- or the absence of them.

Thanks to Nathan Hart for the link.

Posted by Richard @ 03:38 PM BST [Link]

In the course of preparing my weekly cache for blogs4God I came across this article headed "False God(dess)":

Maybe you missed it in the news, but an advanced researcher at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology has announced a breakthrough discovery: God is a woman

Now Boundless is a fairly conservative organ, so I wouldn't expect to find articles sympathetic to feminist theology there. However, the way that this article proceeds takes a serious issue -- What do we mean when we address God as male or female? -- and reduces it to absurdity:

What if God the Creator really were a woman? What would that mean for us, the creations?
The short answer to that question is: We’d be toast. If you think the male God of the Bible is impossible to figure out now . . . well, with a female God, you’d have to multiply that confusion by infinity.
My Bible says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. If he were really a woman, that fact would be reduced to a hormonal impossibility. Think about that for a moment. If God were a woman, She would be subject to mood swings. If God were a woman, She would find herself alternating between crying jags, laughter and sometimes, a sort of consuming rage, all for no apparent reason. If God were a woman, She would be subject to That Bloated Feeling.
On the bright side, if God were a woman, She wouldn’t have supplied manna to the Israelite children wandering in the wilderness; it would have been Ben & Jerry’s ice cream that came raining out of the sky, in all the glory of its assorted flavors. If God were a woman, no one would have zits. Ever. And everyone would be good at multi-tasking — even men.
But this is simply not the case. If we had no Bible to tell us otherwise, these facts, if nothing else, should be enough to let us know that God is most definitely not a woman.

The article continues by arguing that it was man who was made in the image of God from the dust of the earth, whereas woman was made from man in response to his incompleteness. This is a serious error in Biblical interpretation, conflating the two accounts of creation from Genesis 1 & 2, and treating them as if they were the same story. It is in Genesis 1 that we learn that "God created man in his own image ... male and female created he them "Man" here is a synonym for "human beings". The image of God is borne equally by both sexes - if it is not, this would mean that women have intrinsic (and eternal) spiritual inferiority to men. My reading of the gospel would never allow this.
Returning to the article with which I began, a feminist might respond with the old joke which "proves" that Jesus was a woman:

• He had to feed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food
• He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn'tget it
• Even when he was dead, He had to get up because there was more work for Him to do

It is true, of course that God is always referred to in the masculine. But this does not mean he is a man - how could it? Of course, Jesus was a man. But to say that this implies anything about the gender of God is nonsense. You might as well say that since Jesus undoubtedly had a beard, it is pretty certain that God has one too.
Finally, there are glimpses of feminine language being used of God in the scriptures. The early church identified "Wisdom" with "Logos", and in Proverbs 8 wisdom is personified as a woman. In Isaiah there are several verses which compare God to a mother. This might seem like clutching at straws, but given the cultural context in which it arose such references in the Bible are remarkable.

It's far too much to say "God is a woman". But no more nonsensical than "God is a man".

Posted by Richard @ 02:05 PM BST [Link]

I've just had a cyber-slap from Martin Roth about a little contribution I made to blogs4God

Hard to believe, but a British Methodist minister has just used an American website to declare a classic Aussie hit recording as “worst disco song ever”.
 Shaddap You Face by Joe Dolce, recorded here in Melbourne, is an icon. It’s been the most successful popular Australian single for 23 years – overtaking Slim Dusty’s 1957 classic The Pub with No Beer – and has sold four million copies worldwide. It was the Number One song in eight countries, and won Joe, who spent $500 to make the recording, the Advance Australia Award for Export Excellence

Well, I'm sorry, Martin. But JD probably pulled off the biggest injustice in British Chart history by keeping the true 80's classic "Vienna" (Ultravox) from the number one slot.

Was "Shaddap you Face" really more successful than "Down Under" (Men At Work)? Double tragedy.

Posted by Richard @ 08:02 AM BST [Link]

Friday, May 2, 2003

If you've ever come across "Chick Tracts" (here's a sample if you haven't) you'll want to read this article about their author.

Thanks to Bene Diction for the link

Posted by Richard @ 10:48 PM BST [Link]

Looks like I was wide of the mark with my election predictions. Labour suffered some heavy losses in England, but in Wales took plenty of votes away from Plaid Cymru. Shows you how much I know.

But, you know, I'm still smiling -- I got my cable modem this afternoon.

Posted by Richard @ 07:41 PM BST [Link]

Thursday, May 1, 2003

A writing assignment successfully completed, Martin Roth is going back to blogging. Great news!

He's suggested a new TLA for an anti-AIDS campaign in Africa: BAM
Statistically, it looks like he has a point, but you'll have to visit his site to see what that point is!

Posted by Richard @ 04:15 PM BST [Link]

It's election day today. Voting is taking place for Councils in England and Scotland, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. 38 million of us are entitled to cast our ballot and make our feelings known. The biggest issue, though, is not the policies of the various parties involved but how many of the electorate will be bothered to exercise their franchise. For the first time, there are experiments with SMS and other electronic methods of voting, and postal voting has been extended. I hope the experiments work, but the root of the problem is not voting methods, but the apathy of the voters, and if that is not addressed no good will come of it.
Even though in theory this election has nothing to do with the Westminster government, it will certainly be seen as a major test of public opinion about Tony Blair's premiership. I strongly suspect that there'll be a significant "protest vote" to parties like the Greens and Plaid Cymru, but I'm not a pundit so I'm keeping that to myself

Posted by Richard @ 03:42 PM BST [Link]

[Archive Index] [Main Index]