| |
|
home | board | compass
| prayer | eCard |
Weblog Archives: June 2003
Sunday, June 29, 2003
This is not good. My study looks like a bombsite.
This afternoon I took the bull by the horns and began to tackle the rising tide of chaos, but in the short term I've made things worse.
Blogging may be erratic whilst I impose some sort of order.Bear with me. Please?
Posted by Richard @ 08:51 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]
Saturday, June 28, 2003
It was a tough week for many bloggers I know, and truthfully some are a tad on the discouraged side.
Why?
I guess part of it is familiarity. Those of us bloggers with comments sections welcome feedback, and all the bloggers I read are pretty open to dialogue. Sometimes we forget we are visiting someone elses blog. We are guests, and we forget to act within the status of guest. Maybe some of us just don't know how to.
I guess part of it is cultural. We come from where we are, and in the blogosphere at the click of a mouse, you can wind up in Wales or New Zealand or Australia or Canada or the US heartland. We don't all talk the same way.
Part of it may be ease of use. Sitting in front of your computer, reading blogs, it's easy to talk. You get a thought, and out it comes through your fingertips.
Try this. When you read a story like this one, or this one or this one.
Stop.
Just stop.
Before you have to prove you are right, smart, factual, able to spell it out for the rest of us, in the know, precise, or the assistant Holy Spirit; who are you and where are you?
Take a sec and pray for your host-blogger. You are commenting to a person, not a thing.
Take a breath before the fingers start flying.
You can be pro-active. It's called love. Holding others in higher regard than yourself.
If you look at the comments under these stories, I think you'll get the idea.Posted by Bene Diction @ 06:45 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]
Today's Daily Dig from the Bruderhof is a quote from Martin Luther King
The Descending SpiralIf you've got time today, read Leo Tolstoy's short story A Spark Neglected.Violence may murder the murderer, but it doesn't murder murder. Violence may murder the liar, but it doesn't murder lies; it doesn't establish truth. Violence may go to the point of murdering the hater, but it doesn't murder hate. It may increase hate. It is always a descending spiral leading nowhere. This is the ultimate weakness of violence: It multiplies evil and violence in the universe. It doesn't solve any problems.
Posted by Richard @ 09:53 AM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]
How come Alice has never told me she now has her own blog? Wood knew, why not me?
Posted by Richard @ 12:24 AM BST [Link] [4 comments]
Friday, June 27, 2003
Josh offers a reminder that it is a year ago today that a US court ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. I'm glad he did, because it was an excuse to think back on the happy memories of the time I was having in Florida when this story broke. It certainly added a certain something to the Sunday service following, what with it being the Sunday before Independence Day. Here's what I wrote that Sunday, June 30:
This has been the most difficult Sunday so far, being the day when the church plays its part in Independence Day celebrations. My plan had been essentially to ignore it, but the court ruling about the 'Pledge of Allegiance' rather scuppered my scheme. I felt I would have been failing in my duty if I had not addressed the issue as best I could. What I said amounted to a question: If you believe the US is a nation "under God", as the Pledge of Allegiance" says, what do you think that means? Some commentators have claimed that the words carry no religious content, but if that's true then it really isn't worth getting worked up about. I tried to suggest that the words of the pledge are only of significance if they are a pledge for the national life to be lived in such a way as to reflect the grace and compassion of God. I'm not sure how it was received - I know that a passing remark about gun control and the 2nd Amendment raised some eyebrows - but I did what I felt I could.
I'm really not comfortable singing the National Anthem in church. It felt no easier here than it does on the (very) rare occasions that it happens at home.Posted by Richard @ 06:06 PM BST [Link] [1 Comment]
This is another of my favourite hymns. "All" is one of Charles Wesley's "hallmark words" and usually he uses it to emphasise the breadth of God's grace. Here he gives it a different spin, repeating the word to draw out the completeness of our response. He reminds us powerfully that to be a disciple of Jesus is all or nothing. There is no part of our lives which will remain unchanged.
(This is, I think, the original form of the hymn, though the first verse would have been repeated at the end. Modern hymnbooks tend to omit the second verse and amend the first line of the third to "If a sinner such as I". It's certain that Wesley would not have approved!)FATHER, Son, and Holy Ghost,
One in Three, and Three in One,
As by the celestial host,
Let thy will on earth be done;
Praise by all to thee be given,
Glorious Lord of earth and heaven!Vilest of the sinful race,
Lo! I answer to thy call;
Meanest vessel of thy grace,
Grace divinely free for all,
Lo! I come to do thy will,
All thy counsel to fulfil.If so poor a worm as I
May to thy great glory live,
All my actions sanctify,
All my words and thoughts receive;
Claim me for thy service, claim
All I have, and all I am.Take my soul and body's powers;
Take my memory, mind, and will,
All my goods, and all my hours,
All I know, and all I feel,
All I think, or speak, or do;
Take my heart; - but make it new!Now, O God, thine own I am,
Now I give thee back thine own;
Freedom, friends, and health, and fame,
Consecrate to thee alone:
Thine I live, thrice happy I!
Happier still if thine I die.Posted by Richard @ 05:17 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]
The Pilgrim has noticed it too. Sex sells.
Posted by Richard @ 08:06 AM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]
Thursday, June 26, 2003
I just wrote this for my church newsletter -- thought I'd run it past you too:
On August 9th I'm planning a "cycle of sermons" around the 11 churches of our Circuit. I'm still a bit vague about the distance involved - but it is something like 50 - 60 miles. When the idea was first raised, I was full of enthusiasm for it. There was plenty of time to prepare and no reason to suppose I wouldn't be able to do it.
As the date gets closer, I have to admit to a measure of fear. How on earth did I get talked into it? Is preaching 11 times on one day possible? What if the bike lets me down? It's a long time since I cycled anything even approaching this distance -- what makes me think I can do it? The questions keep coming, and all the while August the 9th gets closer and closer.
Behind all these questions is the biggest fear of all, the fear of failure. Perhaps it would be better not to set out rather than risk ending up looking stupid. After all, there's no real need for me to do this. Nobody will be hurt if I don't make the attempt. Why bother?
But it is too easy to be crippled by this fear - and not just when you're cycling! Very often I feel that we only undertake those things that we're sure that we can succeed at. As a church and as individuals, our fear of failure leads us to turn away from new ideas and possibilities in favour of the safe and the proven. Not only that, but we are often hard on those who do fail, which just adds to the fear.
I'm reminded that we serve a God who has often led his people into (for them!) uncharted territory. Remember the people of Israel wandering in the desert, or Peter leaping over the side of the boat to meet Jesus walking towards him? Actually, that last story is very instructive, because it is when Peter realises how impossible what he is doing is, when he takes his eyes off Jesus and looks at the waves, that he begins to sink. He sinks, but doesn't drown. Jesus is there to pick him up and help him back to the boat.
We won't always succeed. And God doesn't ask us to. What we're called to is the path he sets before us, knowing that in success and in failure he is with us to set us back on our feet and get us on our way again.
I think I need to go and check my tyres...
Posted by Richard @ 10:49 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views of the owner of this site.
I was interested recently to read for the first time of one Rev. Mel White, an American Evangelical Gay Rights campaigner. He runs Soulforce, a group dedicated to ending hate-crimes and defamation against gays and lesbians.
Particularly interesting is his pamphlet on What the Bible Says - and Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality, with which he supports his view from a Biblical standpoint, without resorting to the interpretational gymnastics of which you often see people like Rev. White getting accused.
Posted by Wood @ 03:07 PM BST [Link] [1 Comment]
I'm really, really sorry. I just couldn't resist this. According to Jan, the Vatican has issued a new Latin dictionary.
Apparently the latin for "hotdog" is pastillum botello fartum.
And if it isn't true, it ought to be!
Posted by Richard @ 12:16 PM BST [Link] [10 comments]
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
My recent posts about sexual morality (start here if you missed them!) seem to have stirred things up somewhat. I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, and i wasn't disappointed! Thanks to those who've sent encouraging messages -- and to those who have disagreed without being disagreeable.
I'd intended to follow my own suggestion and leave this subject alone now, but I do need to respond to the issues that have been raised regarding Jesus' teaching on sex. For example, in a comment on this site Gary offered
I think you're wrong in the implication that the church should ignore this, or any, type of sin. Jesus did not ignore sexual sin (Matthew 5:27-28, Matthew 19:3-12, Matthew 19:18, John 8). He set the bar much higher than the Law had done with his definition of adulterywhile Bill (in a comment at PMPilgrim) opinedI think there's a point to be made here, but if this guy thinks Jesus had nothing to say about sex he hasn't read the sermon on the mount. Remember that whole thing about looking at a woman with lust = adultery?So...The first thing to say is that I wasn't trying to say that sex is not important. But I continue to maintain that we (I mean the church) have it way, way out of proportion. What I asked was, and I know this is repeating myself, can the Church give the same priority to sex that Jesus seemed to? In a culture obsessed with sex and sexual imagery I'm convinced that this would be a better witness. When the church seems to have the same priorities as a tabloid newspaper, I worry. And I think in this context it would be wiser to risk giving too low a priority to sex than having it too high on the agenda.
Just a couple of points about some of the specific scriptures that were raised. In John 8, a woman is caught in adultery is brought to Jesus. "Shall we carry out the penalty the law requires?" The reply Jesus gives is masterful -- "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Sure, stone her as the law demands. But only if you yourself are pure.
Jesus was the only one present qualified to carry out the sentence. And he doesn't do it. "Nor do I condemn you, go and sin no more." There's no sign here that she was a repentant sinner. She's been caught in the act. According to the law she deserves to die. But according to the grace of God, she receives pardon - the same pardon offered to all sinners, free and undeserved. If she repents, she repents after being forgiven and we are not told of it. (Incidentally, there are some textual issues with this story. And it's the only passage that I've heard doubted by conservatives on the grounds that it makes Jesus look too soft)The point about the sermon on the Mount is surely precisely the one that Gary raises - that Jesus lifts the bar on the standard that's been set. On all sin. If you're angry with your brother, you've committed murder. if you give a lustful look, you've committed adultery. That's the standard that has to be met before stones can be thrown. And I don't meet it. Gentle reader, do you? That's not to say that the Church has nothing to say about sin, or about sex. But if we do (and we should) it should be in humility and with compassion - and that is not often how it's done.
A wider point is that sexual sin is treated differently from other sin in that it is often assumed. Let's say two men come to your church for the first time. They're obviously good friends. It only takes a couple of weeks before it's well known that they share a house. Tongues begin to wag. When someone spots them holding hands in the shopping mall, the pastor receives anxious calls. He goes to see them. "Are you gay."
"Yes"
Mopping his brow, "Do you have sex?" ...What should our mythical pastor do? If they say no, will he believe them? Will the church? What if they say, "Mind your own business" - as I would to anyone who came prying uninvited into my sex life. Perhaps they say yes. The pastor might tell them they must remain celibate. But what does celibate mean here? Should he give them a list of what's allowed and what isn't? Or should he, without compromising his own integrity, offer them the same support and care that he would offer to others of his flock?
But, you say, they can't live together because of the temptation to sin. I'll buy that one when I hear pastors telling their business-owning parishioners to sell them on the grounds that they are daily exposing themselves to the temptation to greed. When Christians in advertising are urged to leave their industry because they are leading others into covetousness. I'll buy it when envy, boasting, malice, slander and insolence receive the same hardline attitude.
Or we could do what Jesus did. Call people to the standard - chasity outside of marriage, faithfulness within - as one sinner to another accepting one anothers weaknesses (as we do, all the time with anything other than sex) and together grow in grace and faith.
Posted by Richard @ 11:06 PM BST [Link] [5 comments]
Bene Diction sent me this great link on the legacy of John Wesley. Here's a taster:
That is not to deny the contradictions in Wesley's legacy which sit uncomfortably, not just between Anglicans and Methodists, who took separate roads after his death, but for all people of faith. For if he was a prophet of any lasting sort, it was in his challenge to break out of the comfortable laziness that can trap us in our institutions.From the moment in 1738 when Wesley found his "heart strangely warmed" at an Aldersgate revival meeting, his part in the 18th-century evangelical revival - the second Reformation - was not to be afraid to challenge, frustrate and anger in equal measures. In short, to take Christianity out of the box.
Posted by Richard @ 05:27 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]
Dean asks Is blogs4God anti-Dentite? It's an opportunity to pick up a little Latin (I mean the language, you naughty people!), a bit of Hebrew, a whiff of history -- and how to get your blog cached up on b4G. And if you've been following this blog for the last day or two you might even get Dean's sly humour. But in case you miss it, here's my favourite
We can't promise we'll always link you in our next cache, but we usually do. That said, I realize that we here at blogs4God make mistakes ... in those cases where you'd rather not blog about it, a little direct but grace-filled email goes a long way. We are after all "truth-seekers" just like you (let the reader understand!-)Posted by Richard @ 04:45 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
I'm going to try to avoid the temptation of going off on another rant, but I just came across this site via blogs4God which contains this little gem:
To begin with, I hope you all understand that you are a soul/spiritual-being locked inside a human body that is expendable. We are to learn lessons for rehabilitation whilst in the body, through life experiences. Different from "public skool".., if we don't learn the lessons.., we don't get passed on. And this semester (on planet earth) is just about to closeTrue?
It sounds like the sort of thing that Christians are supposed to believe, but I believe that is deeply false and may actually be a major contributor to the problems Christians have with sex.
We are not eternal souls trapped inside a body waiting for the next step. Christians don't believe (or shouldn't believe) in the survival of "the soul" at death, though there are times when that imagery is helpful. Christians believe in death and resurrection, not survival. The two are quite different and should not be confused. If I die, I'm dead. It's the end of me. Finito. Bye bye. And apart from the intervention of God, that's how it will stay. But "as in Adam all die, so shall all in Christ be made alive" -- our sure and certain hope is in Christ, who has already been raised.The problem is that with the notion that our true selves are wrapped in an expendable body comes the notion that bodies are second rate, slightly sordid, maybe even evil. However, if the Christian doctine of the Incarnation means anything at all, it surely means that God has made our flesh itself holy. As one of the Church Fathers put it, "He became what we are, that we might become what he is." I know that Paul makes a lot of the contrast between life in the flesh and life in the spirit, but we do have to be careful not to get the wrong end of the stick. In context, Paul is using "flesh" as a shorthand for "human nature apart from Christ." He certainly doesn't mean the 'stuff" of our bodies, which you recall he refers to as a temple.
I strongly believe that I am inseperable from my body, feeble as it may be. And when the time comes for me to need a new one, I trust God to provide one. But without his grace and saving power nothing about me can survive.
Posted by Richard @ 10:42 PM BST [Link] [11 comments]
In a comment yesterday, Wood referred to a letter the Archbishop of Canterbury has sent to the bishops of the Church of England. Here it is:
Dear Brothers in ChristNone of us will need any persuading that the recent appointment of Canon Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading has proved a controversial and challenging one. It has become a focus for a great deal of debate, in which differing views of the appointment and its significance have been widely aired, inside and outside the Church here, and indeed much further afield.
At this point in the debate - particularly since some of you have already voiced serious concerns - it is important that I try to clarify basic issues, in my capacity as Archbishop of Canterbury and Chairman of the House of Bishops.
First, about the appointment process. As you know, the appointment of a suffragan bishop is made by the Crown, on the advice of a diocesan as forwarded by the Archbishop of the province. And that is what has happened on this occasion. It is not for me to recount the diocesan process. But so far as my own involvement is concerned, you should know it is an appointment I have neither sought to promote nor to obstruct.
I was informed that Canon Jeffrey John was regarded as a highly gifted candidate, was acceptable to the diocese, that he had given explicit assurances on various matters, including his personal circumstances and his willingness to work loyally within the framework of doctrine and discipline as expressed in Issues in Human Sexuality. With these assurances, since repeated very publicly, and in keeping with the principle that the integrity of the process within the diocese should be respected, I raised no objection to forwarding his name.
Despite what some have claimed, I do not believe this overall process weakens the commitment of the House of Bishops to what we have declared as our common mind. Nor do I believe that Canon John's appointment either subverts current discipline or forecloses future discussion. It would certainly be deplorable if it were assumed that the existing approach has been abandoned by stealth, or that the forthcoming guide to the debate on sexuality that we have agreed to publish, was slanted towards a change in that policy. So, let us be clear: there can be no question of trying to pre-empt, undermine or short-circuit the reflection of the Church as a whole.
It is also important here, to stress to the wider Anglican Communion that we are not embarking on or colluding with any policy of unilateral local change, which I have more than once deplored elsewhere.
Two final and important points. The concerns of many in the diocese of Oxford are theologically serious, intelligible and by no means based on narrow party allegiance or on prejudice. They must be addressed and considered fully. Confidence in the ability of a new bishop to minister to those in his pastoral care is a centrally important matter, and it is clear that serious questions remain in the diocese. To consider these with prayerfulness and maturity needs time and a measure of calm. It is not for anyone outside the diocese to override or pre-empt what is obviously a painful and complex process, and I can only ask your prayers for the diocese as it struggles with this and tries to find a right discernment.
Finally, it would be a tragedy if these issues, in the Church of England and in the Communion, occupied so much energy that we lost our focus on the priorities of our mission, the priorities given us by Our Lord. What we say about sexuality (and not just on the same-sex question) is a necessary part of our faithfulness, but the concentration on this in recent weeks has had the effect of generating real incomprehension in much of our society, in a way that does nothing for our credibility. In the world where we are called to offer the Good News of Jesus, we need to reflect on this dimension of the situation - not to surrender to alien standards, but to keep our eyes on those central revealed truths without which other matters of behaviour and discipline will never make sense.
In a few weeks, I shall be making a pastoral visit to West Africa. Some of our local issues are there too, of course, but so are most of the greatest wounds of our age, afflicting millions - violent conflict, epidemic disease, instability and poverty. Faithful Christian witness shines through all this, and we are deeply thankful for it. It does us no harm to think about our own priorities against such a background, and perhaps to learn in some matters to give each other a little more time and space for thought as we try to find how we can walk in step as the Body of Christ - not falling over ourselves because of anxiety and suspicion.
+Rowan Cantuar
Lambeth Palace
23rd June 2003Posted by Richard @ 03:15 PM BST [Link] [1 Comment]
Monday, June 23, 2003
(continued from my last post)
So -- why is this? If sex was not a priority for Jesus, why does it occupy so much of the churches' (and bloggers') time? I'm convinced that part of the answer lies in our continuing "conformation to the world". Western Christians may claim to be in Christ, but we still share the world's obsessions: sex and wealth.
We talk about sex the most because, frankly, sex is interesting. Exciting, even. There's no thrill in listening to a condemnation of greed, or pride, or gluttony. In any case, condemning those sins leads us to condemn ourselves. Sex is different. First, because it is usually other people's sin we're talking about, and that's always easier to condemn than our own. But most important, it's different because we like talking about it. "They did what?" "How often?!" "Shocking! Tell me more."[Ironically, as I've been writing this little rant an email has arrived. It begins "We are writing to inform you that Rev xxxxxx who is a Methodist church minister in xxxxxxx is gay." It goes on claiming to identify the minister's boyfriend. The sender claims to be uncovering a secret, although they do not identify themselves. In other words, they have been speculating about what these two people are getting up to and have decided to gossip openly and widely about their prurient speculations. Disgraceful.]
What I'm suggesting is that the churches obsession with sex has more to do with tittilation than a genuine concern for morality. Married couples are no quizzed by their pastors about what they get up to in their bedrooms. It is unlikely that a gay couple in church would begin an over-coffee conversation with, "Guess what Sam did to me last night..." -- most gay people regard their sex lives as every bit as private as heterosexual couples do. So why should their living together be a source of scandal? Because we like to imagine what they do. Oo-er, missus. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.
If the church were genuinely concerned about the sexual morality of gay Christians, we would surely be doing everything we can to make sure that their relationships are stable and lifelong. But instead of offering support and care, we prefer condemnation. Instead of focussing on how they relate to others in the world, we'd rather spend idle moments amusing ourselves with an imaginery visit to their bedroom as a fly on the wall. Self-proclaimed homophobes find it amusing to label themselves such, making (unintentional) common cause with others who get their kicks from a Saturday evening's queer-bashing. So far from being a place of safety, the Church is experienced by gay men and lesbians as a place of persecution. Where Jesus offered welcome and compassion, the Church most often offers vilification and hostility.
So I have a suggestion to make. Let's give the same priority to sex that Jesus did -- you know, like, none at all. Remember Jesus' words about specks and planks? Let's take them seriously and work on the planks in our own eyes before we trouble about the specks in other peoples. Or we could just continue in our sin, smugly ignoring the greed and covetousness most of us are a part of. But I hate to think of the consequences of that.
Posted by Richard @ 10:00 PM BST [Link] [8 comments]
I didn't mean it, though if you've spent any time around Christian blogs recently I'd forgive you if you'd thought I did. Should the church bless homosexual "marriages"? Gays in the church. Premarital sex. The blogosphere, in it's interest in sex, seems to me to be reflecting accurately the situation in the wider church. The latest furore in the Church of England over the appointment of a homosexual bishop even though he is now celibate is witness to that.
But why? Not because it reflects anything of the ministry of Jesus. You will search in vain for anything but compassion from Jesus towards the sinners of his day. His condemnation was kept for the rich, powerful and respectable. Yes, he called all to repentance. All. There doesn't seem to have been any special place in his life and teaching for the less than sexually pure. In the "sermon on the plain" recorded by St Luke, the Beattitudes are contrasted with woes - woe to the rich, the satisfied, the happy, the well-thought of. Nothing there about sex.
Looking more widely at Jesus' teaching, it is apparent that it is our attitude to the poor which receives the greater attention. Luke's beattitude's are explicit. "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God". Jesus begins his ministry proclaiming "good news to the poor". The song which Mary sang announces "He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty." The parables of Dives and Lazarus and the Sheep and the Goats have condemnation to hell for those who ignore the plight of the poor and the downtrodden. His parable of the vineyard owner turns capitalism on its head by paying the workers according to their need rather than by the work they've put in. (And I find ironic that those who are quickest to tell me that parable isn't about economics are precisely those who tell me I should be more willing to take the Bible at face value) Which ever way you cut it, Jesus said an awful lot about money and next to nothing about sex.
Most of us who've been around the evangelical movement a while will know of situations in which the sexual line has been crossed. I recall an incident in which a teenage girl got pregnant by her boyfriend, both of them members of the same church. When she told her pastor not only were they made to stand in front of everyone to receive their dressing down, both were refused communion until long after the baby was born. I've heard this sort of story over and over again. But I've never once heard word of warning, let alone condemnation, to those who are wealthy. Far from it. The richer members of the church are fawned over and held up as examples of God's blessing. So much for "Blessed are you poor ... woe to you who are rich."
Posted by Richard @ 04:05 PM BST [Link] [5 comments]
Osama look-alike gatecrashes royal party. Cute.
Posted by Richard @ 01:20 PM BST [Link] [2 comments]
A careful reading of the gospels makes it plain that sex and sexual morality was at the heart of the ministry of Jesus. His absolute condemnation of sexual sin, the many parables and stories he told about sexual behaviour and the way that he refused to have anything to do with those whose sexual lives were anything less than totally pure all point to the priority of sex as the lodestone of Christian morality. Twenty-first century disciples of Jesus will want to emulate his priorities, and Christian pronouncements about morality will reflect this.
Sex. Who's allowed to do what and to whom. And, of course, when. How far can you go? Having drawn a line, let's be clear in our condemnation of those who cross it, just as Jesus was. Of course, we only hate the sin not the sinner. Of course, forgiveness is always offered to those who truly repent. But how can you seperate depravity from the depraved? If condemnation of the one sounds too much like condemnation of the other, that's too bad. Christians are called to purity, and those who condone or encourage impurity are responsible for their own fate. Our task is to speak the truth. It is time for preachers to forget their political correctness and take off their kid gloves. Let the pulpits thunder! Let the Church speak with the same voice as Jesus and consign to perdition those who despoil his holy people.
Posted by Richard @ 10:20 AM BST [Link] [2 comments]
Sunday, June 22, 2003
Today's Daily dig from the Bruderhof is an extract from The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Seek Suffering"Bless those who persecute you" must be amongst the hardest words in the scriptures. But in these troubled times, maybe the most necessary.If the evil-doing of men moves you to indignation and overwhelming distress, even to a desire for vengeance on the evil-doers, shun above all things that feeling. Go at once and seek suffering for yourself, as though you were yourself guilty of that wrong. Accept that suffering and bear it and your heart will find comfort, and you will understand that you, too, are guilty, for you might have been a light to the evil-doers, even as the one man sinless, and you were not a light to them.
If you had been a light, you would have lightened the path for others too, and the evil-doer might perhaps have been saved by your light from his sin. And even though your light was shining, yet you see men were not saved by it, hold firm and doubt not the power of the heavenly light. Believe that if they were not saved, they will be saved hereafter. And if they are not saved hereafter, then their sons will be
saved.Posted by Richard @ 04:32 PM BST [Link]
Saturday, June 21, 2003
The latest of the Marvel-inspired films is out, and the Bible Geek has been to see it and offers some theological connections.
It is implied once or twice in the film, and was pretty explicit in the old comic books, that the Hulk was not only a manifestation of anger and power, but also of self-centered egoism. In the film, the Hulk is unleashed by the gamma radiation that bombards Banner--the Hulk is something that has always been a part of him. And for each of us, there is a part of us that comes out at various times in life which brings down havoc on those around us.I haven't seen the film, but I did enjoy the comics when i was growing up. What i remember of the Hulk character is constantly trying to do the right thing, but his inability to control his awesome strength often brought evil results where he intended none. In suggesting the Hulk as a parable of original sin, the Bible Geek might be on to something.And he's certainly persuaded me I want to see the film!
Posted by Richard @ 07:33 PM BST [Link]
Wowwww!!!
I hate to go "over the top", but every once in a while you find something online that is more fun than you can shake a stick at. The desktop theremin from the BBC is absolutely the cat's whiskers in terms of time wasting entertainment. Make maniacal music! Download it now -- for PC or Mac -- and get down and groovy.
But don't expect to get any more work done.
Posted by Richard @ 01:02 AM BST [Link]
Friday, June 20, 2003
Randy reflects on a year of blogging:
I have discovered that it doesn't take much to set off a firestorm. I have discovered that cynicism doesn't play well in the long term, even if it is effective in the short term. I have discovered that it is easy to seem to be saying things you never intended to say. I have discovered that some days it is easy to write and some days it isn't. I have discovered that if you don't have anything interesting to say for a few days, the hits go down. I have discovered that people can find your website with some very weird searches. I have discovered that some people will put anything in a comment and not even blush.For what it's worth, Randy, I'd say more than occasionally helpful.This is fun. I hope it is occasionally helpful.
Posted by Richard @ 09:12 PM BST [Link]
I absolutely agree. Christianity is for losers.
Posted by Richard @ 02:38 PM BST [Link]
As the international spotlight turns on Iran, Martin Roth wonders where the english-language Iranian bloggers are. Editor:myself isn't a bad place to start if you're interested in Iran. He gives this list of others.
Update: I should have read more carefully. Martin is looking for Christian english-language Iranian bloggers. I haven't found any, either.
Posted by Richard @ 08:32 AM BST [Link]
This hymn is one of my favourites. The last verse always moves and inspires me
Christ, from whom all blessings flow,
Perfecting the saints below,
Hear us, who Thy nature share,
Who Thy mystic body are.Join us, in one spirit join,
Let us still receive of Thine;
Still for more on Thee we call,
Thou Who fillest all in all.Move and actuate and guide,
Diverse gifts to each divide;
Placed according to Thy will,
Let us all our work fulfill.Never from Thy service move,
Needful to each other prove;
Use the grace on each bestowed,
Tempered by the art of God.Many are we now, and one,
We who Jesus have put on;
There is neither bond nor free,
Male nor female, Lord, in Thee.Love, like death, hath all destroyed,
Rendered all distinctions void;
Names and sects and parties fall;
Thou, O Christ, art all in all!Posted by Richard @ 08:02 AM BST [Link]
Thursday, June 19, 2003
{mutters} The comments have been awful quiet lately
Is there anybody there?
Posted by Richard @ 05:20 PM BST [Link]
Darren Rowse has been running a fascinating series headed 'holistic spirituality', working through a model of the way that people "apprehend the divine". He identifies four key themes, ways by which peple connect with God. They are
What I like about the model is that it includes the personal, social and political aspects of our lives. "Spirituality" is often portrayed as an intensely individual thing -- Darren's model offers a means of keeping the individual and social in balance. There is more here than just feeling too: it is being suggested (rightly I reckon) that the intellect and the discipline of learning have an important part to play in a developing spirituality. Sounds almost Wesleyan! I'll be looking into it further to see if I can use this model in my ministry. Perhaps a "developing spirituality" day or some such? In any case, you should go and have a read.I'm particularly intrigued by the diagram in Darren's summary which has a graph with two axes, Catholic-Protestant in the x-direction, and Pentecostal-Liberation theology in the y-direction. I've never thought of Liberation Theology as the 'opposite' of Pentecostalism, and I need to think a bit more before I decide whether I agree with that or not. My instinct is 'not', but I don't have a rational explanation I can give.
Darren admits thatThe model is not perfect. The four areas overlap significantly and on the two dimensional diagram ... it is difficult to be strong on both Truth and Love or on both Wonder and Action.This weakness might be overcome by recasting the model as a dynamic system. Darren hints at this himself -- "I can plot myself on the model at different places at different times in my life" -- though I need to own up that I'm struggling to find the words that I say exactly what I know I mean! Perhaps it is no more profound than a recognition that even the most insightful and wise can have lapses into stupidity, the most loving are still capable of lashing out in hate, the consistently unselfish still sometimes put themselves first.
Adding this to the model would mean that we're not looking an evolutionary sytem that gradually improves or deteriorates over time, but rather something which is continually in motion, unpredictably chaotic when looked at up close but which the broader view reveals has a trajectory towards (or away from) God.
Posted by Richard @ 04:20 PM BST [Link]
Bene Diction shares a moving chapter of life.
Posted by Richard @ 07:47 AM BST [Link]
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Good news! The Bible Geek has returned to his blog.
Posted by Richard @ 11:37 PM BST [Link]
The British parliamentary select committee on foreign affairs has been hearing more scepticism about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Dr Thomas Inch, who formerly worked at the UK's biological and chemical weapons establishment at Porton Down, told MPs that he could not understand why weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq. [more...]
Posted by Richard @ 06:43 PM BST [Link]
Millions of Americans find it hard to have a nice day
Posted by Richard @ 04:29 PM BST [Link]
When I said it was John Wesley's birthday yesterday, that wasn't strictly accurate. He was born on June 17th, 1703 -- but that was under the "old style" calendar. The day of his birth is June 28th by the modern calendar.
Don't ask. I don't understand it either. But I know a man who does
Speaking of Mr Wesley, here's his official tercentenary site.
Posted by Richard @ 03:38 PM BST [Link]
Today's Daily Dig from the Bruderhof is a splendid piece by Oscar Romero
Joy RemainsThe present form of the world passes away,
and there remains only the joy
of having used this world
to establish God's rule here.
All pomp, all triumphs, all selfish capitalism,
all the false successes of life will pass
with the world's form.
All of that passes away.
What does not pass away is love.
When one has turned money, property,
work in one's calling
into service of others,
then the joy of sharing and the feeling that all are one's family
does not pass away.
In the evening of life you will be judged on love.Posted by Richard @ 12:18 PM BST [Link]
I should clarify yesterday's post. I've had an email from Nate about his blogroll. First, it seems I "jumped the gun", straying across the lists before he'd sorted them properly. Second, it seems his intention in dividing his blogroll is honourably subversive:
I see no fundamental difference between catholics and other groups ofHe goes on
christians. I put them in single quotes as a way of poking fun at the idea
that the separate churches share more differences than similarities.I put in Christians afterwards with the quotes. I did want to split the(Incidentally, I'm not in the habit of posting from emails I receive, but I'm sure Nate won't mind me passing on his reasoning)
two groups up, because I am Catholic, but I didn't want to be putting a
distance between those who are not Catholic and those who are. I believe that
we are all part of the same Kingdom, regardless of what we call ourselves.I should explain that there has been some small controversy over at blogs4God over whether the site is anti-catholic. I half-wondered if the Eclipsoul blogroll might feed into that controversy. If I'd engaged my other brain cell I'd have noticed that Nate was Catholic himself, and therefore unlikely to be on the brink of a "No Popery" tirade. Forgive me for even entertaining the thought. For once, my sense of irony failed me.
Not for the first time, mind. I remember being shocked at the blatant racism of White Noise by the Stiff Little Fingers, then one of my favourite bands. (OK, I admit it. I still listen to them when my wife's ut of earshot!)
Just another reminder that I should stop and think before jumping to conclusions.
Anyone for a quick chorus of Suspect device?
Posted by Richard @ 11:07 AM BST [Link]
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
From the United Methodist News Service:
Religious groups, including the United Methodist Minnesota Annual Conference, are challenging a recent law passed by the state of Minnesota that will allow licensed residents to carry concealed firearms wherever they wish-including church and school parking lots. [more]
Posted by Richard @ 10:13 PM BST [Link]
This is old stuff -- it come from the Independent, 9th June -- but it's good stuff and I thought I'd share it.
Apparently, the city council of Arcata in California have decreed that any city employee found co-operating with the Federal Authorities under the Patriot Act will be fined $57 for the misdemeanour, a symbolic gesture against a law which some see as an infringement of civil liberties.
Meanwhile, in Santa Cruz a vegan restaurant has taken a cue from right-wingers and renamed its french fries as "impeach Bush fries".Oh, those naughty Californians.
The letters column of the same newspaper provided this from a reader which pretty well sums up how I feel about the GM food debate (well, it's a debate in Europe)
Three vital points. It is argued that "frankenfoods" will let the starving be fed. Rubbish. The food industry is run for profit like any other industry. The world produces far too much food already, but leaves it to rot ... because there's no money in it. ...Hear, hear.
People say man has always bred plants and animals for certain characteristics, yes, but there are limits. Nature doesn't let you cross an orange with an Antarctic fish so the former can be bread in Scotland. The people who say there is no danger are similar to those who said it was a good ide to feed cow brains to vegetarian cows. ...
Lastly, suppose they are right and there is no danger. I want to live in the world that God, and/or evolution produced. I don't want to live in some experimental planet with invented plants and animals and microbes.Posted by Richard @ 09:33 PM BST [Link]
I'm always pleased to find I've been added to someone's blogroll. It does my struggling ego no end of good! So a cordial greeting goes to Eclipsoul, the blog of a 24 year old "Christian - Pacifist - Anarchist - Radical". Sounds like we'll get along fine!
I'm a bit bemused about the blogroll itself though. There's a list of "catholic Christians", which includes me and Josh Claybourn, among others. (And Josh would be the first to say that our two names would not often be linked!) Then there's the "Christian Christians", which includes blogs4God, where both Josh and I are moderators. I'm sure there's a good explanation.
Posted by Richard @ 05:05 PM BST [Link]
Today is John Wesley's 300th birthday, and Methodists (and others) around the world will be making use of the excuse both to celebrate and evaluate his contribution to the Church. Our Circuit had its main celebration on Sunday night in which we gave thanks to God for him and dedicated ourselves to our calling as Methodist people. There were elements of looking backward -- some of the music, a couple of people wore period costume, readings from Wesley's journal, for example -- but it was essentially about offering ourselves to God and looking forward to the future which is known only to him.
Music was provided by a small multinational orchestra which included, alongside more conventional instruments, a "serpent" played by colleague Tony. My own musical contribution was made on the penny whistle, and grateful thanks were offered by music lovers present that it is such a quiet instrument.For me John Wesley's greatest contribution to us is his understanding that the holiness to which Christians are called is both personal and social. Indeed, the two are inseperable. Personal piety is not enough. Wesley was a champion of the widow and orphan. He visited those who were imprisoned and campaigned with others for the abolition of slavery. Individuals are responsible - but we are also responsible for one another. Whatever your view of the state of the Methodist Church today (and it varies widely around the world) I reckon that today is a good day for the whole Church to offer a prayer of thanksgiving for John Wesley's enduring legacy.
Posted by Richard @ 04:24 PM BST [Link]
Monday, June 16, 2003
At the request of Jan, I've added a "Remember me" feature to the comments. Thanks to Patchcord for the code.
Posted by Richard @ 04:58 PM BST [Link]
What's going on??
Every blogger in the whole world seems to be on the move.Well I exagerate of course, but you might like to make "house warming" visits to
Don't forget to take a fruitcake or house plant!Posted by Richard @ 11:44 AM BST [Link]
Sunday, June 15, 2003
Jan has picked up on the theme of the extent to which Christians are aware of their own history:
We miss so much if we disregard our past. We do not have to be immersed in it to the point of forgetting the present. How many of the old heresies , particularly about the person of Christ have raised their ugly heads in these times? Probably a lot more than many would realise. They have no understanding of the troubles the early church went through with these. Couched in modern terms, they are still around, but not too many recognise them. Early gnosticism is still very much alive and well and gaining ground. With an emphasis on special experiences and esoteric knowledge, it fits in quite well today with our emphasis on similar things.I couldn't agree more Jan. We'd be a lot less likely to be "led astray" if we were aware of the debates (and disputes!) of the past. Not that I see myself putting Athanasius, Irenaeus and all the rest on the church curriculum anytime soon -- but it's worth a thought!There's another issue that relates to this that's been bothering me for the past year or two, and it's to do with the way that even committed Christians relate to the tradition to which they belong. The days are long gone when people passing one another on the way to their different churches would exchange glares or sneers. The "died in the wool" Methodist, Baptist or Anglican is a rare breed -- most would see and describe themselves as "Christian" first and apply a denomination label as an afterthought. In many ways I approve of this (I'm a self-confessed ecumaniac after all), but I believe there is a peril here too.
It has to be a good thing that the various strands of the church for the most part no longer proclaim their own inherrent superiority and do not see themselves as competitors. When I see churches of different traditions working together, I rejoice! Unfortunately, this mutual recognition -- which, as I've said, I think is a Good Thing -- seems to have got us to a point where theological differences are regarded as irrelevant, and that the only thing which marks out a particular denomination is the style of its worship. Choice of church (a terrible concept in itself) is governed by taste rather than by any particular commitment to a doctrinal basis or historical perspective.
This has been exacerbated in my view by an unwillingness of the various strands in the church (my own included) to speak with any pride or conviction about their own particular and distinctive contribution to the whole Church of Christ. Not wishing to cause offence to others, and fearful of appearing to put anything before the Lordship of Christ, we have "thrown out the baby with the bath water". This has left many modern Christians adrift, with no more security than familiarity with a particular way of worshipping. Add this to a determined individual streak which says that "my faith is my own business and nobody else's" and you have a Church which is no more than a gathering of individuals who have been isolated by their own ignorance.
The trouble is, I reckon I've reached a point in my ministry where I have to begin to take some responsibility for a little of this. It's one thing to rant about a problem, quite another to actually address it. What I'd like to see is a Church of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and all the rest, who understand at least the broad view of the major distictinctive contributions to the Church that their church has made. This is not to set each church over against the others. I really hope and pray that we're past all that. This is not a "zero sum" game. But we can only learn from one another if we actually have something worth teaching.
Posted by Richard @ 04:15 PM BST [Link]
Saturday, June 14, 2003
A new blog to me, but well-established and very nicely done, is Something Understood by Chris Arnold who describes himself as a beer drinking, 20something geek -- and a Christian.
In yesterday's post, Chris ponders on the Christian blogs he's been reading the last week or two
I've noticed that the bulk of these sites are from fairly young people, 16-24 years old, and from that particular profile... does it have a name? Non-denominational, Biblically literalist, listening to lots of CCM, attending huge Christian rallies, singing what one 60 year old Episcopalian friend calls "lots of 'I' hymns", fairly anti-sacramental, anti-catholic, anti-mainstream, and anti-homosexual. Anyone know about whom I'm talking? Of course, I'm drawing huge generalizations, and I should make it clear that I'm interested in finding out what makes this movement tick. Tick it certainly does, with these enormous megachurches filling up for "Praise Services". Their numbers are growing rapidly, and frankly they, of all Christiandom, they seem to have the edge on design, marketing, and tie-ins to pop culture.Of course he's generalising, but I'll be interested to read his continuing thoughts on this as he reveals them. I'm looking forward to more from Chris -- definitely a blog to watch.Posted by Richard @ 11:47 AM BST [Link]
Thursday, June 12, 2003
Surely one of Charles Wesley's best known hymns, in Britain is invariably sung to the Welsh tune Blaenwern. I was surprised to discover that the United Methodists use Beecher, or Hyfrydol (another Welsh tune!) as an alternative. However, the hymn was not written for any of these. The original tune was Westminster, the tune of a once popular song by Purcell, "Fairest Isle, all isles excelling". It's from an opera about King Arthur, and it extolls the virtues of Britain. What Wesley has done is to take a patriotic song and make it a hymn of Christian devotion. The second verse was not used by John Wesley in his collection Hymns for the use of the People Called Methodist, and still isn't used in the hymnbook of British Methodism, because he disapproved of it's fifth line. I've included it here for completeness.
Love divine, all loves excelling,On Sunday I'll be playing (a very small part!) in a music group during a special service in celebration of Wesley's 300th birthday. We'll be using the original tune, as well as the familiar Blaenwern
Joy of heaven to earth come down;
Fix in us thy humble dwelling;
All thy faithful mercies crown!
Jesus, Thou art all compassion,
Pure unbounded love Thou art;
Visit us with Thy salvation;
Enter every trembling heart.Breathe, O breathe Thy loving Spirit,
Into every troubled breast!
Let us all in Thee inherit;
Let us find that second rest.
Take away our power of sinning;
Alpha and Omega be;
End of faith, as its Beginning,
Set our hearts at liberty.Come, Almighty to deliver,
Let us all Thy life receive;
Suddenly return and never,
Never more Thy temples leave.
Thee we would be always blessing,
Serve Thee as Thy hosts above,
Pray and praise Thee without ceasing,
Glory in Thy perfect love.Finish, then, Thy new creation;
Pure and spotless let us be.
Let us see Thy great salvation
Perfectly restored in Thee;
Changed from glory into glory,
Till in heaven we take our place,
Till we cast our crowns before Thee,
Lost in wonder, love, and praise.
Posted by Richard @ 06:46 PM BST [Link]
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Had a session with our District training officer on "Multimedia in worship" tonight. I think most of those gathered were convinced. So now I must find the money...
Posted by Richard @ 11:39 PM BST [Link]
Posted by Richard @ 06:50 PM BST [Link]
Mike Todd offers a good piece from the New York Times
The demonization of Islam by the Christian right always seemed opportunistic. Cal Thomas, the evangelical commentator, notes that both left and right need enemies to galvanize fund-raising, and he adds: "The right has been looking for an enemy to replace communism since 1990. And maybe Islam is it."...
Mr. Bush displayed real moral leadership after 9/11 when he praised Islam as a "religion of peace" and made it clear that his administration would not demonize it. He should now join the evangelical leadership in repudiating remarks by religious zealots who preach contempt for other religions
[Read it all...]Posted by Richard @ 04:38 PM BST [Link]
I've just been given a copy of an English translation of Mein Kampf, a delightful book written by one Adolf Hitler. It has a swastika on the cover and a sympathetic translator's introduction. The publication date was 1939.
We're so used to the idea of Hitler as the embodiment of evil that it is easy to forget it was not always so.
Posted by Richard @ 03:36 PM BST [Link]
I have a lot of time for the Bruderhof - many of their publications admirable I reckon. So I'll be trying to find the time to have a look at this free e-book, A Joyful Pilgrimmage. You'll find many worse ways of spending an hour or two.
Posted by Richard @ 11:13 AM BST [Link]
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Following a conversation elsewhere I'm wondering if any of my readers (Yes! Both of you!) have experience of tv/radio in both the US and Britain? If anyone would would like to try to convince me that the BBC suffers in comparison, I'd be glad to hear from you.
Posted by Richard @ 04:48 PM BST [Link]
Signposts links to this article which asks, "Does the Pentagon Have Amnesia on Lynch?"
Josh Claybourn says "Here's a news story that perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with media conglomeration. The 170,000 Iraqi artifacts that were supposedly stolen was a lie beamed millions of times around the world in virtually every media outlet. It turns out only 33 pieces are missing. ... This is a strong reminder to always be wary of media reports that come out immediately after a story, no matter which news source is reporting it."For once, I'm not arguing.
Posted by Richard @ 04:38 PM BST [Link]
What's a trendy lefty vegetarian who's committed to inter-faith conversation and understanding to do with a story like this one?
Posted by Richard @ 09:27 AM BST [Link]
Monday, June 9, 2003
These two contrasting stories show the difficulty of proclaiming a definitive "Christian" response to a political issue. The first comes from CBS, describes the fundamentalist support for Israel
American Christian Zionists say they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby.Meanwhile, USA Today reminds us that not all Palestinians are Muslim
“It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s only safety belt right now,” says Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the leaders of the Christian Right. That’s the bulk of Evangelical Christians; Falwell claims to speak for all of them.
“There are 70 million of us,” he says. “And if there’s one thing that brings us together quickly it’s whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti-Israel.”The questioner's tone is usually incredulous: "You mean there are Palestinian Christians?"So which is most authentically "Christian" - the American whose certainty in the Bible (“The Bible does not contain the word of God,” says Ed McAteer. “Listen to me closely. The Bible is the word of God.”) compells him to the support of Israel come what may, or the Palestinian who is united with his Muslim neighbours in what he sees as the struggle for liberation?
I understand the confusion. Many view the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as purely Muslims vs. Jews. And aren't Arabs all Muslims and Muslims all Arabs?
The reality is that some 15% of the world's Palestinians are Christians, a vibrant community that has experienced as much suffering as Palestinian Muslims. In the latest uprising for freedom, Palestinian Christians have been among those killed or maimed for life by Israeli bullets. Christians also have been among the Palestinians who have been unable to leave their towns, go to their jobs, seek medical care and attend schools.
...
I can understand, however, the public-relations value for Israelis in ignoring Palestinian Christians. After all, given the unfair vilification of Islam after 9/11, why let your Western supporters know that you are also battling Christians?Posted by Richard @ 10:04 PM BST [Link]
From "Following the Lamb A Reading of Revelation for the New Millenium, by Christina Le Moignan
Witnesses to the world's wrongs will inevitably be accused of smug self-righteousness, and they will have to ask themselves whether the accusations are true. ...
This is the point at which it is important to look again at the witnesses in sackcloth, that is, identified with the sinners they are criticizing and not set over against them. For anyone thinking about witness on the basis of Revelation will realise that Christians are not safely free of the world's wrongs, and they are therefore in no position to take a lofty and somewhat superior attitude towards others. Our witness will be most authentic in revelation's terms when we name the wrongs of which we are guilty as well as the 'world', and attempt to find, and show, the repentent way out of them. The criticism of a sexual promiscuity that is not on the whole chracteristic of the church may be necessary and right, but Revelation would suggest going first for sins nearer home - and for putting one's own house in order before criticizing others. It is 'worldly' behaviour in the church that John wants passionately to combat. Most Christians are glad to see the churches pressing governments to remit the debt of poor countries; John would be asking why rich congregations corner resources for themselves while poor congregations down the road struggle to keep going. Christians join in pressing the police to root out racism; John would be asking what the churches are doing to root out their own.Posted by Richard @ 12:10 AM BST [Link]
Sunday, June 8, 2003
The internal doors at my church had obsured glass panels, meaning you couldn't see through into the sanctuary from outside. We've changed them for clear glass to make the church more welcoming, and if you're inside, it looks as though it has worked. There's now a clear view out - but you still can't really see in. I think that's a parable.
The only way it's going to work is if we increase the light inside the church.
And at Pentecost, I think that's a parable too.Posted by Richard @ 08:55 AM BST [Link]
If any reminder was needed that the world has gone stark raving mad, I received it this morning from the BBC. Ain't "market forces" wonderful?
Posted by Richard @ 08:40 AM BST [Link]
Saturday, June 7, 2003
I never imagined that I'd be linked for not insulting someone. I hope all the other bloggers I haven't insulted follow suit!
Posted by Richard @ 04:49 PM BST [Link]
Pentecost Sunday is the day when the followers of Jesus caught their "second wind". The Church identifies Pentecost not only as fifty days after Easter Sunday, but as a fulfillment of Christ’s resurrection and it is Pentecost, not Easter, which the Church names as its "birthday."
We give such great emphasis to Easter. So how could Pentecost be the birthday? After all, had not the disciples enthusiastically walked with and known Jesus for three years? So, wasn’t the Church born earlier?
Not really.
Although the disciples walked with Jesus, they were unaware of the bigger picture. They also lacked the cohesion that should be typical of a family or a Church. Good Friday had taken the wind from their sails. The disciples remained wracked with fear for the next seven weeks. Now, gathered in the Upper Room in the early morning of the first Pentecost Sunday, they struggled as individuals filled with uncertainty, gloom and emptiness. When the wind of Pentecost blew, they were transformed - they found faith, hope and love.
The first chapter of Genesis speaks of the Spirit of God moving over chaos - the result of that movement was new life, transformation, new possibilities. The Spirit that moved at the creation is the same Spirit who empowered the disciples at Pentecost and creates the Church. The movement of the Spirit never stops. In every age and place the Spirit of God is at work inside the Church and out of it, creating new life and offering fresh gifts of faith, hope and love. Pentecost changed the Resurrection for the disciples from an event that happened to Jesus into an event that happened to them and gave them the strength to offer that resurrection experience to others.
It still happens today. The transforming power of the Holy Spirit is still at work to give us a "second wind" and fill us with the same gifts of faith, hope and love that were so evident in the church following Pentecost. These are gifts not just for the chosen few, but for the whole people of God.
‘Happy Birthday,’ everyone!
Posted by Richard @ 04:43 PM BST [Link]
The WikiWord of the day is: Hymn.
Posted by Richard @ 04:26 PM BST [Link]
Friday, June 6, 2003
LivingRoom delivers the goods with an excellent meditation/monologue for Pentecost.
Wonder if I'd get away with stealing it on Sunday?Posted by Richard @ 07:26 PM BST [Link]
Apparently, The Fish Wars are in full swing.
But what I need to know is: what's the point of putting a Fish on your car? Can anyone explain?
Posted by Richard @ 04:45 PM BST [Link]
I've been reading the Gutless Pacifist for yonks. So how come I've only just discovered this great resource for preachers? There's some fantastic stuff in there, and I'll definitely be making use of it.
Posted by Richard @ 01:03 PM BST [Link]
looking back...lookingforward wonders aloud
So... tell me again...I think I know why. Because it's a challenge. Because in your heart you have confidence you can do it. And because it's a complete change from the normal run of ministerial duties.
why I decided to create a site for people in London Conference to share their stories about "Pushing Open the Box".
I'm not a page designer. My understanding of HTML is nominal. My CSS is poor.
Bleh.
That's why I would do it, anyway.Posted by Richard @ 12:11 PM BST [Link]
Thursday, June 5, 2003
The short entry yesterday proved that I shouldn't even write 2 sentences if I've spent a large part of the day sitting in traffic jams! Thanks to Bene Diction for pointing out the shortcomings of my HTML (now fixed)! Following the link will demonstrate that I wasn't even properly aware of what day it was, so I shouldn't have attempted to include a link.
I was up in Birmingham all day yesterday, meeting with the new Deacon who will be coming to serve in my Circuit later this year. She's been given an appointment within 2 churches which will be very community/mission oriented, and I'm bound to say I envy her. There are still some details to be worked out (trivial stuff - like where will she live?!) but it is an exciting opportunity for the Methodist Church in Swansea and I'm looking forward to it.
On a different note, I spoke to a reporter on our local newspaper today about the Sermon Cycle I'm planning in August, and he has agreed to give it some good local coverage. The bike shop I go to are offering support in the form of getting the bike ready "and we'll see what else we can do", so I'm feeling very encouraged by that. Sixty miles, 11 sermons and a good few bananas! Any suggestions for texts I might take would be gratefully received. I have to include "Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden...", but if you can think of others you know what to do!Posted by Richard @ 10:43 PM BST [Link]
Wednesday, June 4, 2003
A year ago today I was looking forward to learning some lessons...
And I really can't believe that it's a year ago. I must put planning a return visit on the "stuff to do" list.Posted by Richard @ 11:03 PM BST [Link]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003
A hymn by Charles Wesley, based on Psalm 23:
JESUS the good Shepherd is;
Jesus died the sheep to save;
He is mine, and I am his;
All I want in him I have,
Life, and health, and rest, and food,
All the plenitude of God.Jesus loves and guards his own;
Me in verdant pastures feeds;
Makes me quietly lie down,
By the streams of comfort leads:
Following him where'er he goes,
Silent joy my heart o'erflows.He in sickness makes me whole,
Guides into the paths of peace;
He revives my fainting soul,
Stablishes in righteousness;
Who for me vouchsafed to die,
Loves me still, - I know not why!Unappalled by guilty fear,
Through the mortal vale I go;
My eternal Life is near;
Thee my Life in death I know;
Bless thy chastening, cheering rod,
Die into the arms of God!Till that welcome hour I see,
Thou before my foes dost feed;
Bidd'st me sit and feast with thee,
Pour'st thy oil upon my head;
Giv'st me all I ask, and more,
Mak'st my cup of joy run o'er.Love divine shall still embrace,
Love shall keep me to the end;
Surely all my happy days
I shall in thy temple spend,
Till I to thy house remove,
Thy eternal house above!Posted by Richard @ 11:05 PM BST [Link]
With Pentecost almost with us, the WikiWord of the Day is The Holy Spirit. Add your thoughts!
Posted by Richard @ 09:37 AM BST [Link]
At a meeting tonight I heard an interpretation of the "Parable of the Pounds" (Luke 19: 11-27) I don't think I've ever come across before.
The commentator pointed out that this parable is almost certainly based on the history of Herod Archelaus, who became King of Judea in 4BC following the death of Herod the Great. In itself, this is nothing new. William Barclay said as much in his commentary on Luke, first published almost exactly 50 years ago. So we're not talking about cutting edge modern scholarship.
No, the surprise comes in what this is taken to mean. If the nobleman of the parable is based on Archelaus, then he is an evil despot, not a model for God. Similarly, the rewarded servants are not heroes -- the service they have rendered has been to a tyrant. Notice, says my commentator (whose name I missed, alas) that the King asks the third servant why he did not put the money in the bank where it would earn interest. Lending at interest was strictly forbidden to the Israelites. The third servant, condemned by the king, is actually the hero of the piece because he is numbered among those who stand up for justice against the ruler and suffers the consequences. Whereas we usually "spiritualise this parable, saying it's about all the gifts and skills we have, my commentator wonders, "What if it really is about money? What if it does what it says on the tin?" In this light it becomes a story which points us towards resistance and suffering rather than the usual encouragement to make as much as we can of what we have.
It's a surprising interpretation -- shocking, even -- but it is borne out by the context of the parable which, it is said, was told because they thought "the Kingdom of God was going to appear immediately". According to this reading, the parable is another warning to disciples of Jesus that the powers and systems of this world are not going to fade out anytime soon and that standing up to them is not a pain-free option.I'm still not sure what to make of this interpretation, but it's a reminder to me to read what the scriptures actually say, rather than what I think they say. The temptation when reading this parable in Luke is to assume that it means the same thing as a similar story in Matthew. And it may not.
Letting the Bible speak for itself is not always easy. But it is always vital.
Update: I see that Ian has had a look at Matthew's version of this parable. Spooky.
Posted by Richard @ 12:16 AM BST [Link]
Monday, June 2, 2003
A new ehibition has opened at the British Library to display the Lindisfarne Gospels, one of the great treasures of Britain's Christian heritage
It was probably made between 715 and 720, in the island monastery of Lindisfarne. It is the work of a very gifted artist who merged words and images to create a beautiful, enduring symbol of faith.I certainly hope to arrange a visit, but whether you can get there or not the website is well worth your time.
The monastery at Lindisfarne was founded by Irish monks in 635. It lies off the coast of the former Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria (NE England). Although remote, it was certainly not cut off culturally. The Lindisfarne Gospels reflect many influences: native British, Celtic, Germanic, Roman, Early Christian, Byzantine, North African and Middle Eastern.Posted by Richard @ 11:03 AM BST [Link]
Sunday, June 1, 2003
Robin Cook, former British Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons
"In the real world, governments make mistakes, but what they must never do is try to deny and cover up these mistakes."
Mr Cook went on to say that the UN weapons inspectors must return to Iraq to establish that Saddam did not have the capacity for weapons of mass destruction which would justify an invasion.
Clare Short, former International Development Secretary"The claim the stuff was weaponised and might be used in 45 minutes was part of the secret commitment to a date, which meant everything had to be hurried along," she told BBC One's Politics Show, saying that she believed Mr Blair had secretly agreed the date for war with US President George Bush last September.
Michael Howard, the Shadow Chancellor"If... the government engaged in deception in order to gain public support or get the support of the Labour Party for this war, that would be an immensely serious matter going to the heart of the integrity of our government."(It's worth noting that British Tories supported the government's action in Iraq.
Tony BlairMr Blair said: "Over the coming weeks and months we will assemble this evidence (of WMD) and then we will give it to people. And I have no doubt whatever that the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be there. Absolutely," he said. "Those people who are sitting there saying: 'Oh, it's all going to be proved to be a great big fib got out by the security services, there will be no weapons of mass destruction' - just wait, and have a little patience."
[More]I don't know where this is going, but it was hard to avoid smiling at a comment I heard on the radio:
"WMD = Words of Mass Deception"Whatever the truth of all this, if it's ever known, there will be egg on a lot of faces when it comes out.
Posted by Richard @ 11:49 PM BST [Link]
The WikiWord of the Day is Mission.
Posted by Richard @ 05:46 PM BST [Link]
Donny raises the issue of tacky "Christian" merchandise. It reminds of a magazine I used to read as a teenager, which once ran an advertisement for "Charismatic arm rests". The blurb said something like Praise God and never grow weary with this inspired new invention - provides support for those long worship sessions The picture showed a worshipper with raised arms,a sort of yoke across his shoulders, his arms resting on it.
It was an April Fools' joke of course.But that didn't stop people sending in their orders.
Posted by Richard @ 03:09 PM BST [Link]
Flooding in Sri Lanka worst since 1947, killing around 280 people and maling at least 175,000 others homeless, according to Christian Aid partner National Christian Council of Sri Lanka (NCC).
A new report predicts a busy hurricane season for the USA
Sunniest, wettest, snowiest... don't tell me the wether isn't being peculiar.
Posted by Richard @ 07:53 AM BST [Link]
I almost missed this Thought for the Day for Ascension - better late than never!
Religion can do nothing for us if doesn’t save us from ourselves. If God is too intimate, too wound up with my story, our needs, my people’s suffering, our rights, then religious allegiance becomes no more than disguised egoism, a reason to defend ourselves and batter away at others who are different. This does us no good at all.The hymns of Ascension tide speak of Christ conquering death and sin. They are almost irresponsibly cheerful, as though from God’s point of view the sin and the misery we inflict on one another are not the last word. There is something more important than the news agenda and that is the good news.
