home | board | compass | prayer | eCard

Weblog Archives: September 2003

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

I don't know whether this is "art", but it is certainly intriguing - and curiously compelling. Police Radio is an online radio station which combines music (chosen by police officers), interviews and "fly on the wall" documentary featuring the Merseyside Police service. It's all pre-recorded of course, and apparently the time you log-on will match the time the stuff was recorded. If you want to know what British Police Officers talk about on duty, this is one place to find out.

According to the artist responsible for the project, the only censorship is of Police swearing and the addresses of interviewed suspects. You'll need Real player installed, and a working knowledge of Scouse slang might be useful.

Posted by Richard @ 11:24 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

IreneQ has been feeling discouraged but has found that there's hope yet. Even in mess and apparent immobility.

My walk with God has never ever looked like a straight line. Backwards, forwards, up and down, stops and starts, yes, but never straightforward exponential progress. It's something I used to worry about, especially when preachers say things like, "If you're not moving forward, you're backsliding already! There's no such thing as being stagnant when it comes to the Christian life!" Eek!

Eek! indeed. Preachers take warning - sometimes the things we say intending to encourage can be heard very negatively.

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

Which is the 'Best' version of the Bible?

Last night I wrote a few words which amounted to "Read The Bible". One possible response might be, "Yes -- but which one?" There are a bewildering number of versions doing the rounds and no shortage of advice about which is the best one. So allow me to add to your confusion!

There are so many different versions of the Bible available that choosing one can be a problem, especially if you are new to faith.

There are still many Christians, old and young, who will have nothing other than the so-called King James Version, first published in 1611. I am not among them. There are times when the beauty of its language has a claim on us, but it is not a translation for everyday use. Its language is simply too far removed from modern speech for its meaning to be plain - believe me, 99 times out of 100, you'll do better with a modern translation.

A very popular modern translation is the New International Version. I often use it myself, but it is important to realise that sometimes its wording is chosen because of the doctrinal position of the translators rather than what is the best rendering of the original text. The same may also be said of the New Jerusalem Bible, a Roman Catholic translation. (It's always worth bearing in mind that in a real sense all translation is also interpretation, so comparison of different versions is no bad thing for study purposes.

For reading aloud the Good News Bible is hard to beat. Its language is clear and contemporary; technical terms are avoided as much as possible. Every English-speaking Christian should have one. I've also come to enjoy the New Living Translation, although it doesn't have the same place in my affections as the GNB.

For serious study I favour the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. If you wanted an unreserved recommendation, NRSV would be it.

The best advice I can give is to use more than one version. Most translations are available in inexpensive editions. Get several. Enjoy!

Posted by Richard @ 09:33 AM BST [Link] [6 comments]

Monday, September 29, 2003

One way or another, I've been involved in lots of conversations recently about the Bible and how we read it. When Christians disagree, very often the "nub" amounts to a diiferent way of reading the scriptures. There are many approaches to the Bible, but not all of them are helpful. What is needed is an approach that treats the Bible with the utmost seriousness but does not attempt to make it into something that it isn't. I'm not claiming to have a "final answer", but I thought it might be helpful if I shared a few thoughts on this important subject.

I suppose the first question we need to answer is, "What does the Bible say about itself?" The most obvious verse that 'springs to mind' is 2 Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instructions for right living"

This is the 'proof text' that is sometimes used to justify the view of the Bible as inerrant. But if we take the Bible seriously, is that what it actually says? I say this for several reasons. Let's look through the verse and see:

1. "Scripture" to Timothy would have meant the books of what we now call the Old Testament and maybe some others usually included in what is called the Apocrypha. The books of the New Testament (including 2 Timothy!) were only just being written and were not accepted as "scripture" for some time.

2. "... inspired by God" is a translation of 1 Greek word which is used here but nowhere else in the New Testament, the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha or indeed classical Greek. It is a compound word literally meaning "God-breathed", but what does that mean? It is an enormous assumption to leap from 'inspiration' to 'infallibility', and to me it is an unreasonable one.

3. "Useful" is hardly a word calculated to suggest inerrancy. This is a word which is used elsewhere in the New Testament, in 1 Timothy 4:8 and in Titus 3:8 and in both cases is translated as "useful", "of some value" or "profitable" depending upon which version you read. In fact, in 1 Timothy 4:8 it is used twice with degrees, "useful" and "more useful". This is a long way short of the sort of infallibity to which some Christians cling.

In short, the Bible is inspired by God, of the utmost value to anyone who wants to live according to the will of God but it should not be read as an infallible "guide to everything". Taking the Bible seriously means reading what it says, not what we want it to say and it is clear that the scriptures themselves do not claim infallibility. This is my first rule in the use of the Bible - it should teach us, not the other way around! It is very easy to come to the Bible knowing what it says, and finding ourselves confirmed by it. It is much more challenging to read it and allow the scriptures to speak for themselves.

My second rule is related to the first, and is simply stated: Read the Bible! Nothing controversial there, but it is surprising how few Christians do read the Bible for themselves. You will want to listen to what others have said about the Bible in sermons, devotional books and commentaries, but there is no substitute for turning the pages for yourself. How and when you do, for how long and how often - these are not matters for rules. Just read it!

My third rule is read in fellowship with others. Remember that the Bible arises from the Church, the gathered people of God. It is in the Church that the meaning of the Bible is authentically discovered and, barring extreme circumstances, you will need to be in fellowship with a Church community to really grow in understanding of the scriptures.

Lastly, don't jump to conclusions. Sometimes it is tempting to take just one verse, or perhaps even a few, and make a hasty decision about what they mean. People have been known to build great edifices of doctrine on just one or two verses, and it is always a mistake.

Posted by Richard @ 10:52 PM BST [Link] [3 comments]

Real Life Preacher discovered today that there are times when a Post-It note outdoes a fancy PDA. Like when you forget to charge the battery.
I find it ironic, if that's the word I'm looking for, because almost exactly the same thing happened to me this morning. Only my PDA is a slightly-less-fancy Handspring Visor. As always, the Preacher comes up with an insightful reflection on this state of affairs.

I'm all for the gadgets, don't get me wrong. I love em. I just don't turn my back on the old stuff either. Know what I mean?
Funny. Now that I think of it, it might be that same impulse that keeps me nosing around in the bible, looking for something this modern world cannot give me.

Posted by Richard @ 06:47 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

Just before his execution, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote:

Christ helps us, not by virtue of his omnipotence, but by virtue of his weakness and suffering. Only the suffering God can help ... man is summoned to share in God's sufferings at the hands of a godless world.

Posted by Richard @ 12:51 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

Those of a sensitive disposition should avert your eyes.

I had a conversation this morning that eventually turned (and who knows how?) to the times we've opened our mouths and had the wrong thing come out. One participant in the chat had in the past worked as a "sexual health outreach worker". S/he told us how s/he'd once been at a meeting of Anglican priests to talk about the work and had been asked about some of the issues that had been raised by a group of young people. S/he'd replied: "Should homosexuals be allowed to enter the clergy?"

!

Posted by Richard @ 12:49 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

looking back...looking forward offers a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 13. My favourite line?

If I could speak five hundred different languages - from English to Urdu and everything in between - or even if I could speak the languages of the stars... if I did not use those languages to speak of love, my voice would sound like a cat-fight outside my bedroom window at 3am.

Read it all

Posted by Richard @ 07:31 AM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

Sunday, September 28, 2003

As a hurricane approaches Nova Scotia, Bene Diction recalls being on a boat in the tail end of a hurricane

I was on a ferry out of Bar Harbour Maine, heading to the province when the tale end of a hurricane hit. Waves were so high they washed over the ferry....crew and the few passengers huddled in the lounge with barf bags. We went under a few times and didn't think we were coming back up. I haven't been on a boat since.

I've always thought that there was something unnatural about boats.

Posted by Richard @ 10:04 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

A brief thought on Prayer

How and why should we pray? It seems to me that lots of Christians are beset with problems about their prayers. They wonder why they don't get the answers they are looking for. They feel guilty because they've heard it suggested that the failure of their prayer is their own fault. They aren't praying earnestly enough, they don't have enough faith, their motives are unworthy. The "Prayer of Jabez" phenomenon is indicative of a belief in a "mechanical" approach to prayer - turn the handle the right number of times, at the correct speed and your desire will be met from the little slot at the bottom.

Our thinking about prayer is often focussed on results - what we will get as a result of our prayers. So you find books on "effective praying" which offer all kinds of hints and tips on the proper techniques. Using the right words, adopting the correct posture and repeating the procedure at the proper intervals will all (allegedly) play a part in twisting the Almighty's arm and make sure he gives the right answer. Getting what you want is the outcome you want from prayer.

But all this is missing the point. Prayer is not a problem to be solved, nor is it a technique to be learned. Prayer is a relationship to be entered into. True friendships are not forged on the basis of what good the other will be able to do you. Friendships exist for their own sake. They are a good end in themselves. We do not pray to God because of what we expect him to do for us. We pray because of who he is, the eternal Father who loves us beyond our understanding and who longs for us to respond to him.

Being focussed on "technique" and "results" in prayer is all about being in control, clinging on to a sense of self-determination and pride. But at best, prayer is the opposite of those things for it means letting go of ourselves and acknowledging our weakness and helplessness. We come to God, not as skilled negotiators or clever bargainers. We come as little children to our daddy.

Posted by Richard @ 08:37 PM BST [Link] [4 comments]

Saturday, September 27, 2003

I ought not to need reminding of this, but I'm grateful to Clarity Amid Chaos for the timely words

you cannot please God any more than you do right now. Man, that one is tough for me.
But it's true. The Bible says He loves you with a perfect love. And perfect means perfect. It can't get more perfect, because then the prior love wouldn't have been perfect. capisca?
when you embrace and dwell in the spiritual reality that God is satisfied with you because His Son dwells within you, only then will you be freed to live the life God has designed for you.
There's no doubt this is a faith trial to live in the spiritual reality of God's unconditional acceptance of you as a sinner in need of reconciliation. In a world that says screams "do more! Do it better! do it faster! do it cheaper! Do it differently! and do it two days ago!" it can be very hard to feel like God's unmerited favor rests upon you.
just remember...God's favor isn't based on you.

it's based on Him.

You can read the whole piece here. I'm going back to read it again.

Posted by Richard @ 11:52 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

According to this quiz, I am a "musical thinker". Like Mozart and Jimi Hendrix.

Only not so thoughtful, obviously.

Posted by Richard @ 11:25 PM BST [Link] [2 comments]

This "postmodern" onlinestudy of the prophet Amos is well worth having a look at. It's a fascinating example of the way that the web might be used to organise study material. (All it needs is a wiki to enable users to contribute in the same non-linear way) It looks to me like a site that you'll want to spend some time with.

Thanks to Randy McRoberts for turning this one up.

Posted by Richard @ 05:46 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

I found this story, about the row over a US high school student's attempt to set up a "caucasian club", fascinating. She says she has no racist intentions and seems bewildered about the fuss she has caused."Without a Caucasian club things at school are kind of segregated and I think if we have a Caucasian club it will go along with the rest of the race clubs so the school might be a little bit more diverse." At best that seems naive -- but then, I'm one of naivete's biggest fans. The final decision about the club rests with the school Principal, and that seems entirely proper to me. It seems to me that this is one instance where a person in authority has to weigh the thing in the balance and make a decision. But the student in the story (and, incidentally, her mother) threatens the use of litigation if the decision does not go her way. I've got no idea whether such a case would ever get to court in California, but it does seem to me to be another instance of legal action being used entirely inappropriately. There's a lesson for the student to learn here: sometimes those in authority make decisions we don't agree with. We can discus, argue, lobby and cajole but in the end some decisions have to be lived with. That's why we pay people to make them. Those with the authority of a School Principal won't always be right, and they'll be agreed with even less. But to challenge their authority in a courtroom is no trivial matter. Even the threat of it is corrosive of the community.

And it rarely benefits anyone but lawyers.

Posted by Richard @ 02:26 PM BST [Link] [4 comments]

The final installment from the series of extracts from the writing of John Wesley. This one comes from his sermon UPON OUR LORD'S SERMON ON THE MOUNT (VIII), taking the text Matt. 6:19-23. This is a bit longer than the others I've quoted - it's one of my favourite bits.

Therefore, "lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal." If you do, it is plain your eye is evil; it is not singly fixed on God.

With regard to most of the commandments of God, whether relating to the heart or life, the Heathens of Africa or America stand much on a level with those that are called Christians. The Christians observe them (a few only being excepted) very near as much as the Heathens. For instance: the generality of the natives of England, commonly called Christians, are as sober and as temperate as the generality of the heathens near the Cape of Good Hope. And so the Dutch or French Christians are as humble and as chaste as the Choctaw or Cherokee Indians. It is not easy to say, when we compare the bulk of the nations in Europe with those in America, whether the superiority lies on the one side or the other. At least the American has not much the advantage. But we cannot affirm this with regard to the command now before us. Here the heathen has far the pre-eminence. He desires and seeks nothing more than plain food to eat and plain raiment to put on. And he seeks this only from day to day. He reserves, he lays up nothing; unless it be as much corn at one season of the year as he will need before that season returns. This command, therefore, the heathens, though they know it not, do constantly and punctually observe. They "lay up for themselves no treasures upon earth;" no stores of purple or fine linen, of gold or silver, which either "moth or rust may corrupt", or "thieves break through and steal." But how do the Christians observe what they profess to receive as a command of the most high God? Not at all! Not in any degree; no more than if no such command had ever been given to man. Even the good Christians, as they are accounted by others as well as themselves, pay no manner of regard thereto. It might as well be still hid in its original Greek for any notice they take of it. In what Christian city do you find one man of five hundred who makes the least scruple of laying up just as much treasure as he can? -- of increasing his goods just as far as he is able? There are indeed those who would not do this unjustly; there are many who will neither rob nor steal; and some who will not defraud their neighbour; nay, who will not gain either by his ignorance or necessity. But this is quite another point. Even these do not scruple the thing, but the manner of it. They do not scruple the "laying up treasures upon earth," but the laying them up by dishonesty. They do not start at disobeying Christ, but at a breach of heathen morality. So that even these honest men do no more obey this command than a highwayman or a house-breaker. Nay, they never designed to obey it. From their youth up it never entered into their thoughts. They were bred up by their Christian parents, masters, and friends, without any instruction at all concerning it; unless it were this, -- to break it as soon and as much as they could, and to continue breaking it to their lives' end.

There is no one instance of spiritual infatuation in the world which is more amazing than this. Most of these very men read or hear the Bible read, -- many of them every Lord's day. They have read or heard these words an hundred times, and yet never suspect that they are themselves condemned thereby, any more than by those which forbid parents to offer up their sons or daughters unto Moloch. O that God would speak to these miserable self-deceivers with his own voice, his mighty voice! That they may at last awake out of the snare of the devil, and the scales may fall from their eyes!

I ran this series of quotations in response to something I read claiming Wesley as an advocate of capitalism. I hope that there has been sufficient material here to indicate that at the very least that claim needs significant qualification. John Wesley believed that his mission was the spread of scriptural holiness. His economic model was the Pentecostal community described in Acts chapter 2 and his economic goal was always the welfare of the poor. His view of private property was heavily modified from the conventional by a view of stewardship which prevents any talk of "my goods".

I have to make two admissions. Wesley's economic ethics were only proposed for the Christian church. This is not economic theory in any conventional sense. Secondly, it has to be admitted that Wesley failed in persuading the Methodist people to accept his economic model and he made his own contribution to that failure. Even so, I believe that wesley has an enduring and urgent relevance. Many Christians applaud capitalism because "it works" -- for them. Wesley would ask, "Does it work for others?" The system we live live, that has delivered our precious consumer goods to us so efficiently is believed by many to be the root cause of the death of millions of innocents to poverty and disease. At the very least, it has failed to address the plight of the poor with urgency. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom as "good news to the poor". Can his Church claim as much?

Posted by Richard @ 08:15 AM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

Friday, September 26, 2003

What time is it?

Thanks to Andrew Careaga for pointing out this bit of pointless fun.

Posted by Richard @ 12:13 PM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

Part 6 of this week's series from the writings of John Wesley

We "charge" you, therefore, "who are rich in this world," as having authority from our great Lord and Master, agathoergein, -- to be habitually doing good, to live in a course of good works. "Be ye merciful as your Father which is in heaven is merciful;" who doth good, and ceaseth not. "Be ye merciful," -- how far? After your power, with all the ability which God giveth. Make this your only measure of doing good, not any beggarly maxims or customs of the world. We charge you to "be rich in good works;" as you have much, to give plenteously. "Freely ye have received; freely give;" so as to lay up no treasure but in heaven. Be ye "ready to distribute" to everyone according to his necessity. Disperse abroad, give to the poor: deal your bread to the hungry. Cover the naked with a garment, entertain the stranger, carry or send relief to them that are in prison. Heal the sick; not by miracle, but through the blessing of God upon your seasonable support. Let the blessing of him that was ready to perish through pining want come upon thee. Defend the oppressed, plead the cause of the fatherless, and make the widow's heart sing for joy.

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

A quick jog in blogland at bedtime...

Bene Diction is riled by jokes about French heat-related deaths this summer. And I'm bound to agree. The summer heat this summer was as extraordinary as a flash flood or tidal wave. I don't see any justification for making that a source of humour.

Darren wants your thoughts on running a course on "alternative worship".

Richard B. has rediscovered a gift from his wife and learned an important lesson to boot.

mike todd quotes Einstein:

The world is a dangerous place to live;
not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don't do anything about it.

File that under "Things i wish I'd said".

Randy McRoberts says "It's an adventure." Indeed it is - and it can be frightening.

Mystic Matt wonders Whatever happened to community?

I guess it amazes me that we all share the same space, and yet have such little sense of community. We very rarely take the time to get to really know each other. We're all so busy trying to make ends meet that we don't really get to know the other people that we share this world with. It's really a shame...

And so to bed...

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

Thursday, September 25, 2003

Happy Birthday Wood

Posted by Richard @ 12:36 PM BST [Link] [1 Comment]

Fifth in our seies of quotations from John Wesley on the subject of wealth

From: CAUSES OF THE INEFFICACY OF CHRISTIANITY

But why is self-denial in general so little practised at present among the Methodists? Why is so exceedingly little of it to be found even in the oldest and largest societies? The more I observe and consider things, the more clearly it appears what is the cause of this in London, in Bristol, in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Leeds, in Dublin, in Cork. The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; ("tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!") yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.

But how astonishing a thing is this! How can we understand it? Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true scriptural Christianity, has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself? For wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which, in the natural course of things, must beget riches! And riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. Now, if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.

Posted by Richard @ 12:07 PM BST [Link] [2 comments]

the return of the Prodigal Son


Sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words.

Posted by Richard @ 12:23 AM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

Wednesday, September 24, 2003

Part the fourth of this week's daily quotations from the writings of John Wesley.

A note on Acts 2:45
And sold their possessions - Their lands and houses; and goods - Their movables. And parted them to all as any one had need - To say the Christians did this only till the destruction of Jerusalem, is not true; for many did it long after. Not that there was any positive command for so doing: it needed not; for love constrained them. It was a natural fruit of that love wherewith each member of the community loved every other as his own soul. And if the whole Christian Church had continued in this spirit, this usage must have continued through all ages. To affirm therefore that Christ did not design it should continue, is neither more nor less than to affirm, that Christ did not design this measure of love should continue. I see no proof of this.

On Acts 4:32-34
And the multitude of them that believed - Every individual person were of one heart and one soul - Their love, their hopes, their passions joined: and not so much as one - In so great a multitude: this was a necessary consequence of that union of heart; said that aught of the things which he had was his own - It is impossible any one should, while all were of one soul. So long as that truly Christian love continued, they could not but have all things common.
And great grace - A large measure of the inward power of the Holy Ghost, was upon them all - Directing all their thoughts, words, and actions.
For neither was there any one among them that wanted - We may observe, this is added as the proof that great grace was upon them all. And it was the immediate, necessary consequence of it: yea, and must be to the end of the world. In all ages and nations, the same cause, the same degree of grace, could not but in like circumstances produce the same effect. For whosoever were possessors of houses and lands sold them - Not that there was any particular command for this; but there was great grace and great love: of which this was the natural fruit.

Posted by Richard @ 08:21 AM BST [Link] [Make a Comment]

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Having been involved in a conversation or two about our use of the Bible, I remembered an article by Pastor Craig Adams of Weidman United Methodist Church, Michigan. Here's an extract:

The scriptures ought to be interpreted according to their original intent and their actual form. To understand them otherwise is to proceed from mistaken assumptions. Should such an approach be dignified with the word "literal"? Literal meaning should not be seen as something other than the actual historical meaning.

It is precisely the critical scholar who takes the Bible literally. Rather than seeking to make everything in the Bible conform to some preconceived idea of its nature and inspiration, the critical method seeks to understand. At best, the critical approach is an attempt to inductively discover the nature and meaning of the scriptures from themselves and their own history; rather than imposing on the scriptures an a priori theology.

[Read the whole article]

Posted by Richard @ 04:27 PM BST [Link]

After getting a soaking, Simple Green contemplates cycling to work naked.

I empathize, but urge restraint. It isn't safe to ride without a helmet.

Posted by Richard @ 03:07 PM BST [Link]

Continuing this week's quotes from the works of John Wesley on wealth and its use.

From On Worldly Folly

"What shall I do?" And is not the answer ready? Do good. Do all the good thou canst. Let thy plenty supply thy neighbour's wants; and thou wilt never want something to do. Canst thou find none that need the necessaries of life, that are pinched with cold or hunger; none that have not raiment to put on, or a place where to lay their head; none that are wasted with pining sickness; none that are languishing in prison? If you duly considered our Lord's words, "The poor have you always with you," you would no more ask, "What shall I do?"

First of all, endeavour to be deeply sensible of thy danger; and make it matter of earnest and constant prayer, that thou mayest never lose that sense of it. Pray that thou mayest always feel thyself standing on the brink of a precipice. Meantime, let the language of thy heart be, "Having more means, I will do more good, by the grace of God, than ever I did before. All the additional goods which it hath pleased God to put into my hands, I am resolved to lay out, with all diligence, in additional works of mercy. And hereby I shall 'lay up for myself a sure foundation, that I may attain eternal life.' "
...

Thou no longer talkest of thy goods, or thy fruits, knowing they are not thine, but God's. The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof: He is the Proprietor of heaven and earth. He cannot divest himself of his glory; he must be the Lord, the possessor, of all that is. Only he hath left a portion of his goods in thy hands, for such uses as he has specified. How long he will be pleased to lodge them with thee, thou dost not yet know; perhaps only till to-morrow, or to-night. Therefore talk not, think not, of many years. Knowest thou not, that thou art a creature of a day, that is crushed before the moth; that the breath which is in thy nostrils may be taken away at a moment's warning; that it may be resumed by him that gave it, at a time thou thinkest not of it? How knowest thou but, the next time thou liest down on thy bed, thou mayest hear, "This night shall thy soul be required of thee?"

Posted by Richard @ 07:13 AM BST [Link]

Monday, September 22, 2003

Bene Diction reports a Neilsen survey that says that "6 out of 10 Americans believe that fast food is responsible for the obesity problem in the US". furthermore, a restaurant in Seattle is obliging customers to sign a waiver before serving them certain delicacies:

"I will not impose any sort of obesity-related lawsuit against the 5 Spot or consider any similar type of frivolous legislation created by a hungry trial lawyer," the release says. After a diner signs it, a waiter hauls out a sugarcoated, deep-fried, ice cream-swaddled, caramel-drizzled, whipped-cream- anointed banana.

"We thought, what can we do to illustrate how stupid it is to make restaurants responsible for monitoring the eating habits of Americans?" 5 Spot co-owner Peter Levy said. "We came up with the most fattening and delicious dessert we could think of."

Hmmmm...

It is pretty obvious that food companies don't bear all the blame for obesity. Nobody holds a gun to their customerss heads and makes them buy, right? But there is certainly some corporate responsibility here. Those who manufacture, advertise and sell high fat, high sugar "food" have a responsibility to their customers which can't be lightly ignored. Lawsuits are not the answer. Maybe putting people before profit is.

Posted by Richard @ 11:04 PM BST [Link]

Martin Roth wonders, "Should I Consult Christian Leaders before I Berate Them?"

I don’t feel uncomfortable about criticising their public pronouncements, here on my website (which attracts just a minuscule fraction of the numbers of readers who are exposed to these leaders’ press releases in the mainstream media).
 
Nevertheless, I’m starting to think that as a matter of courtesy I should have consulted them. What does anyone else think?

My short answer would be: No. Not if their pronouncements had been made for public consumption. The value of blogging is its immediacy -- also its weakness, but that's another issue -- and that would be lost if private consultation had to occur before comment could be made. Of course, there's no excuse for a lack of charity in our blogging, whether towards leaders or anyone else. But I don't suppose anyone would be accusing our friend Martin of that.

I do try to make a point of telling other bloggers if I'm responding critically to something that they've written because to do anything else is (to me) like talking behind someone's back.

Posted by Richard @ 06:09 PM BST [Link]

I've never considered teaching my children at home, despite earnest pleas from some that I should. I've always been content that the teaching staff at our excellent local primary school will do nothing to devalue or undermine the teaching being given at home. Teachers have assured me more than once that a child's ability to succeed in school has more more to do with what goes on at home than in the classroom and a good partnership between parents and teachers is the best basis for education. I've always accepted that without question.

Today my faith in the school has been shaken to its foundations. Ruth has come home with the first real evidence that the school is prepared to challenge my authority and lead her away from the path that I would choose for her. Don't they understand that this is a God-fearing household, with strong views and firm moral principles? We play tin whistles here - simple, righteous instruments with neither more nor less than 6 holes. Call me old-fashioned. call me conservative. Call me a fundamentalist even. But it's my choice, and it's what I want for my family. It is my right and duty to bring my children up as I see fit, according to my principles.

So why has she come home with a recorder in her bag?

Posted by Richard @ 04:17 PM BST [Link]

Continuing with extracts from the writings of John Wesley on the subject of "wealth".

From "The Good Steward"

The Lord of all will next inquire, "How didst thou employ the worldly goods which I lodged in thy hands? Didst thou use thy food, not so as to seek or place thy happiness therein, but so as to preserve thy body in health, in strength and vigour, a fit instrument for the soul? Didst thou use apparel, not to nourish pride or vanity, much less to tempt others to sin, but conveniently and decently to defend thyself from the injuries of the weather? Didst thou prepare and use thy house, and all other conveniences, with a single eye to my glory -- in every point seeking not thy own honour, but mine; studying to please, not thyself, but me? Once more: in what manner didst thou employ that comprehensive talent, money? -- not in gratifying the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, or the pride of life; not squandering it away in vain expenses -- the same as throwing it into the sea; not hoarding it up to leave behind thee -- the same as burying it in the earth; but first supplying thy own reasonable wants, together with those of thy family; then restoring the remainder to me, through the poor, whom I had appointed to receive it; looking upon thyself as only one of that number of poor, whose wants were to be supplied out of that part of my substance which I had placed in thy hands for this purpose; leaving thee the right of being supplied first, and the blessedness of giving rather than receiving? Wast thou accordingly a general benefactor to mankind? Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the sick, assisting the stranger, relieving the afflicted, according to their various necessities? Wast thou eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame, a father to the fatherless, and an husband to the widow? And didst thou labour to improve all outward works of mercy, as means of saving souls from death?"

Posted by Richard @ 10:23 AM BST [Link]

Sunday, September 21, 2003

From The Independent:

The Government has been accused of "caving in" to the United States and big business after leaked letters revealed it plans to support the commercial growing of genetically modified crops in Europe.

A five-year moratorium on the commercial use of GM technology in Europe, which has been a bone of contention between the EU and America, ends next year. Although the results of GM crop trials in Britain are not due to be published until next month, the letters reveal the Government is prepared to back moves in Brussels to ban GM-free zones and allow the "co-existence" of GM with conventional crops.

[Read More...]

Posted by Richard @ 11:41 PM BST [Link]

From Amnesty International

Amnesty International is deeply concerned for the safety of 57 boy and girl members of minority Christian churches being held in metal shipping containers at Sawa military camp in western Eritrea.

The children - detained for possession of bibles - are being held in unventilated, overcrowded and extremely hot conditions, with inadequate food and medical care. Amnesty International is calling for their immediate and unconditional release. [more]

Posted by Richard @ 03:29 PM BST [Link]

Mawkish ... sentimental ... execrable?
Or a brilliant hymn for a secular age?
What do you think of John Lennon's Imagine?

I enjoyed hearing this interview yesterday on the BBC's Today programme and thought I'd share it.

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

Each day this week I'm going to post something from the writings of John Wesley on the subject of a Christian understanding of wealth. I'm not doing this because I think Wesley is infallible (O no!) but because I think he has a contribution to make to some of the conversations I've been involved in lately.

We'll begin with a couple of extracts which reveal what Wesley meant by riches.

From On the danger of increasing riches

"A person of note, hearing a sermon preached upon this subject several years since, between surprise and indignation broke out aloud, "Why does he talk about riches here? There is no rich man at Whitehaven, but Sir James L----r." And it is true there was none but he that had forty thousand pounds a year, and some millions in ready money. But a man may be rich that has not a hundred a year, nor even one thousand pounds in cash. Whosoever has food to eat, and raiment to put on, with something over, is rich."

From The Wisdom of God's Counsels

"By riches I mean, not thousands of pounds, but any more than will procure the conveniences of life. Thus I account him a rich man who has food and raiment for himself and family, without running into debt, and something over. And how few are there in these circumstances who are not hurt, if not destroyed, thereby? Yet who takes warning?"

Posted by Richard @ 08:07 AM BST [Link]

Saturday, September 20, 2003

Josh Claybourn has an interesting piece headed Christian Economics Again. It won't surprise anyone that I don't agree with him, but it's a good article and I commend it to you. What particularly "lit my candle" was this bit:

Christians begin their economic theory with an assumption about human nature. The Bible declares that man is sinful (Romans 3:23) and Christians (and many non-Christians for that matter) believe this fact is crucial to economic theory. Another Biblical (and generally universal) principle - the concept of justice - plays an important role for the Christian as well.

I do agree with him that justice should be central to a "Christian economics". It begs the question, though -- what is "justice"? A proper answer needs an extensive essay that I don't have the time to write and that you wouldn't read if I did. But there's no harm in my "dipping a toe in the water".

Most often, when we think of justice we have "getting what you deserve" in mind. It isn't hard to find Biblical material to support such an understanding, so I'll concede that it's there and spare you a long list of texts. There is more to God's justice than what we might call "just deserts". Justice also includes the mercy and grace of God. We see this in the prayer of David (Psalm 51) in which he acknowledges his depravity and seeks undeserved forgiveness. According to Isaiah (Isaiah 45:21), God is just and a saviour. It is not that he is just and yet a saviour: He is just and therefore a saviour. As God gives justice to his people, so his people are called to seek justice in the world, especially for the poor and needy (Jer 22:16).

The concept of justice in the Bible has grace at its heart, but since it is an attribute of God this should not surprise us. Whether Christians are capable of developing and arguing for an economics which has this kind of justice in central place remains to be seen.

What is certain is that we are nowhere near it yet.

Posted by Richard @ 10:46 PM BST [Link]

I've just returned from the local "Civic Amenity Site" -- the Council tip in plain English. It's amazing how many bags of garden waste a wife can collect in an hour with loppers and secateurs. So there I am, emptying my sacks into the skip when I notice a snail on a branch in there. I'm not one to anthropomorphize, but if a snail can look contented, this one did. Life can't get much better for a snail, surrounded by a plentiful and growing food supply.

It'll be great while it lasts. Of course, the snail doesn't realise he's about to be put through a mechanical shredder and then composted but for now he's happy.

It seemed like a little parable to me.

Posted by Richard @ 04:06 PM BST [Link]

Friday, September 19, 2003

Thanks to Simple Green I found this online comic The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus. I hesitated slightly before posting, because I know there are some who will regard this as confirmation of my reputation a liberal commie blasphemer. If you feel that way, don't rush to judgement on the first few frames. Read it all before you make your mind up. Please.

And look me in the eye and tell me the 'eye of the needle' frame didn't make you laugh out loud.

Posted by Richard @ 04:28 PM BST [Link]

See.

Jesus was right.

For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Posted by Richard @ 03:02 PM BST [Link]

Liberal media? What liberal media>

For months leading up this year's war on Iraq, the Bush administration strongly suggested that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The argument was well received by Americans, and might have been the single leading factor behind public support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. So when President George Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was "no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings.

[Read More...]

Thanks to the Gutless Pacifist

Posted by Richard @ 09:27 AM BST [Link]

Even at the height of Margaret Thatcher's reign, Brent East was one of Labour's safest constituencies. It was unthinkable that any other party would represent it in Parliament. Yesterday's victory by the Lib-Dem's will be giving Tony Blair real pause for thought.

Posted by Richard @ 07:54 AM BST [Link]

Richard Bott is blogging up a storm at the minute with some really good stuff. A rabbi asks Christians not to use the name of God. A heartfelt plea, and one which echoes what I was taught when studying the Old Testament. Of course, I should have said "Hebrew Bible". Part of his life story reveals why he has such strong views on hatred against homosexuals -- and why you should too. A college paper on same-sex unions is interesting too, though it isn't up for debate. For that, I don't blame him. Every conversation I've ever been in on this issue has generated far more heat than light. He does remind me that I once wrote a short paper on this very subject. Wonder if I can find it?

Posted by Richard @ 07:34 AM BST [Link]

How about this for a nostalgia trip. According to Jeff Evans, author of The Penguin Television Companion, the top 20 TV theme songs are:

1. The White Horses
2. Fireball XL5
3. Whatever happened to the Likely Lads
4. Red Dwarf
5. The Protectors
6. Friends
7. Rupert the Bear
8. Laverne and Shirley
9. The Life nd Times of Grizzly Adams
10. New Faces
11. Cheers
12. The Addams Family
13. Moonlighting
14. Harry's Game
15. Follyfoot
16. Brush Strokes
17. The Golden Girls
18. The Adventures of Robin Hood
19. Dad's Army
20. The Wombles

A special prize for anyone who knows who recorded the 'White Horses' theme. Well, maybe an honourable mention. Only songs were included, so the classic Dr Who theme was ineligible.

My biggest disappointment? No mention of The Flashing Blade.

Posted by Richard @ 12:13 AM BST [Link]

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Top blogger Bene Diction has started a fascinating conversation on Intentionality in blogging. What a great word that is. Intentionality. I'm going to find a way of putting that in a conversation or two. ;o)

What do you think? Does blogging amount to self-aggrandizement, and if so - does it matter? Does a "Christian" blog need to have a clear purpose? And who on earth would think of a blog entitled 'Christian Graffiti in Malaysian Toilets'? You know what you must do.

Posted by Richard @ 09:45 PM BST [Link]

I wouldn't have known what nominative determinism is if I hadn't visited Jan's blog and followed the link to a lovely example of it.

And it reminded me that at my school I was taught English by Mr Shakespeare and music by Mr Tune. There had been an RE teacher called Mr Peace, but he left the year before I arrived.

Honest.

Posted by Richard @ 04:35 PM BST [Link]

Chemistry that's fun for children of all ages.

Thanks to Ian's Messy Desk for the reminder of the entertainment to be found in a lab.

Posted by Richard @ 03:57 PM BST [Link]

Since 16th June, ex-Royal Marine commando Steve Gough has been walking the 874 miles from Land's End to John O'Groats. And he's being doing it naked.

That's right. Nude. In the buff. Au naturel. Starkers.

It's a bit of a break with convention, of course, and he hasn't exactly been receiving a hero's welcome along the route. He's been arrested loads of times along the way. His latest "court" appearence was actually in his cell because he refused to get dressed or wear a blanket to go to court. He was hoping to have finished the walk by mid-August, but all the arrests have put him more than a little behind schedule.

I have to admire his persistence. But winter is coming...

Posted by Richard @ 03:10 PM BST [Link]

So what do you say when face-to-face with the fighting Uruk-Hai?

Posted by Richard @ 02:41 PM BST [Link]

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

I've been meaning to add Camassia to the blogroll for a while.

And now I have.

Posted by Richard @ 11:27 PM BST [Link]

Today is one of those that definitely qualifies as a bummer. And not just any old bum. If today were a bum it would be one of those hairy, flabby ones you sometimes see peeking out from the top of builders' trousers. Excuse the graphic image, but that's how it was.

I've spent most of the day with my littlest daughter in hospital "Accident & Emergency" departments, to discover that she has a small green stick fracture just below her left knee. So it isn't surprising that she didn't want to walk on it. I don't like hanging around hospitals, but that wasn't the worst of it. Oh no. The really terrible thing is that I spent most of the day trying to persuade her that there wasn't anything wrong (there wasn't anything to see) and if she would just be a good girl and walk down the corridor the doctor would let us go home. Can you imaging how guilty that makes me feel?

Just for once, I'm glad I have a daughter who knows her own mind and will stick to her guns. I rushed to a judgement on the basis of what I could see but Catrin, immersed in the experience, knew more than I. Now she's in plaster and I've learned, or perhaps re-learned, a valuable lesson.

Thinking a bit more about today's events I realise that although we had a pretty rotten day we met lots of people who were having a worse one. And even here there was a lesson to be learned. No, not that someone being worse off than you can make you feel better. It was how Catrin responded to the other patients that brings some light into an otherwise pretty gloomy day. I was focussed on what was happening to us, bound up by my guilt and anxiety. I was not much of a minister. Catrin, though, brought some comfort and cheer to others. The elderly lady whose arm and shoulder were broken. The young muscular man with a terrifyingly large bandage on his leg. The old bloke with tattoos who badly needed a wash and some clean clothes. They all got smiles and a little conversation, a wave "bye bye". Once again, she was streets ahead of her father in her instinctive appreciation of the inclusion of others. There was I, a "professional Christian", held back by my circumstances and failing to connect with those in need. But Catrin, not yet 3 and who always begins the Lord's Prayer with "Our farmer...", showed me what the Christian gospel really means.

A little child will lead them?

Posted by Richard @ 10:31 PM BST [Link]

From the United Methodist News Service

Homeless man gave me a glimpse of God
By Lyle Jackson*

Sometimes the greatest gifts come from those who seem to have nothing.

I received such a gift from Richard Kimbro of Nashville, Tenn. Kimbro, who died Sept. 1, was a friend of mine.

He was also homeless.

Being homeless meant he was invisible to most of the world. He lived in harsh, uncomfortable conditions, but his life reflected the grace of God. Because of that, I cannot let him pass unnoticed. [more]

Posted by Richard @ 09:30 PM BST [Link]

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

My colleague Tony was telling me that's he's had some fun playing the hymn tune "Old 100th" (All People that on earth do dwell) as a "double jig" on the fiddle, with a hand drum providing the beat. I did get him to explain how it went, but my musical ability is so extensive that I've already forgotten. However, take my word that when he explained it it sounded quite jolly.

And it set me thinking...

Does anyone have any favourite unusual hymn/tune combinations? For example, the Blind Boys of Alabama do a wonderful rendering of Amazing Grace to The House of the Rising Sun. Similarly, While Shepherds watched... can be sung to Ilkley Moor bar t'at, and it makes a change when you've sung While Shepherds about a million times on the run up to Christmas. There must be loads of others.

Suggestions, anyone?

Posted by Richard @ 05:33 PM BST [Link]

Monday, September 15, 2003

We've been running "Alternative Worship" services at my church for a little while now and I'm bound to say that I am enjoying the experience. I still appreciate the orderliness and structure of a conventional "hymn sandwich" ("Plenty of Wesley, hold the Kendrick!") but there is something very freeing about leading worship in which nobody has expectations about how it will be.

I can't claim that what we do is really ever so alternative. Compared with some of the techno-garage-pumpedup-chilledout extravaganzas you hear about, our services are positively staid. We have used a bit of video on occasion, either to introduce a theme - "Alms for an ex-leper!" - or to provide a focus for intercession (brief news clips against a suitable music background), but we don't have access to mixing and projection and all that stuff. A simple VHS video and small screen tv has to suffice. Sometimes we've used images projected from an OHP and I still think that this is an under-used (and under-rated) technique. Coming from a "free church" setting, I've enjoyed making use of a variety of liturgy both "home grown" and downloaded from the net. "Enacted liturgy" - hand washing, candle-lighting, that kind of thing - can also be used to good purpose. Sometimes we've used music that doesn't conventionally fit into a church service. "Stiff Little Fingers", Dusty Springfield and the Pet Shop Boys have all put in an appearance. More often than not we've had settings of traditional celtic music, which always goes down well with me!

For accompanying our singing we use nothing more alternative than an electronic piano and a tin whistle. No prizes for guessing who plays that. Song style is pretty conventional - a mixture of old and new probably sums it up about right. I can't say too much about how "effective" these services have been -- I have too much emotional investment in them to be objective. But it does me good, and I know that Alice appreciates it too.

Why am I telling you this? Only because I've had some good experiences being involved in this kind of worship and experienced a depth of fellowship that I'd like others to share in. I suppose I want to encourage other worship leaders to think about experimenting in small group settings. There are some great resources on the web - alternativeworship.org is a good place to start if you're interested in learning more.

Posted by Richard @ 04:24 PM BST [Link]

Sunday, September 14, 2003

Over at blogs4God, Jen Kibler-McCabe posts a sermonette in recognition of Holy Cross Sunday (which is today). She's right when she says "It's all about the Cross."
But as well as proclaiming the triumph and glory of the Cross, there's another much less comfortable message which we need to take heed of. The Cross is the ultimate symbol of God's love for the world, of course. But it is also a road to be walked, a challenge to be taken up. Christians have been good at preaching the victory of the Cross. Our record of showing the self-sacrificial love it demands is much poorer.

Posted by Richard @ 02:22 PM BST [Link]

It seems that slugs don't like garlic.

The overproduction of mucus sounds a bit horrid but then slugs are, aren't they?

Posted by Richard @ 12:48 PM BST [Link]

WEARY souls, that wander wide
From the central point of bliss,
Turn to Jesus crucified,
Fly to those dear wounds of his:
Sink into the purple flood;
Rise into the life of God!

Find in Christ the way of peace,
Peace unspeakable, unknown;
By his pain he gives you ease,
Life by his expiring groan;
Rise, exalted by his fall,
Find in Christ your all in all.

O believe the record true,
God to you his Son hath give
Ye may now be happy too,
Find on earth the life of heaven,
Live the life of heaven above,
All the life of glorious love.

This the universal bliss,
Bliss for every soul designed,
God's original promise this,
God's great gift to all mankind:
Blest in Christ this moment be!
Blest to all eternity!
            Charles Wesley

Posted by Richard @ 08:10 AM BST [Link]

More evidence that the reasons given for war with Iraq were bogus. And this time it's in a quality newspaper.

Britain and the US have combined to come up with entirely new explanations of why they went to war in Iraq as inspectors on the ground prepare to report that there are no weapons of mass destruction there.

The "current and serious" threat of Iraq's WMD was the reason Tony Blair gave for going to war, but last week the Prime Minister delivered a justification which did not mention the weapons at all. On the same day John Bolton, US Under-Secretary of State for arms control, said that whether Saddam Hussein's regime actually possessed WMD "isn't really the issue".

The 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, sent out in May to begin an intensive hunt for the elusive weapons, is expected to report this week that it has found no WMD hardware, nor even any sign of active programmes. The inspectors, headed by David Kay, a close associate of President George Bush, are likely to say the only evidence it has found is that the Iraqi government had retained a group of scientists who had the expertise to restart the weapons programme at any time.

Read More...

Posted by Richard @ 07:22 AM BST [Link]

It breaks my heart to be quoting from this "newspaper" but under the circumstances, what else can I do?

Claims that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made a last-minute plea to Tony Blair not to go to war in Iraq are set to be published in a new book on the conflict, it emerged on Saturday.

According to the book, Mr Straw sent a private memo to the Prime Minister just days before hostilities began, urging him to tell President George Bush that Britain would offer moral and political support to the US, but no combat troops.

But Mr Blair rejected the advice flat, and demanded an assurance that Mr Straw would support the war despite his reservations, says the book by political journalist John Kampfner, entitled Blair's War.

Neither the Foreign Office nor 10 Downing Street would make any comment on the sensational claim this evening, both saying only: "We have nothing to say about that."

Read more...

Posted by Richard @ 12:23 AM BST [Link]

Saturday, September 13, 2003

Mystical Matthew doesn't like Wal-Mart but quite likes Target. Before the end of May last year I wouldn't have known what he was talking about, but as it is his article fills me with both nostalgia and a fresh determination to make a nuisance of myself in Florida again.

Better start saving...

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

The Bible in Lego???

Posted by Richard @ 04:32 PM BST [Link]

The BBC reports an email scam trying to tick confidential information from customers of Barclays Bank. I had one sent to me yesterday, and I knew immediately it was a con. How? Because it began "Dear Customer", when in fact I have never knowingly been a customer of this bank. Knowing there was no harm in following the link it offered, I followed it. But I was wrong about that part. My Mac crashed on the spot.

It must have more sense than me.

Posted by Richard @ 03:57 PM BST [Link]

This from Jordon Cooper

"On the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.
SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents."

Posted by Richard @ 11:51 AM BST [Link]

One of John Wesley's most famous (or should that be infamous?) sermons is The Use of Money, with its slogans Earn all you can / Save all you can/ Give all you can. It really isn't one of Mr Wesley's best, and it certainly is not the best introduction to his radical view of economics. Still, there is some good stuff in there I reckon. One of the problems with it is the slogans themselves, especially the first, which have been seized on by those who have no intentions of giving any thought to what he actually meant. He even gave Margaret Thatcher some ammunition! Consider some of the ways in which "gain all you can" is hedged:

3. We are. Thirdly, to gain all we can without hurting our neighbour. But this we may not, cannot do, if we love our neighbour as ourselves. We cannot, if we love everyone as ourselves, hurt anyone in his substance. We cannot devour the increase of his lands, and perhaps the lands and houses themselves, by gaming, by overgrown bills (whether on account of physic, or law, or anything else,) or by requiring or taking such interest as even the laws of our country forbid. Hereby all pawn-broking is excluded: Seeing, whatever good we might do thereby, all unprejudiced men see with grief to be abundantly overbalanced by the evil. And if it were otherwise, yet we are not allowed to "do evil that good may come." We cannot, consistent with brotherly love, sell our goods below the market price; we cannot study to ruin our neighbour's trade, in order to advance our own; much less can we entice away or receive any of his servants or workmen whom he has need of. None can gain by swallowing up his neighbour's substance, without gaining the damnation of hell!

4. Neither may we gain by hurting our neighbour in his body. Therefore we may not sell anything which tends to impair health. Such is, eminently, all that liquid fire, commonly called drams or spirituous liquors. It is true, these may have a place in medicine; they may be of use in some bodily disorders; although there would rarely be occasion for them were it not for the unskillfulness of the practitioner. Therefore, such as prepare and sell them only for this end may keep their conscience clear. But who are they? Who prepare and sell them only for this end? Do you know ten such distillers in England? Then excuse these. But all who sell them in the common way, to any that will buy, are poisoners general. They murder His Majesty's subjects by wholesale, neither does their eye pity or spare. They drive them to hell like sheep. And what is their gain? Is it not the blood of these men? Who then would envy their large estates and sumptuous palaces? A curse is in the midst of them: The curse of God cleaves to the stones, the timber, the furniture of them. The curse of God is in their gardens, their walks, their groves; a fire that burns to the nethermost hell! Blood, blood is there: The foundation, the floor, the walls, the roof are stained with blood! And canst thou hope, O thou man of blood, though thou art "clothed in scarlet and fine linen, and farest sumptuously every day;" canst thou hope to deliver down thy fields of blood to the third generation? Not so; for there is a God in heaven: Therefore, thy name shall soon be rooted out. Like as those whom thou hast destroyed, body and soul, "thy memorial shall perish with thee!"

Posted by Richard @ 08:15 AM BST [Link]

I had a revelation the other night. No, really. I'm being serious.

Driving to a meeting on Wednesday I was listening to Radio 4 according to my usual custom. (I like to listen to The Archers when I get the chance -- Don't mock! We all have our weaknesses!) Anyway, on Front Row there was a piece about Dizzee Rascal, winner of the 2003 Mercury Music Prize. An interviewee was asked to explain the significance of Mr Rascal's music and give some insight into the UK Garage scene. I listened to what was said. I could understand all the individual words. It's just that, somehow, I couldn't make any sense at all of what he was talking about. He might as well have been speaking in Farsi.

That's when I had my little revelation. It struck me -- that's how it must be for non-Church folk listening to most of what we have to say about Jesus.

That's a scary thought.

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

Friday, September 12, 2003

There was once a time when theology was considered "queen of the sciences". Sadly, the old queen is now locked away in a high tower. She is little trouble to anyone, though her wailings might still disturb a sensitive soul passing by the foot of her prison. Theology no longer has any place of honour in contemporary conversation. She is irrelevant to all but a furtive few.

A new ruler sits on the throne. Once merely a palace servant, he has grown in strength and power until all others have been forced to bend their knee to him. Like many rulers before him, the ambitions that drove his ascendency were modest, even benevolent, but like the Roman Emperors of yesteryear he now knows what it is to rise to the heights of deity. Unlike them, he can perform miracles. He is, in today's world, the "name above all names". There is no escape from his rule, for he has put his Chief Ministers in charge of every sphere of human activity. Commerce may have been the first to come under his thrall, but she was long ago joined by Government and Church as his loyal subjects.

He is Economics.

Any act of barbarism may be excused if it is according to his will and purpose. Children may starve, farmers may be driven from their land, nations may turn from the provision of the most basic health and education services -- all because his commands are irresistible. In his kingdom, the old virtues are replaced with one over-arching duty: "Be ye efficient."

It was not always so. The elevation of Economics to absolute power has been relatively recent and has no precedent in our history. But it is doubtful that any despot of old ever had such an iron grip or stern face. His favoured subjects are contented and glad. They know that if they serve their master well they will be rewarded. He does not hold out the vague hope of an after-life -- the fullness of his bounty is here and now. And though he is cruel to those who turn away from his rule, in truth he demands little of his subjects. His yoke is easy, his burden light because he commands only that they put their own desires before the needs of others. Only a fool would defy him.

And so we rejoice! Bless the name of the one who brought us this golden age of prosperity, where even the poor can seek solace in the pages of a mail order catalogue.

In the high tower, the old queen still shrieks in her madness but we have forgotten the meaning of the word that we barely hear above the throbbing bass that pours out from the pop factory.

"Repent."

Posted by Richard @ 03:56 PM BST [Link]

From the Intelligence and Security Committee report Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction –
Intelligence and Assessments

125. The 27 November 2002 intelligence update reported that although there was no intelligence to indicate that Iraq had considered using chemical and biological agents in terrorist attacks, it could not rule out the possibility.

126. In their assessment International Terrorism: War with Iraq, dated 10 February 2003,
the JIC reported that there was no intelligence that Iraq had provided CB materials to
al-Qaida or of Iraqi intentions to conduct CB terrorist attacks using Iraqi intelligence
officials or their agents. However, it judged that in the event of imminent regime collapse
there would be a risk of transfer of such material, whether or not as a deliberate Iraqi
regime policy. The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to
represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be
heightened by military action against Iraq.

127. The JIC assessed that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of
chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of
terrorists, not necessarily al-Qaida.

Considering that we went to war to prevent the spread of weapons to terrorists, I find this just a little surprising,

Posted by Richard @ 09:34 AM BST [Link]

Thursday, September 11, 2003

I've posted this before, but I think it bears repeating. This hymn was written by British Methodist minister Gareth Hill in response to the events of 9-11.

Metre: 8.6.8.6.D
Tunes: Vox Dilecti ('I heard the voice of Jesus say') and others

When mountains that we thought secure
lie crumbled where we stand
and pain and helplessness endure
- all from another's hand -
Help us to bear the prophet's mark,
to stand apart from hate
and witness to the Father's call
for justice in the land.

God is our strength and refuge still
though all the earth give way;
our help at every time of ill,
the light of our dark day.
And as his people in the world
we bear the scars of grief,
but echo faith's resounding note
- and still for justice pray.

There is a place of holiness
where God makes warfare cease.
There is a day of hopefulness,
a promised time of peace.
So, here today, we bear the pain
of inhumanity,
but pledge our lives to live for truth
so justice may increase.

Posted by Richard @ 11:09 AM BST [Link]

I still remember what I was doing when I first learned of the terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I was in the lobby of the elementary school office. People were watching the news and told me that a plane had just flown into one of the towers. At that point, people thought it was an accident. As they were explaining this to me, we all watched in disblief as a second jet flew into the 2nd tower and we all knew in that moment that this was no accident. Upon my return to my church office word came about the third plane going into the Pentagon. My Minister of Music at that time had friends working there from her days in the National Defence Intelligence Agency. Later she learned that several of them died that terrible day.

Still confused by what was taking place, I had to go to another school and pick up my daughter for a doctor's appointment. We watched in the doctor's office in disbelief as one tower collapsed and then another. Rachel's Doctor was noticibly distracted. He had been waiting to hear whether his brother-in-law had been in his office in one of the towers that morning. He was one of those who was late for work and lived.

In those horrible moments and hours our entire world was changed and continues to be. Initially, I think it caused us to be nicer to each other. But, as time has gone on, we have reverted to our old selves, only now we are at war: against terrorism, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, hunting for Bin Laden. My brother-in-law just returned from his third tour of duty in the region, twice during the war with Iraq and once before. He was called up right after Sept 11 from the Reserves into active duty. His job with the Orange County Sheriff's Dept protecting us here at home has been put on hold. My former office manager's grandson is in a Bradley Armoured vehicle somewhere in Bagdad; I have a nephew riding in an Humvee with only a machine gunner somewhere else in Bagdad; my Disrict superintendent's son is also somewhere in Bagdad. Daily we watch the death toll go up in a country that doesn't seem to want us there, where our abilities and their receptivity were both underestimated. We've finally conceeded that we need help, but does anyone know how to "fix" things there?

We are at war, but the enemy is Legion and more ellusive than any we've ever encountered. Services will be held tomorrow all over this country and the world, remembering the civilians and public servants who died two years ago. Last year on the first anniversary we added the names of those who died in Afghanistan freeing that country from the Taliban and trying to reestablish order. This year we will have to add those who have died in Iraq during and after the major fighting. Who will we be adding next year and the next? Will there ever be a day when victory in this new war ever be able to really be declared? Or, have we seen that this new type of enemy too readily replaces itself with more angry, dissolusioned or fanantical followers all too ready to die for Allah no matter who dies with them?

I really wish I, as a pastor and as a follower of Christ, could really know how God would respond to all this stuff we human beings keep doing to each other. If Jesus wept over Jersualem because of their disbelief, how much more so does he weep over our world as we continue to try to resolve violence with violence. Even former pastors who murder abortion doctors and are executed by the state believe that their violation of the Ten Commandments will actually gain them a greater reward in heaven when they die what they believe to be a martyr's death, not repenting at the end but calling others to do what they did. The terrorists are not just "them." Sometimes, like in Oklahoma City and in Pennsacola, Florida, they are us. To end this rambling, have any of these attacks or the war that we are now engaged in, accomplished the goals of any of the perpetrators? Perhaps, all that we've all been successful in doing is deeping the resolve of those on the opposite sides. How I long for the day we stop beating our plowshares into swords and begin to do the opposite.

Ivan The Crank

Posted by Ivanthecrank @ 03:17 AM BST [Link]

Wednesday, September 10, 2003

I don't want to quote Wood on two days running -- I mustn't encourage his pride after all. I don't want to, but I must. Today he's come up with a very thought-provoking piece which has its origin in the death of Leni Riefenstahl. He shares his thoughts on art, the media and the responsibility that comes with free speech. Anticipating the 9-11 remembrances he says

There are people going to use it to further their agendas. We need to be aware of that, and to see through the propaganda that we might mourn for the dead with reverence, not treat the dead as a platform for our political agendas.

Go read it, but be warned that if you're a fan of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh you aren't going to like it.

Posted by Richard @ 03:44 PM BST [Link]

"When I were a lad" I used to play the clarinet. Not ever so well, but well enough to play in a local youth wind band. At 17 I had a falling out with the school music teacher and my opportunities to play were reduced. The clarinet was put to one side, and rarely taken out of its case. I never meant to give it up, it just of happened by default. When I was an undergraduate I accepted a cash offer for it, and I've regretted it ever since to be honest. Sometimes I think I'll get myself another one, but I dread to think of the sort of noise I might make.

Much more recently, I've discovered the joy of blowing on a tin whistle. I say "joy". It's a joy to me. Those I inflict it upon are less certain - I notice indulgent smiles when the whistle appears in church, but most folk are too polite to complain within earshot. What I enjoy about it is it's simplicity, accessibility and, let's be honest, cheapness. (If this were QVC we'd say affordability, but that's just ad-speak) You can buy a sweet-sounding, playable tin whistle for less than a fiver and even if you really indulge yourself and buy something hand-made from exotic African hardwoods (which, of course, I would never do) you could buy 2 or 3 before you got anywhere near the cost of even a modest clarinet. The other benefit is that it is a quiet instrument, and when you're playing with others it's very easy to allow yourself to be drowned out in a more difficult section.

My playing is poor, which reflects the amount of time I spend practising, so although I'm a fan of this humble instrument I'm not exactly it's best advert. There's no shortage of good stuff on the internet though. Top of the list has to be Chiff & Fipple, a humourous guide to the whistling world. Different brands are reviewed, there are plans for building your own, tips on technique and all manner of other good stuff. The site has a forum which is very welcoming of newcomers and where outbursts of virtual warfare are mercifully rare.
Another source of inspiration is Wandering Whistler Music Archive which can provide sheet music for many traditional songs and tunes. I also very much like Brother Steve's tin-whistle pages and if I had the time to practice taking his advice I'd be a much better player than I am.
Finally, I've recently discovered the Praise Whistlers' Clips Page which has sound files of whistles playing worship music alongside other instruments, and very nice they are if you don't object to a biggish download. If you want to know what my playing sounds like in my head, that's where to go!

Posted by Richard @ 02:36 PM BST [Link]

Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Sage words from Wood

The moral of this story, kids: don't quote pop lyrics as if they're profound. It'll only end in tears and make you look stupid.

Can't argue with that.

Posted by Richard @ 05:27 PM BST [Link]

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but calling names can't hurt me."

So goes the playground chant. It's an incantation to protect ourselves from the evil of the words of others. It's a reassurance that whatever others may say we are secure in our own person.

The problem is that like all the other incantations I've ever come across, this one doesn't work. The reassurance it offers is temporary at best, and it can be a veneer of self-delusion covering all kinds of insecurity. "Sticks and stones..." may make a fine mantra for the playground, but it isn't actually true, is it? Words can hurt far worse than bits of wood, and can leave scars which last far longer.

Let me tell you a true story in confidence. After all, we're all friends here. There was a young boy, we'll call him Dick for the sake of discretion. He was brought up in a secure and stable environment by parents who loved him. He was pretty bright, did well at school and had a number of very good friends. He had one problem, though. Well, two to be truthful. His ears. They stuck out of the side of his head like wings. He might never have noticed, but to his schoolmates they were a source of continual amusement and rarely a day went by without some jest being made about them. He grew to hate those ears with a will and was convinced his whole appearance was made stupid because of them. Now that's he grown up his ears are no longer perpendicular to his head. Normal growth took care of that. But even now, more than 20 years later there remains more than a little sensitivity about his perfectly ordinary looking ears. He'd chanted "sticks and stones" as loudly as anyone, but knew he was lying even as he did so.

The Bible warns us about our use of words. The epistle of James calls the tongue a fire with flames fed by hell, a source of evil and poison. If James had lived in the internet age, who will bet me that he wouldn't have said something about whichever fingers we use on our keyboards? Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said that anyone who calls his brother a fool deserves hell alongside the murderer. Throughout the scriptures there is a recognition that the words we use can have a powerful effect on others for good or for ill.

I don't suppose anyone who has read so far will be disagreeing with me. Anyone with social skills more advanced than a toddler's knows that we have to exercise caution in the way that we speak to others. That isn't to say we always do it, but we know we should. On the internet, though, different rules apply. Perhaps it is because of its relative anonymity. Maybe it is because many of the "cues" we get in normal conversation are missing or perhaps because the conventions of politeness in these cross-cultural conversations are still being established. Whatever the reasons for it, the temptation to "shout", insult, put down and vilify is powerful indeed. And just like in ordinary conversation, it should always be resisted.

On the internet, you can't throw sticks and stones. But you can still cause great hurt.

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

Monday, September 8, 2003

I don't know how he finds 'em, but top Wibber Dave points us to the latest tool in the evangelist's arsenal, the scriptural email address. From only $8.99 a year you can have an email address that links directly to a portion of scripture, for example yourname@john3:16.com. When I asked the system to choose one for me, it suggested exodus28.com. I've never thought of a description of Aaron's ephod as being the most evangelistically useful passage in the Bible, but maybe I'm missing something.

Posted by Richard @ 07:04 PM BST [Link]

I'm not at all sure I know what to make of this...

Posted by Richard @ 05:46 PM BST [Link]

Will Microsoft's "digital rights management" damage freedom?

Posted by Richard @ 12:24 PM BST [Link]

Sunday, September 7, 2003

It seems that Gareth Higgins doesn't think much of the "Left behind" series. Here's a taster:

The Church is steward both of the apocalyptic story, and of the tools of its own renewal. These tools should not remain locked in an ecclesiastical box, under a pile of out-dated theological treatises and bureaucratic red tape. Much less is it about the creation of a world where people don't need to do anything but consume Left Behind products – like an ecclesiastical version of the town in The Stepford Wives.

Posted by Richard @ 05:51 PM BST [Link]

Dave (of Wibsite fame) has written a fine little article about Christian blogging for the Surefish site. I'm particularly impressed with his insight and wisdom in choosing his top 10 blogs. Modesty forbids me to say why, but Dave is obviously a man of keen intellect and good sense and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

;o)

Posted by Richard @ 03:05 PM BST [Link]

You've heard of the fuss about Mel Gibson's "The Passion". But a new film about the life of Jesus is about to open quietly in Toronto. "The Gospel of John" premieres at the Toronto International Film Festival on a symbolically chosen Sept. 11. Sadly there's on news of a British release.

Thanks to Rick for keeping us up to date.

Posted by Richard @ 07:55 AM BST [Link]

GOD of unexampled grace,
Redeemer of mankind,
Matter of eternal praise
We in thy passion find:
Still our choicest strains we bring,
Still the joyful theme pursue,
Thee the friend of sinners sing,
Whose love is ever new.

Endless scenes of wonder rise
From that mysterious tree,
Crucified before our eyes,
Where we our Maker see:
Jesus, Lord, what hast thou done?
Publish we the death divine,
Stop, and gaze, and fall, and own
Was never love like thine!

Never love nor sorrow was
Like that my Saviour showed:
See him stretched on yonder cross,
And crushed beneath our load!
Now discern the Deity,
Now his heavenly birth declare!
Faith cries out, " 'Tis He, 'tis He,
My God, that suffers there!
            Charles Wesley

Posted by Richard @ 07:22 AM BST [Link]

Saturday, September 6, 2003

Richard Bott can always be relied upon to be worth reading. I really like this new "take" on the Creed:

I believe in God.
I believe in God who has created and who is creating.
I believe in Jesus, who many of us call the Christ.
I believe in his life, his death, and his resurrection by God.
I believe in the Holy Spirit.
I believe in the Holy Spirit's continuing presence, guiding all in this creation.

I believe in the Scriptures.
I believe that God's Word is contained in, but not constrained by, their words.

I believe in each of these statements.

I profess my belief through these statements, evening knowing that my understanding and your understanding of what each of them mean may be very, very different.

I'm comfortable with that.
I rejoice in our difference.
Because - if we give each other the respect that is our due as God's creations - we have a lot that we can learn from each other... even if we can never agree.

Posted by Richard @ 06:51 PM BST [Link]

Science and Faith
Can you have both?

I still hear it said that you can't believe in God and accept the teachings of science. They are 2 incompatible "worlds" - you must live in one or the other. It will be no surprise that I don't accept this for a moment (I do, after all, have a degree in Physics). Let me explain briefly why.

Usually, people begin by pointing out that we "know" now that life has evolved over millions of years. Science has proved it. The Bible says that the universe was made in 6 days. One of them must be wrong, and since there is all sorts of evidence for the evolutionary point of view, it must be the Bible. If the Bible is wrong about this, who is to say it isn't wrong about everything else?

There are 2 misunderstandings here. The first is about the Bible. It is true that there is a story at the beginning of the Bible in which God creates the universe in 6 days. But there is another story about the Creation straight after it which does not mention a span of time and in which things are created in a completely different order! Check it yourself in chapters one and two of Genesis. It might seem as though I've just discredited the Bible even more, but I don't think so. I take the Bible very seriously indeed, and the fact that it begins with 2 creation stories is an issue that I won't dodge. Far from being a problem, these two different stories so close together in the Bible is the clearest indication there could be that they are not to be taken as bits of prehistoric journalism. These are "stories-with-a-purpose" (Myth is the technical term, but that's a word we don't use because it riles some so. Don't tell anyone I mentioned it) They tell us about the sovereignty of God, the place of humankind in the Creation and the nature and meaning of human life. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is not contradicted by modern cosmology or evolutionary biology because the questions that they address are not the same.

The second misunderstanding concerns science itself. It is still somehow assumed that science reveals the "truth" about the world and that as the knowledge of science expands so our need for God will decrease. If you take this view, science is a threat to Christian life. But the truth is, science does not work this way. It is becoming more and more clear that what science does is construct a series of "models" of reality which are useful in predicting the outcome of experiments and in making technological progress. This does not make the models 'true' in any absolute sense. In fact, scientists are more than capable of having 2 mutually incompatible models on the go at the same time. They use them because they work. It's hard to illustrate this without resorting to a technical discussion, but I suppose the classic case in point is the nature of light. Is it a wave? A particle? Both? Or neither? Perhaps a few words from someone else would be in order.

"All models are deliberately simplified ... and all models of the world beyond the reach of our immediate senses are fictions, free inventions of the human mind. You are free to choose whichever of the quantum interpretations most appeals to you, or to reject all of them, or to purchase the entire package and use a different interpretation according to convenience, or the day of the week, or whim. Reality is in very large measure what you want it to be. ... all we can ever hope to find is a self-consistent myth for our times."
[John Gribben, Schrödinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality, London 1995, p221]

I doubt that many physicists like the word "myth" any more than fundamentalist Christians do, but there it is. Far from being two different worlds, science and faith are in fact fellow travellers on the road of human discovery.

Posted by Richard @ 06:01 PM BST [Link]

Friday, September 5, 2003

I gave the motor cycle hearse a mention last Friday. (Though I have to warn you that Swan was right about the pop-under ads). Now it seems that our boys in blue don't like the look of it.

Thanks to Bene Diction for sending me the link.

Posted by Richard @ 10:05 PM BST [Link]

The Bible Quiz answers are here if you want them. Clicking on "more" will reveal all... [more]

Posted by Richard @ 04:37 PM BST [Link]

I notice that the ramblin' man has had the good taste to give a link to connexions. Wander over and say hello.

Posted by Richard @ 04:06 PM BST [Link]

Know your Bible?
Try this quiz, just for fun.

1. When God created the earth, did he make human beings before the animals, or after?

2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but where did his parents live before that?

3. At what stage in Jesus' ministry did "the Cleansing of the Temple" take place?

4. How did Judas die?

5. Can you name the twelve disciples?

6. Who was the first witness to the resurrecton of Jesus?

7. In the Nativity, how many "Wise Men" were there, and what were their names?

8. If you have a Bible handy, look up Mark, chapter 1, verses 1 - 3. Do you notice anything odd?

9. On which subject does it seem that Jesus had the most to say?
      a. Money b. Sex c. Politics d. Religious order

10. Which of the following is the worst offence?
      a. Stealing b. Wearing clothes made of mixed fibres c. Witchcraft d.Disrespect for the old.

Remember, it's only for fun - though it does have a serious purpose.I'll post the answers later today, tomorrow, or at my own whim.

I acknowledge my debt to my friend and colleague Kim Fabricius and to my former tutor Stephen Dawes for the ideas for this quiz that I have shamelessy pinched from them.

Posted by Richard @ 09:24 AM BST [Link]

Thursday, September 4, 2003

A very silly (but fun) intro to a very serious subject.

As the WTO summit approaches, add your voice to the Oxfam Fair Trade Campaign.

Posted by Richard @ 10:31 PM BST [Link]

I've just realised that Tuesday's post was number 1000 here at connexions. I don't know whether that's significant or not, but I'm glad that this prestigious entry number was used for an important subject like the use of the Bible, rather than something trivial. I'm not sure why. blogs4God has passed the same milestone this week and if you aren't already aware of this resource for Christian bloggers, you ought to have a looksee.

Our good friend Wood has another of his episodic stories running, College of Ice, and I'm particularly enjoying it. There aren't any permalinks, so you need to scroll down to 23rd July to catch the first part. Today's is part 7. Wood's style is fun and very readable, and often gentle humour will switch suddenly to shadow. Here's a teaser, from episode 2:

At certain times during the year, on varying nights in varying months, but always when the moon is clear in the sky half-full, the empty building develops a covering of frost. Through  long-deserted office windows, august academics can be seen shuffling papers, reading books, writing treatises.

The Wibsite is back from it's August break. I'm so pleased to see them that I'm even prepared to forgive the lack of a Mac version of the flannelgraph. Well, almost.

Finally for now, if you want to learn something new, or brush up an existing skill, whether it be playing bluegrass banjo, bookbinding, interior decoration or any number of other things, have a look at the Tutorial Finder. An essential guide if you need to know what the bum-ditty strum is.

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

Tuesday, September 2, 2003

When Christians disagree, in the end the root cause of the disagreement lies in differing approaches to the Bible. Not the interpretation of particular passages -- that's just a 'symptom'. Ive already had at least two gos at this subject here and here but now seemed like an opportune time to write another. Although this conviction arises from some virtual conversations I've been involved in elsewhere, I'm not seeking to refute anyone elses position. Instead, I'm trying to state my own position as clearly as I can. As always, I'll welcome the feedback of others.

I need to begin with a simple statement of faith. The Bible is absolutely and fundamentally the most important resource we have for seeking the will and purpose of God. It is not the only resource, of course, but it is far and above the most important. Having said that, I don't believe that Christians are "people of a book". We are rather followers of a Living Lord. It is Jesus who is the fullest expression of God's love. The written word points to the Living Word. The Bible is the record of the revelation, not the revelation itself.

I get troubled when words such as "inerrant" are used of the Bible because by any normal use of the word in plain standard English the Bible clearly isn't and doesn't claim to be. The most oft quoted verse in this respect (2 Tim 3:16) talks about the scriptures being "useful", which hardly the same thing. Defenders of inerrancy in my experience find themselves resorting to fudges like "in the original tongues" or else to jumping through all sorts of logical hoops to show that the Bible is "really" inerrant despite its appearance. I reckon it is better to take the text at face value, rejoice in it as a gift from God, and recognise that it cannot be read in the way as the instructions for a washing machine. It requires interpretation.

The notion that you can't "pick and choose" in the Bible, that you believe all of it or none of it, is superficially attractive. But the truth is, everyone does pick and choose, emphasising some passages over others, ignoring some parts completely, reading some portions of the text literally and others allegorically... You simply cannot read all of it the same way, because the material in the Bible is in so many different forms and from many different situations. One silly example will suffice: read literally, what sort of image of woman does Song of Songs 4:1-5 conjure up? Read it as erotic poetry, however, and the effect is quite different!

In the case of the OT law, we can be quite certain that Christians are not intended to "go by the book". There are all kinds of reasons we might give for this: its implicit acceptance of the institution of slavery, the difficulty of applying much of what is there well outside its original context (How would you apply the second part of Leviticus 19:13 in a modern economy, for example?), the assumption that wives are the property of their husbands. But all of these and the others pale alongside the central objection, namely that Christians are not bound by the Law because the New Covenant has both freed us from it and yet also binds us more strictly. Jesus' words in Matthew 5 ought to be enough to establish this, but if you are still not convinced you might also look at Acts 10:9-16 and Acts 15:1-29.

I firmly (firmly!) believe that the Bible is a powerful channel for the will and love of God. Reading it quite literally changes lives. But Christians do nothing to commend it to others by pretending the Bible is something which it is not. And in the end it is Jesus, not the Bible, who saves us from ourselves and who should be the object of our praise and worship.

Posted by Richard @ 09:49 PM BST [Link]

Monday, September 1, 2003

Is it possible for Christians to "get along" when they have reached fundamentally different opinions about what the faith means?

John Wesley approached the issue in his sermon Catholic Spirit, which I have already summarised in modern english here. But in view of some recent conversations I've had I thought I'd post a goodish extract of the original. The text is 2 Kings 10:15

And, first, let us consider the question proposed by Jehu to Jehonadab, "Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?"

The very first thing we may observe in these words, is, that here is no inquiry concerning Jehonadab's opinions. And yet it is certain, he held some which were very uncommon, indeed quite peculiar to himself; and some which had a close influence upon his practice; on which, likewise, he laid so great a stress, as to entail them upon his children's children, to their latest posterity. This is evident from the account given by Jeremiah many years after his death: "I took Jaazaniah and his brethren and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites, . . . and set before them pots full of wine, and cups, and said unto them, Drink ye wine. But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab," or Jehonadab, "the son of Rechab, our father" (it would be less ambiguous, if the words were placed thus: "Jehonadab our father, the son of Rechab," out of love and reverence to whom, he probably desired his descendants might be called by his name), "commanded us, saying, ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever. Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed; nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents.... And we have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us" (Jer. 35:3-10).

2. And yet Jehu (although it seems to have been his manner both in things secular and religious, to drive furiously) does not concern himself at all with any of these things, but lets Jehonadab abound in his own sense. And neither of them appears to have given the other the least disturbance touching the opinions which he maintained.

3. It is very possible, that many good men now also may entertain peculiar opinions; and some of them may be as singular herein as even Jehonadab was. And it is certain, so long as we know but in part, that all men will not see all things alike. It is an unavoidable consequence of the present weakness and shortness of human understanding, that several men will be of several minds in religion as well as in common life. So it has been from the beginning of the world, and so it will be "till the restitution of all things."

4. Nay, farther: although every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it); yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. Nay, every thinking man is assured they are not, seeing humanum est errare et nescire: "To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity." This, therefore, he is sensible, is his own case. He knows, in the general, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particulars he mistakes, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know.

5. I say "perhaps he cannot know;" for who can tell how far invincible ignorance may extend? or (that comes to the same thing) invincible prejudice? --which is often so fixed in tender minds, that it is afterwards impossible to tear up what has taken so deep a root. And who can say, unless he knew every circumstance attending it, how far any mistake is culpable? seeing all guilt must suppose some concurrence of the will; of which he only can judge who searcheth the heart.

6. Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions, than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs. He bears with those who differ from him, and only asks him with whom he desires to unite in love that single question, "Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?"

So what is "a Catholic Spirit"? Wesley puts it this way:

But while he is steadily fixed in his religious principles in what he believes to be the truth as it is in Jesus; while he firmly adheres to that worship of God which he judges to be most acceptable in his sight; and while he is united by the tenderest and closest ties to one particular congregation, --his heart is enlarged toward all mankind, those he knows and those he does not; he embraces with strong and cordial affection neighbours and strangers, friends and enemies. This is catholic or universal love. And he that has this is of a catholic spirit. For love alone gives the title to this character: catholic love is a catholic spirit.

If, then, we take this word in the strictest sense, a man of a catholic spirit is one who, in the manner above-mentioned, gives his hand to all whose hearts are right with his heart: one who knows how to value, and praise God for, all the advantages he enjoys, with regard to the knowledge of the things of God, the true scriptural manner of worshipping him, and, above all, his union with a congregation fearing God and working righteousness: one who, retaining these blessings with the strictest care, keeping them as the apple of his eye, at the same time loves--as friends, as brethren in the Lord, as members of Christ and children of God, as joint partakers now of the present kingdom of God, and fellow heirs of his eternal kingdom--all, of whatever opinion or worship, or congregation, who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; who love God and man; who, rejoicing to please, and fearing to offend God, are careful to abstain from evil, and zealous of good works. He is the man of a truly catholic spirit, who bears all these continually upon his heart; who having an unspeakable tenderness for their persons, and longing for their welfare, does not cease to commend them to God in prayer, as well as to plead their cause before men; who speaks comfortably to them, and labours, by all his words, to strengthen their hands in God. He assists them to the uttermost of his power in all things, spiritual and temporal. He is ready "to spend and be spent for them;" yea, to lay down his life for their sake.

To which I can only respond: Amen! Let it be!

Posted by Richard @ 11:24 PM BST [Link]

British Pope, Adrian IV, died today in 1159.

Just thought you should know.

Posted by Richard @ 04:23 PM BST [Link]

[Archive Index] [Main Index]