Thoughts of a dying young man

The Religion Cocktail

2009-09-17T11:53:00.000+01:00

Ruth Gledhill, the religion correspondant for The Times, has dropped in my estimations as she took Boris Johnson’s suggestion to practice Ramadan in order to sympathise with Muslims. Boris, the kind-hearted and muddled fellow that he is, asked his employees to forsake biscuits on their tea breaks in order that their fellow colleagues could have a slightly easier day at work. It seems he’s forgotten he’s mayor of London, which is the capital of England. Tea breaks without biscuits is something that hasn’t had to have been foregone since ration books, and we’re not about to start now; sharia law or not.

Of course, these days, a cocktail of religious festivals is the way forward if you want true enlightenment…
Or if you want to lose weight.

Watch out for other religious fasts across the wide ranging worldviews of Islam, buddhism, Judaism, and others, while I stick to feast of Jesus.

Fasting is irrelevant until we realise what a feast we have in Him. Then fasting becomes another form of worship, instead of a complete self-indulgent attempt at sympathy and weight-loss combined.

If you fast in a foreign land, which, my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, we do whether you were born here, or born-again here, you should complain about the gluttonous nature of your colleagues. Free will has been around for long enough for us to know that the greatest gift we can give us choice. And if our lives present even an aroma of Jesus, we will get into trouble anyway.

Christmas is coming, act normal

2009-09-16T15:58:00.000+01:00

It's the time of year again, where no matter how many people complain, Christmas decorations are appearing in the shelves of supermarkets. All over the country there is uproar, and secret purchasing, of such items being visible to the general public.

This is the usual point where an opinionist such as myself will lament over the lost meaning of Christmas, and some friends will unknowingly complain the Christmas isn't the only time you should be nice to people for a change.

My first ever job was in a supermarket in Rotherham. It had all the joys of tithing manure. I was asked to work Christmas eve, despite the fact I was making more money per hour busking in a four piece, than I would that day on the tills.

And yet, good will seemed to have been injected into a black man who came running round the shop handing out fivers to anyone who helped him.

It was a mighty strange experience.

Britain seems to be pretty hostile towards the traditions it has had. I wonder what would happen to the common man of his Christmas holidays were taken away from him?

Convert to Islam, probably.

Adrian Warnock and his secretive sharing

2009-09-16T10:15:00.001+01:00

Adrian Warnock shared this quote last night on his blog:

"A PROMISE from God may very instructively be compared to a cheque payable to order. It is given to the believer with the view of bestowing upon him some good thing. It is not meant that he should read it over comfortably, and then have done with it. No, he is to treat the promise as a reality, as a man treats a cheque."

Now Adrian has chosen to keep the author from the public and asks that others hold back that information if they have it. I have an idea of who it is, though I can't be sure, and in some sense it doesn't really matter. If the words are truth we can ascribe them to Jesus.

Ephesians says: "the fruit of light [of which we are children] is found in all that is good and right and true."

And seeing as we are children of God, then it makes a fine bit of sense to attribute these things the the King.

Ephesians also spends some time emphasising the downpayment, or guarantee, which is the Holy Spirit. We are sealed by Him, and await an inheritance because of Him.

I await what else will be shared from the book this quote came from, but I do think that if we are to operate fully as the church of Jesus Christ, we must change our thinking about God's word. And that is only possible if we renew our minds daily to receive from the King. We have nothing left to give. How can we possible try to earn His favour? Or make Him hurry His work? Just receive the blessings from Him daily. That's all He asks us to do… at first, anyway.

Whatever you want you first have to sow. (Economy God's way part 4)

2009-09-15T16:00:00.000+01:00

Jason Vallotton

It has become all too easy to think that work is from the devil. In due course the world will be over and work will be finished with. However, when we here Jesus teaching in parables that focus on money, work, and relationships, we have to wonder what the kingdom of God really is.

When the 'culmination of all things' takes place, what will remain? And what will never be seen again?

In the parable of the talents we have 4 characters. 3 servants and the king.

These servants must have worked hard to get where they are. When the king goes away for a while, the servants are entrusted with large sums of money to use in whatever way they see fit. The king's motivation is to make a profit, but also wants to have there servants go further than where they have been. This is an initiation into upper management, if you like.

If you don't like, go suck on a lemon.

The fascinating thing about this parable is the uncanny ability it has to condemn complacency. You've been given something. You either do something with it, or lose it. If you're not using is, it's obviously useless to you.

Where does that put investment banking in the kingdom of God scale?

Broken people, broken record

2009-09-15T11:00:00.000+01:00

I'm no father, and I'm also guilty of getting carried away with my phone. But when I see two parents with the mother giving their daughter attention while the father plays with his Blackberry on the underground, where there is no reception, while the son amuses himself behind them both, it gives me something to rant about.

Still, nobody's perfect. And that is the excuse of the nation as yet another prisoner is set free for a large sum of money, and the Post Office strikes because people have worked out how to use email.

There is no such thing as ideal parents. Once you get to your teens you are convinced your parents know nothing and the whole world is against you. Strange things emerge from all parts of your body, and you're left wondering how long it will be until the next meal. And continual hunger isn't good for a growing lad with self esteem and image issues.

I think it's high time the UK admits it has the issues of a 15-year-old boy, unable to get a girlfriend, just so that we can get back to work on Monday with a clear conscience. So the economy is a wee bit on a low at the moment, but that doesn't allow the world to decide we can fix it. It was broken because the people in the banks had issues, and the people with no money had issues, and the people spending the tax money had issues, because everyone has issues. And people with issues make organisations with issues.

It's a broken world, and the last thing you want a rattling car to do is make a five hour car journey to Leeds just to see her boyfriend. The fact that our car was written off by a van before it fell apart completely, is irrelevant. You can't hope things will get better with time. Especially when there have been more and bloodier wars in the last 100 years or so than in the last 4000. The idea that evolution is an improvement over time is a misunderstanding of facts at best. And history testifies to gloomier times ahead unless we finally give up our efforts and put our trust in the One who came to rescue this place from ultimate calamity.

Unwanted comments

2009-09-11T21:09:00.000+01:00

I just had to delete a comment advertising penis enlargement. That's
not something you can make up.

Advertising is based on dissatisfaction. Effectively, the whole
premise of sales is to make the customer in question doubt their
fulfilment in everything they own for the sake of a new toaster; with
an LCD display.

I can't help but wonder how the toothbrush was remarketed to brush
tongues as well, and now we also have cheek brushes. This is an absurd
take on turning a simple device into a completely useless money-making
scam.

Like treating marriage as a form of profit, the world is taking the
downturn with hatred and hoping that no-one has noticed that yet
another large company has had to make 10,000 redundancies. And
materialism as rife as it is, convincing people they need to spend
more money to survive, because 350 TV channels just aren't enough, is
easier than changing a lightbulb.

Speaking of lightbulbs, the new way around selling things is to make
any energy saving device overpriced and then make people believe that
it will save them money. I don't know how a £4 lightbulb is saving me
money when I have to part with £4. It's like paying a monthly
subscription to a gym in order to use everything for free. That makes
no sense to me. If I'm paying £40 a month then using everything isn't
free. It's £40.

Anyway, penis enlargement aside, the targetted adverts are promisingly
vulgar, as usual, and no-one has to venture outside to know that the
sun is shining.

Idolatry is common-place. I probably shouldn't just stand by and
watch, should I?

Jesus' Teaching on Money - Introduction (Part 3)

2009-09-11T12:30:00.000+01:00

Now we turn to an analysis of a selection of Jesus' parables.

Over the next few posts on a 'Kingdom of God Economy' I will discuss:

• Parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30)
• Parable of the hidden treasure (Matt 13:44)
• Paying taxes to Caesar (Luke 20:19-26)
• Parable of the shrewd (or dishonest) manager (Luke 16:1-13)
• Parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16

All of these are in some way paradoxical, or at least contradictory. And of these 5, about 15 or so more have had to be left to one side.

Are there any initial thoughts you have on these parable and teaching before I set to work?

The Internet Machine (no hostility intended)

2009-09-09T09:09:00.000+01:00

Last time I wrote quite a provocative first paragraph:
"[The Internet] machine has created a culture that requires instant access to everything. This is a counterfeit attitude at greater leisure, when everyone knows that the greatest leisure comes from taking things slowly. This machine has made news, opinion and opinion, fact."

Society has certainly changed. Newspapers no longer report, they discuss. It is a presentation of their viewpoint on events. And most newspapers claim things to be newsworthy that aren't even news. Like the dress-sense of Gordon Brown. Or the likelihood of alien invasions being calculated by coma induced students at Brunel University.

And then the obvious: "we don't have any news so lets do a double page spread of gossip, letting us know how many time Lindsay Lohan has married women, and the photogenic nature of Brad Pitt's vegetable patch" (no euphemism intended).

The Internet is both an incredible gift, and a terrible curse. I could quote stat after stat if how much pornography is uploaded every minute. Only 10% of which (approximately) is legal. The rest is even more depraved and depicts animal, children, and a large bottle of Tabasco to eyes of the film maker when I catch him.

Googe has made the Internet smaller, then expanded it again. And all the time we get message after message that we've won the 10000000000000 visitor prize every time we visit that web page. And I get emails every 3-4 minutes telling me my penis is too small when there are only a select few who've seen it and they aren't the kind of people to start working for 'enlargement' organisations (sorry mum).

In all of this we have a smaller world, cheaper products, undiscovered creativity being made readily available, and free thought (within reason) flying left, right, and centre, while wikipedia tries desperately to pick up the pieces of misinformed citations letting everyone know that Hitler was a type of cheese.

Thank you Internet.

Sincerely

Toby (writer thanks to my ISP)

Everyone else is Wrong

2009-09-08T08:59:00.001+01:00

A lot of the church's critics come for he inside.

Weird, no?

I've been reading a few different "Biblioblogs" (blogs from the Christian Blogosphere [where people blog]) that spend the majority of their time breaking down their own church experience, then reconstructing it under their own system. I do it. I have a series of posts in my "drafts" section with clear instructions on where the church has gone wrong, then my great ideas on how it can be better. We're all allowed our convictions, but ultimately I've forgotten that simple truth that 'there is nothing new under the sun.'

All of my innovation, inspiration, and revelation, is all simply new to me. Not the world, not the church, and certainly not all those that have gone before me.

For that, I'm sorry. Slight error, I must say.

Important thing

2009-09-07T19:12:00.000+01:00

I've just created a summary page of the opening of Ephesians over at
my other blog.

http://twentypence.wordpress.com/important-things-from-ephesians-1/

Thought you might like it.

King Jesus' Economic Plans (Part 2)

2009-09-07T14:00:00.001+01:00

If we’re thinking of a counter-cultural existence, there isn’t a bigger topic to discuss than money and possessions. Especially for everyone who has the Internet. This machine has created a culture that requires instant access to everything. This is a counterfeit attitude at greater leisure, when everyone knows that the greatest leisure comes from taking things slowly. This machine has made news, opinion and opinion, fact.

Then we immerse ourselves in the person of Jesus. Who was he? If we take the idea that someone is the sum of the company they keep, Jesus is one mixed up kid. His multiple personalities include: terrorist, tax collector (as hated as ticket inspectors or traffic wardens or tax collectors today), local businessman, builder, lepor (or someone suffering from swine flu to be boxed up indefinitely while GPs feign cleanliness by asking you to use alcohol rub before using heir biros), beggar/hobo, general unsavoury character, etc.

As mainstream rabbis go, of which Jesus wasn’t, you were supposed to pick apprentices with the most potential. That usually meant that they had already made great progress and were looking for the next level. Jesus took this to an extreme, where ‘most potential’ meant ‘least visible progress in life thus far’. And this is where economic thouht from Jesus really pulls things apart in comparison to today’s theorists.

Do not take financial advice from Jesus.

If we’re talking about investment (and I am) and you put that together with all of Jesus’ teachings you get a pretty strange mix. Effectively, Jesus’ theory was:
‘Take the most worthless product, downtrodden and forgotten about, hated and rejected and pour your very self into it until you are at your very end. Then leave.

At some point around 6 weeks after you’ve left, there will be some great stuff going on that will last forever. But it will take a long time.

Well worth it, though.’

Last week I mentioned 3 aspects of The Economy According to Jesus which included ministry to the poor.

This is one of the most talked about virtues in today’s society, but it’s for someone else. The charities do it. My neighbour does it. That weird hippy does it. I don’t. I don’t want to get my hands dirty. It is one of the fundamental practices of any given church. Or should be. And it’s all for negative profit. The investment is the same as with Jesus. Give everything you have to see them lifted out of their own filth. And you hardly even get a good feeling about yourself because you’re exhausted.

But that’s Jesus’ second principle. Or fourth. After caring for the poor, cancelling debt, and getting regular rest, you invest in the worthless for a reward that’s either non existant, or invisible for a hefty amount of time.

Let me know how it goes!

Slavery and the bible

2009-09-03T20:48:00.000+01:00

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2009/4187_How_Paul_Worked_to_Overcome_Slavery/

Just when you think it could get interesting, John Piper shoots 11
points at you.

For a summary:

Slavery=bad

The Economy where Jesus is King, part 1

2009-09-01T15:11:00.000+01:00

God's economy is fundamentally different to how we think. I find this astonishing as we were designed by him. Let me elaborate.

There are three primary principles that operate in God's economy that makes it what it is; fully functioning, successful, high in riches.
1. Rest
2. Cancellation of debt
3. Caring for the poor

These three make no sense to the sensible person.
1. Everyone would love to rest, but when you're not working, you're not earning. If you're not earning you can't live.
2. Cancelling a debt is practically unheard of. But if your debt is cancelled you're eternally grateful.
3. Caring for the poor is admirable, but there's never enough left over to give. And there's no return. Once you've been generous in any form you don't get a pay back.

In the Golden Years of Isreal, when David was king, the nation was admired, wealthy, and powerful. And this was primarily because it was operating under God's economy. The widow, oppressed, and poor were cared for. The soldiers and farmers and workers from all walks of life took a day of rest, religiously. And the year of Jubilee (every 7th year where any outstanding debt was settled through cancellation) was fully enforced.

This was the workers were happy, the people were happy, and the nation wasn't crippling itself with unending borrowing.

You can see where today's society took a wrong turn, can't you?

Feminine Christianity (or How to get someone to read your blog)

2009-08-05T15:36:00.000+01:00

Just for everyones benefit, I happen to have caught a glimpse of some
female Christian bloggers. There is no harm in these. I am fascinated,
however, at the difference in expression of faith there is between the
male and female world. This is a massive generalisation which I'm
relatively proud of.

In this world of finding the Gospel of Jesus and digging deep, the
male and female jump into two very different pools. Even when issues
are practically identical, the outcome contrasts dramatically. This
boils down to the oil and water syndrome of the human race.

Men and women are fundamentally different. No matter how much you put
men and women into the same category, the men always get violent and
the women always get emotional. (Please note my comments on
generalisations mentioned earlier.)

Trouble is brewed when the gospel is to be communicated to a crowd of
men AND women. How does this message gt both of these people at once?
It is a message of love and violence. Commitment and endurance. Hope
and power. Nothing short of a timely paradox. A timeless Truth that
filters through to our society like the fumes of a strong cup of
coffee waking the dead.

The message is a wake up call and a reassurance. This world is in a
terrible place, claims the message of Jesus. This world is headed
toward judgment. This same message in an instant gives hope beyond
reason. Justice has been and will be done. The hungry will be fed. The
mourning will be comforted. The toast will not be burnt anymore.

I have to live in this paradox. Thank God for the church. I don't
think I could do this without community.

Time to return: Jonah Part 5

2009-07-17T15:27:00.001+01:00

There have been a lot of muddled thoughts here recently; brought about
by looking and dwelling in the book of Jonah. Why does God relent when
this city shows repentance? Isn't that going back on His word?

It is a puzzle that has kept me up late, seen conversations twist and
turn with enquiries, but there is an answer that can only be revealed
in wrestling. If you don't believe me, read my post on Jacob from a
while back.

Does God change his mind?

I've had enough of a time on this to know that what God wants and what
God does are perfectly balanced. He is a loving father who doesn't
want to see His children hurt in any way, yet He sends pain and
affliction as the loving discipline of a perfect parent. He lets us
learn and doesn't intervene when He could, and no doubt wants to.

On the other hand: He holds back from complete annihalation of this
fallen planet because even though He is in constant agony over
everything done by people on this earth and desires it to be done
with, He acts over this planet in hope that all things will be
redeemed. And He knows that because He Spoke.

And He Spoke over Nineveh. He Spoke disaster. This is His justice.
Then He spoke salvation. This is His mercy. This is the same God.

Does Jesus change His mind?

No.

He knows what He wants, and He knows what He needs to do.

All this because He looks at the wounds He bore Himself and has
confidence in the final judgment. He is patient and humble and waits
for victory to be seen by as many as possible. It is by His grace and
mercy that we are still around today.

It will be His glory revealed when He judges the whole earth. And those
who are His can have confidence in Him.

Jonah knew God: "You are full of compassion, abounding in steadfast
love," and He had confidence in the response God would have on the
Ninevites if they repented. So when they did, it is Jonah who is a
little miffed!

But more on that next time.

This is strange

2009-06-29T19:13:00.000+01:00

You know what I think is weird?

Everytime I open a can of baked beans, I expect there to be baked beans in the can.

Update for my readers. My many readers.

2009-06-21T15:36:00.002+01:00

So I've not posted here for too long. And my last few posts have left
loose ends left, right and centre. But I'm going to take a break after
some recent events have forced me to post some updates online. I do
just feel forced.

I got married.

Some of you may remember the day. It's one of the favourite days of my
life I must say. And married life has treated me good thus far. I've
been living with my bride and my housemates because we couldn't find
somewhere affordable to live, but now we're moving out.

Incidentally this is also a test post, to see whether I can post from
my phone. If I can then there may be more frequent, shorter posts
happening here.

More updates will come.

Jonah Part 4a

2009-05-03T21:09:00.002+01:00

Does God change?

Yes.

I've been wrestling for a while over this question, brought out by my studies through Jonah; or at least emphasized. There are thought on bits of paper everywhere, and I have almost made my decision. I need to clarify a lot in my mind, and describe what I mean when I say "Yes" to the above question. But I'm wondering, do other people entertain this idea? Or are they happy with a simplistic idea of pre-ordination (if they're Christian), or incredibly unhappy with a God of simplistic pre-ordination (if they're speculative about God)?

There will be more coming, but I'm not comfortable with what I've written to publish, yet. So prepare yourself for a muddled couple of posts (I anticipate) getting my thoughts into readable prose.

Thank you. And enjoy the bank holiday.

Jonah Part 3

2009-03-31T12:20:00.000+01:00

Catch up with the previous posts here and here. And even read Jonah (it won't take you long) here.

Jonah gets to work

Jonah gets his call from God a second time. This isn't surprising, and God's unrelenting handling of Jonah to get him facing the right way is somewhat of a comfort to the thousands, if not millions, of people trying to do what God's calling them to do, but then deciding an easier option would be to go on holiday and decide about that later.

Has Jonah learnt his lesson? It's a good question. He seems to be eager to get on with whatever it is that God wants him to do, and ends up going to this 'great city' of Ninevah. It is pretty awesome. The text tells us that Ninevah took 3 days to visit the whole city. Seems like a long-weekend break destination, only without any of the comforts, because it's a pretty pagan city. Jonah walked through the whole city shouting a simple message (like God had told him to do, though truncated for sake of conscience on Jonah's part as we shall see).

"Yet forty days, and Ninevah shall be overthrown!"

In the original language this 'sermon,' if you can call it that, is 4 words. Literally: "Forty days, Ninevah destroyed." No mention of God, no mention of a hope of salvation, no 3-step program on how to repent, no '30 second prayer,' Nothing. Just: This city is going down.

Now it's Ninevah's turn.

It did work, and the interesting phrase "And the people believed God" creates questions about how they knew it was Him that had spoken (unless there is some underlying knowledge we haven't seen reference to), and more importantly, in my opinion, how on earth did they know what to do? They fasted, mourned, put on sackcloth; all repentant type behaviour in my opinion.

This underlying knowledge is quite important to their salvation. It seems to me that these people had seen something that gave them and idea of who God was (rather than god or gods), and they had also seen how their actions were not merely different to another nation or city, but actually evil in comparison. The nation that would have modeled this (or at least should have, as their calling was) was the nation of Israel. They were called to be a light to the nations, to show the rest of the world who God really was and what He expected of His creation as a whole.

Their distinctness was their defining attribute that set them apart from the rest of the world in order for the world to truly perceive God. And the Ninevites had seen this and were being told by someone from Israel that the consequences to their complete lack of acknowledgement that their actions had any negative effect on them, would now be brought in front of their face with a big red cross marked "wrong". And yet, this knowledge didn't bring them to despair. They were just told how they would be wiped out by the all-powerful God, and instead of shouting "meaningless, everything is meaningless!" the king decreed a nationwide repentance. (It wasn't just people either, their livestock were covered in repentance clothing as well - take note of this for the future.)

Now, at this point God relents from bringing about doom on this city, which is explained later, and questions come into being about whether God changes or not. Which is a ridiculous premise because, actually, God doesn't change, though his actions do seem to react to the repentance of the city. His verdict is seemingly replaced. This deserves more detail so I'll leave it for next time...

Jonah Part 2

2009-03-27T12:31:00.001Z

This is the next part of an extended summary of what the book of Jonah is about.

The build up

And Jonah runs in the opposite direction, in complete knowledge that the God He worships is the God of the whole world and wherever he runs it won't do much good to those around him, or himself. (That also happens to be a commentary on sinfulness in general: To go the opposite direction to where God wants you to be doesn't just hurt yourself but those around you as well.) When a storm begins to brew, like a nice cup of tea, the pagan sailors have more fear than Jonah, seeing as Jonah is asleep 'on the cushion' (remind you of Jesus...? Well, let's not get quite so carried away yet). Jonah, sleeping soundly in the boat, while a storm begins to tear the whole ship apart.

The captain went down to see if Jonah knew anything about the commotion, ("What's with all the commotion?!") and the answer was, of course, yes. Jonah knows exactly what's going on, it's almost as if he expected it. It looks like, this is funny, he thought he could run away from God, then, because God would punish him for running away, get killed by whatever that judgment would be (and let's have out in the open sea just in case) so that he would have no more to do with doing something that is against his own selfishness. It boils down to Jonah being a racist.

Here's the bit about the Fish

Jonah offers to be thrown into the sea, hoping desperately to drown. I can't think why else he would offer his own life. The reaction to the storm being settled by the 'Pagan Sailors' is awe and wonder and it causes them to worship. This is highly intriguing, but expected. The sacrifice of one man leads them to believe in that man's God. And yet, this is merely a highlight to the story. This still hasn't got to the main point. And we haven't got past the fish yet.

Jonah is in the sea, feeling sorry for himself no doubt, and God sends along a large fish to take Jonah into his belly. Then comes the prayer of Jonah. It pretty much takes up all of the second chapter of the book and there is one issue I have with the interpretations I've heard of it. The interpretations I've heard put this prayer down to a great faith stirrer, that even in the midst of his struggle Jonah prayed, and then God, in response, released Jonah from the fish onto dry land.

This isn't obvious when you read it. But I've heard preacher after preacher tell me that the application to this text is that if we have enough faith, and pray in this kind of way, Jesus will release us from the proverbial 'Belly of the fish.' According to the text, the prayer is in the past tense. It's all referring to something that's happened. "I turned to your holy temple" "you answered me" all these are about a past event. Anyone know what that past event is? (There aren't any prizes.)

Jonah is praying a great praise song to God because he was saved from drowning by a fish. He was grateful, secretly, that he had not died, and that God had saved him. He was immensely grateful for God saving him and prays a prayer that shows God he's sorry that he went the wrong way and he's grateful God didn't abandon him to death. I don't think we can deduce from the psalm here in chapter 2 that Jonah 'earned' (and I use that word for provocative reasons, not ever because I've heard a preacher or teacher say this outright) his salvation of being spat out of the fish through praying, but rather he responded to the salvation he had experienced from his drowning helpless state.

Then the Vomit happens.

We'll continue soon...

Who is Jonah? What was he for?

2009-03-24T12:29:00.001Z

I read Jonah the other day. All of it. In about 10 minutes. So should you. Come back when you're done. Or read it here.

There is a traditional understanding that comes along with this book that gets on my nerves a bit. The main reason is there is so much focus on the 'large fish' that we lose the main thrust of the message laid out. You can tell what it's building to with the way the book climaxes then has an abrupt finish with a lot of questions left unanswered. Some are rhetorical, but some (the ones we're asking) linger for a while until we forget about what we were doing and go back to the washing up.

Why shouldn't we look at the big fish?

When I read the Bible, and most prominently the Gospels, the temptation is to jump in towards the end, read about Jesus suffering, dying, and rising, and then sit back and think about what just happened. I've been doing a series of Gospel overviews with my church at the moment and the impression I get is that the death and resurrection of Christ is incredibly important to the book, but the build up and implications of the events of Easter are what surround it in a profound way that would make it a mistake to overlook them.

We have a danger, also, of reading Jesus into the book of Jonah too soon. What I mean by that is, rather than allowing the book of Jonah to help us understand Jesus (especially when Jesus talks directly about 'The Sign of Jonah'), we see the big fish and spitting out of Jonah onto dry land, and assume that Jesus was talking about that and that that is what the story of Jonah is for: To see Jonah being swallowed and spat out.

This is not what the book is about. We know this because Jonah wasn't called to be swallowed by a fish and then spat out again. And before I get a lot of angry replies to all the masses who follow this blog with a great zeal, I want to say that just because Jonah wasn't called to be swallowed by a fish, doesn't mean Jesus wasn't called to die and rise again, we just need to read the story of Jonah in it's own right before we jump to conclusions about the author's intent.

Jonah's calling was to go tell the Ninevites that they were on the verge of destruction. Ninevah wasn't a particularly friendly place, and, more importantly, it was a pagan city, not a Jewish settlement. Jonah was reluctant to tell this pagan populous that God was going to destroy them for two reasons. (a) They were not Jewish, and if he told them it would lead to (b) the chance that they would repent of their sin if they heard the message of judgment.

Edit: This was going to be a short summary, but it's turned into a bit of a longer exegesis. I hope I'm keeping you in suitable suspense.

Next time... The Build up.

Discern the body

2009-03-20T10:17:00.000Z

Has anyone had communion recently? When I say communion, I'd like to say I was talking about good friends getting together and drinking good coffee just having good times. But good coffee is hard to come by in the current climate; which is slightly muggy, but sunny and warm.

I'm talking about the religious communion, or eucharist, or the Lord's supper, or something. The bit that, if you've ever been to a church service, has men in robes handing out free alcohol. I was reading the bit in the Bible where Paul is talking about the Lord's supper, communion. 1 Corinthians 11 for those desperate to know what on earth I'm talking about. Paul has been trying to correct this church because it has gone off the rails, somewhat. At least in this first letter. By the time the second letter arrives they appear to have sorted out some of their issues and have other ones instead. But Paul in the first letter is instructing the church on how to actually do church. It's a telling point when Paul, out of sheer desperation, tells them 'When you meet together, you are doing more harm than good.' Not a particularly good review of a church, which it's main object is to meet together.

So they must be feeling a little silly. Or worse. And Paul brings up the subject of the Lord's supper, the meal Jesus shared with His disciples right before He was tried, crucified, buried, and was raised; the meal Jesus told His disciples to keep doing in remembrance of Him. Broken bread and poured wine; Jesus' broken body and gushing blood. There's a definite parallel, which is probably why He did it.

Paul is encouraging the Corinthians, to sort out their meetings so they go back to how it was supposed to be. The main thing being that it is important for them to eat together. The point of eating together is having everyone together. The point is not, as Paul tells them quite straightforwardly, for the rich people to arrive and eat as much as they can and get exceedingly drunk, and then the poor to turn up and eat scraps. The main reason for this is this distinction of rich and poor is not relevant in the new identity they are celebrating with this supper. The new identity they have is actually that of Jesus Himself.

In Ephesians Paul states that through the death of Jesus the 'wall of hostility' between rich, poor, slave, free, man woman, young, old, black, white, Jew, and other has been removed so there is no need to hold to your own 'kind' as it were. In Galatians Paul goes further, and says that anyone found in Christ (that is found to have faith in the Jewish Saviour, Jesus, and therefore in Him; to have whatever is true of Jesus is true of the believer) there is no distinction between male and female, Jew or Greek, slave or free. That's more than simply people not being hostile anymore. There is no distinction between them. Why? Because they are not identified by their own birth, work, occupation, etc. They are defined by Jesus.

So back to this Special Supper: They are doing more harm than good. They are segregating off these various types of people for the sake of food. Later on in the letter, Paul describes this new set of believers as a body: that is they are all parts of the same thing, rather than lots of different things coming together to see what can happen. They are joined by Jesus. They are part of one another, and part of Christ; mysterious and true.

But Paul tells them this stark statement: 'Anyone who eat and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself.' Wow. What is this judgement? Does that apply to me? Well, if we understand that when Paul says 'the body' he means the church, of which they are all a part and joined together, then this is not merely looking at yourself and thinking 'Hmm... Are my hands clean today?' It's about discerning that you yourself are a part of something bigger. You are a part of everyone else. To miss this is to assume that Jesus mainly died for you on your own and this supper was made specially for you, and that does something terrible.

To miss the fact that anyone who believes in Jesus is part of something bigger of which Jesus is one with them and they are One with everyone else and Jesus (in a weird, but true, way), is to diminish the work of Christ. Jesus didn't die so you could have something to eat. Jesus died and rose again to bring all of these people to the same place, regardless of who they are, race, sex, class, aside. Through Jesus this diverse group of people is brought together to celebrate in the death that brought them together, and enjoy the resurrection life that brings into communion with one another and communion with Christ.

The one question you might still be thinking about:

Why does this mean judgement? If you diminish the work of Christ, His work wasn't fully sufficient for the history of the church. And that's bad news.

How to read the Bible...

2009-03-15T09:59:00.000Z

If you find a book of books on your shelf that somewhere near the end says about Jesus "Lord of lords, and King of kings," this is called a bible. I recommend opening it once in a while. I'd say it would be you reading the text, but it is more, if you become truly open to what it's saying, like it starts to read you. It points out your motivations you're not proud of, or brings you comfort as you see others failing where you failed, but being restored, or you see others suffering as you're suffering and begin to know someone else knows about it too.

If you're serious about discovering God, revealed through Jesus, and seeking relationship with the creator, there is something incredibly precious about seeking deep Truths from the Bible. It is a collection of inspired writings that are united by the theme of Jesus, though more than half the authors don't know His name. As you get deep into a text you're allowed to ask it questions. It's not a straight forward manual of 'Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth'. It hardly has any basic instructions at all. The first five books get so complicated it's hard to wade through the complexities. Reading about Jesus is refreshing and then challenging, as He represents the God of the Jews, not really fitting into the mould that others have created for Him. I'm not talking about those He came into contact with Him, though they do play a part, but more the thousands of people who try to explain Him as a person, outside the writers of the New Testament. Those writers clear up a few issues, then bring fresh mystery to His character.

There are some simple practical guidelines to reading a text from the Bible, but most of them involve reading it. If you've been in church for a while preachers begin to become predictable in what they'll say about a text. They stop looking at the text, instead find a theme that is flagged by the text and spend more time on the theme than what was written. You end up with a church that finds a letter written 2000 years very confused what he actually wrote.

Imagine reading Paul's letter to the Philippians, and getting to the instruction "shine like stars" and your preacher thought the application was "share Jesus with more people." Stars don't try and get brighter. But I'm told I should. I don't know who to believe. The Apostle Paul who wrote a lot of fine stuff about Jesus, or my pastor who admits his lack of knowledge all the time. The answer comes by reading. Faith comes by hearing. The Bible fills itself with power, and as I read sections of the Scripture I find myself truly enlightened by what is going on. The World makes more sense, I gain perspective about myself.

Here's what to do: Pick up the Bible, put down any pens you might have to relieve yourself of a temptation to underline that which is particularly relevant to you at the moment, and search for Jesus. What was He about? Is that here in the text? (The answer is yes, you just need to find it.) And then allow that to take over what you think about everything. Everything.

P.S. I've started to write a book. Proof-readers are wanted!

Responsibility

2009-03-03T14:59:00.001Z

West Wing, Season 5. Leo claims that he and his friend had the duty to act with integrity and responsibility on behalf of the men that died to save him and his friend from their situation; being stranded in a jungle in the middle of a war.

Duty. Integrity. Responsibility. If I was told to be a better person because someone died being better than me (sound familiar) I don't think it would work. Look at him...your turn! He was the best at loving people. Now you've seen Him love people, you must. Now you've seen Him look after the poor, the sick, the dying, the outcast, the lost; you must.

An undying message that because he did I really should. Only that doesn't help me. It generally brings me to despair. Of course if I'm meeting the standards being represented, it doesn't lead to despair, but pride. So I either, by looking at another persons 'example', feel guilty, or proud.

I don't think those are good results. There is another way. Rather than look at how He cares for people; now you've seen it do it. It should be told: He cared for people much more than you ever would. His life, death, and resurrection was a fulfillment of all care for all time. So now you can. You CAN care, because He cared to the end.

He looked at the broken and loved them whole. Then, at the end of his ministry, he was broken beyond anyone had ever been, He was rejected by every friend and enemy, even by His Father, experiencing and absorbing all the brokenness ever experienced, and in His resurrection, He defeated brokenness forever. And in Him anyone who looks at and worships Him, can bring wholeness to the broken, and healing to the sick, and the outcast can come home, because He already did it. It isn't a Duty. It's a joy. It's a responsibility because we, who know Him (Jesus), want to do more than theorise. And integrity is a gift as we further increase, in our hearts, the understanding the He has done it.

What part of finished don't you understand?

No Going Back

2009-02-28T15:00:00.000Z

Some time before I was born, a whole bunch of people were traveling toward a desert, being pursued by an army of Egyptians. Traveling is not really the right word, it was more like fleeing. Regrettably they found themselves between a sea of soldiers and the Red Sea. An older fellow called Moses, who was leading them, stood before them and encouraged them that their God had rescued them and that He wouldn't have led them to die. As he stood at the waters edge he struck his staff (which has a great story behind it) against the water and the sea began to separate.

This is the beginning of a great reminder summarised by the Jewish God, YHWH, who calls Himself, the God who 'brought you out of Egypt'. The parting of the sea was a defining moment. God was going to do the impossible in order to save the Israelites from their oppressors. It was defining because they had left their home, plundered their masters, and headed off. The Egyptians pursued them, wanting them back, even though they had suffered consequences from keeping them under duress, and had finally given in to letting them go. I don't think the Egyptians saw clearly very often. The Israelites walked on dry ground...on the bed of the Red Sea. And then the Egyptians followed. It's one thing to pursue your ex-slaves, but to rush into an impossible situation created by your oppositions' God, and thinking you'll win? That's just plain dumb.

So the Israelites came to the other side of the sea. They stood on the shore, watching the Egyptians ride after them...and then the walls of sea either side of them caved in and the Egyptian army, and Pharaoh, and maybe some curious birds, drowned. Gone. Done with. And the Israelites were safe. On top of that great drama, they couldn't go back. Through some miracle they had made a decision to leave shelter for the desert, and once through the sea walls, there was no going back. No way.

As the Israelites travelled through the desert they did do the odd bit of complaining about life not being quite as luxurious as in Egypt ("Oh, the cucumbers!"), but they couldn't go back. They couldn't return to their previous life. And they had taken a hole lot of good things from their previous life, but they couldn't return. The good had come, but their old masters, slave-masters, and the systems that oppressed them to be worthless, had been done away with; destroyed. They hadn't come with them into their new life.

When Christians get baptised they feel a bit weird. What am I doing exactly? they think. Of course I'm still realising, even today, the significance of my baptism. There's the simple truth that I die (with Jesus on the cross, where he died in my place) to myself, my old life, and rise with Jesus (because he is the resurrection). Then there's more complex things going on I only realise now. Like the comparison made with baptism and the Exodus; the story of the Israelites leaving Egypt through the Red Sea. And I realise there's no going back. I can't go back to my old life. I've got some good stuff, because God isn't completely vindictive and until we accept him have a horrible existence, and I've also left behind the old master. The things that oppressed me, made me do things against my better judgment.

And why did it take me this long to figure out? I'd like to blame a lot of things, but my most basic reason is something I'm going to write a book on, I think. That baptism (a couple of years ago) saved me. That will upset some people. Because baptism also doesn't save you. Jesus saved me. And baptism was that in a public, active form. No one told me what baptism would do, because it's a scary thing to say that this immersion in water is more than that. But I'm so glad I did it, rather than listen to the teaching, think of it as an obligation, and decide against it. Baptism in water is so vital for everyone who believes in Jesus, there is no going back once it's happened. It changes everything.

I don't ever want to dry off.

How to Change

2009-02-18T10:22:00.000Z

There are generally two kinds of people, morally: Those who care and those who don’t. The majority of people care, but are hypocrites. The others, those who don’t care, are also hypocrites. The differences aren’t actually in the person, but in the people around them. Those who don’t care justify themselves claiming they aren’t hurting anyone. This is hypocritical because they feel they have to make excuses for actions they shouldn’t care about. It’s also lying because it usually hurting someone.

Those who care have worked out a morality that they want to live by, only they don’t. That is as simple as hating it when people lie to them, but creating half-truths for everyone else so they only see a false representation of them. This is solved by self-discipline, we discover.

If I am to live by these rules I’d better get my act together; it’s not going to happen by wishing, is it?

This usually lasts 2-3 days:
I will keep my workspace tidy
Ø 3 days
I will wash up after every meal
Ø 3 days
I will say thank you to anyone who helps me
Ø 3 days
I will keep my bedroom clean
Ø 2 days

This actually doesn’t make you a better person. It simply accentuates your natural ability to fail. There are about 6 strong-willed people in the world, and they can’t relate to this, but their issue is in being unable to rest, and regroup. Be where they and no thinking about other things, either next or tomorrow; or on holiday.

When Jesus came to show a life that is actually living, there was something different about his treatment of people. He expected nothing from anyone. Sure he spoke with discipline at times, but it wasn’t done out of disgust, but with a heart of service. When Jesus walks on the scene, miracles, people, and his disciples somewhere in the crowd, following him, he doesn’t ask anything of anyone. He said he didn’t come to be served, but to serve. He came to show how true authority is true generosity.

His ultimate accumulation of service happened as he died, taking the punishment for the selfishness of the world’s corruption. His achievement was that through his death and the defeat of death and corruption in his resurrection, was the freedom that brought in those who trusted him. They were free to give themselves fully to the service of others.

One follower of Jesus wrote, later on in the growth of this community of believers, about the Spirit that lives in a Christian: The fruit of the Spirit living in you is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-discipline.” Notice how self-discipline is part of the life of a follower of Jesus, not something that will make you more loving or joyful or faithful or patient.

These attributes come out of self-giving service to others. What might that mean for you? Before you answer that, talk to Jesus. He knows you better than you do.

The Direction of Art

2009-02-13T11:21:00.000Z

I find myself at a loss for words, so often, when challenged with art that is genuinely repulsive. Either I hate it because it's just rubbish; there is no talent involved in placing a shopping trolley in a white room. Or I dislike it because it causes a reaction in me of utter disgust. However, if the aim of Art is to captivate the audience, these two forms are on their way with getting my attention. Regardless of how long I perceive these artforms, I can't describe my reaction as 'captivated.' A sunset captivates me; the flight of millions of swallows; water down a plug hole. I know art is a relative world, but I can't imagine anyone ever being captivated by a series of boxes piled just right so that it looks like a genuine pile of boxes.

אהבה

2009-02-04T18:36:00.000Z

Transliteration

'ahabah

Pronunciation

a·hab·ä

Three Hebrew words make up the translation into English of Love. It shows how redundant our language can become.

First comes

Transliteration

ra`yah

Pronunciation

rah·yä'

Second comes

Transliteration

'ahabah

Pronunciation

a·hab·ä

And third comes

Transliteration

dowd

Pronunciation

dode

ra `yah is the kind of love two friends have. It's better than companionship, because it's like saying I've seen you in the good times, and I've seen you in the really bad times, and I'm still walking with you. That's a good friend.

dowd is what people try to recreate in sex. It doesn't work because sex is the final outworking of a great love. It can be translated as a mingling. But a deep mingling of two souls.

'ahabah is the bit linking to two. It's more than commitment. It's when your spouse is about to kill you and you stand there with them and say 'I'm not going anywhere.'
It's beyond commitment. When you have such great hostility thrown at you and you stand, or hide behind something but still very much in the same room, and say '...there's no place I'd rather be than here, right here with you.'

That's an insane kind of commitment, that is more than someone who stands by you when you're in a bad place, under attack from something, or everything just seems to be going wrong, they stand right there with you, holding you up while you take flak.

They stand right there with you while you pour hot coals over their head, or punch them in the arms, or steal something from them, take a pleasure away from them, they stand by you. Telling you, "I'm not going anywhere."

This is God to you. How much have you done to go against His friendship? Hold everythnig back because you want it to be yours? Not involved Him in something He knows He needs to be involved in? Simply ignored His outstretched hands continually? Or even you lead yourself into a terrible place of having nothing, no one around you, and no support wherever you turn. You've put yourself in a place where everything just falls down around you.

Jesus just turns to you and says, not only, 'I'm right here with you,' but also, "and I'm not going anywhere. There's no place I'd rather be than with you."

Going back a few steps

2009-01-23T17:00:00.001Z

Your relationship with God is only effected by what you put in the way, not what He puts in the way. No matter what you do, the message of acceptance doesn't change, because it's not about you, it's about Him. If, for example, you put not believing in God between you and God, you're not going to have a great relationship with Him at all.

What an introductory thought. Imagine your surprise when the mime artist is actually in a glass box?!

Actually, we usually act the other way when it comes to Jesus. "He won't accept me because [insert embarrassing fact about yourself]"

How often have I, in my knowledge of superabundant grace, decided I can't quite approach God with quite as much confidence as I'd like? I feel a bit stupid to have constructed a massive lie because I was 5 minutes late. Why on earth would I do that? Why would I change my opinion according to who I'm talking to?

This isn't supposed to be a confession, yet we all do it. We all decide we are unworthy of going to into God's presence (which is dead on), but forget that we want to approach Him, despite out decisions we can't, because of the work of Jesus.

Have fun...

The Christmas Spirit

2008-12-31T16:24:00.005Z

Christmas does something quite crazy to television, and other media oriented presentations. Suddenly "Peace on Earth, and good will to all Men" doesn't sound so outdated; the amount of 'Christmas Specials' that appear to jump on the moral extremes. Mainly of the overly reconciling kind. Secretly, as people sit down on a cold Christmassy evening, they want to sit in front of the glowing box of magic, and have tingles of joy sent down their spine by a feel-good episode of 'The Royle Family' or Wallace and Gromit, or House M.D.

It was during the various episodes of Seasonal Jollity I realised the odd combination of enjoyment people get from watching other peoples lives. The usual depressing nature of Eastenders, however, managed to cut through the evening's schedule of Christmas day, like an icicle stabbed into the heart of a young child. Though perhaps a bit graphic, we mustn't forget that in the time of the first Christmas there was a massacre of all children under 3 years of age, in an attempt to keep the King of the time without worry. Of course if there is any threat at all to your place of power, the best thing to do is to get rid of the competition. And what better time to dispose of it than when they are powerless?

The general rule does apply, however, that if you're going to take time out from your family, or simply make yourself feel like you belong to someone else's for a while, the best method is to watch another repeat of the Christmas Spirit with different characters, and a slightly modified dilemma. What happens to TV the rest of the year?

Well, my moral compass has become stronger and stronger as I've walked into situation after situation of evil. I've heard of more marriage break-ups closer in relation to me that I'd like, and people dying left, right, and centre, doesn't add to my coping mechanism. It's a horrible state of play we are in, where children are deprived of their fathers, parents have lost their children, escape isn't somewhere else, but something else, like drugs or alcohol, or someone else, like the next door neighbour. Increasing are the professing homosexuals, who choose that as their religion. Gone are the professing Christians, who would rather sit in closed buildings complaining about the rest of the world, than attempt to heal it like they are chosen to do. And I and my small community are stuck in the middle, being blamed for the state of London because we don't recycle.

I am the first to put my hand up and say I am a hypocrite of massive proportions. Living under grace raises the stakes. My only joy is that Jesus makes it possible to bear the evil in this world, because He has already done it. He bore mine as much as everyone else's and my only hope is that the more people who turn to Him to bear their evil first before pointing their finger into the cold night, watching the fog fall to reduce your vision, unable to see over the road at the abusive fathers who lead their young daughters to prostitution and worse, would run out and rescue these people in a vulnerable state, knowing Jesus was that child who was rescued by His parents in his young state. Ultimately God, in Jesus, came to earth to be weak and powerless, that we may be strong enough to see this world transformed.

150th Post Special - Interactive

2008-12-11T16:58:00.003Z

I don't have anything that special to say, actually. In light of some recent musings around my personal spirituality and it's effect with others, I've been thinking a lot about the link that has been separated between the spiritual and the physical. There are other terms known as 'natural' and 'supernatural', or such ridiculous removals from the real world. The main idea that is communicated in this modernistic world, with clear objections from post-modernism yet silence from Christianity, is that we have life, and this world, and that's about it. When you die you're dead. Christianity has this extra bit, when you die, you're probably not dead. Of course I'm not talking about True Christianity, but about Traditional Christianity. The kind that when you say it there stirs a certain recoiling, and you think that it's a bad thing.

True Christianity has the opposite opinion of the world. Most people are dead, yet breathing. This has been coined as spiritually dead, but I want to take it further. If, when people meet Jesus they become born again, and new creations, then it's not enough to think that it's a work that is seperate from the body. The line cannot be drawn between spiritual and non-spiritual. The term natural, as I think about the Christian world view, cannot be separated from spiritual, because spirituality is natural, as is eating. It is more natural, in fact, for people to experience God personally, than for them to never have a life without at least one experience that doesn't fit with the physical laws laid out in science. I don't deny these laws, but I don't find them sufficient to account for answers that are being and have been searched for millenia. They answer the perceivable world (by the 5 traditional senses) and all it's questions. They don't answer origin, or justice, or imagination, or creativity. They don't answer the why questions, when we look at the human race. Why was fire so important to discover? Why was the wheel? Why do people need to invent things to do things that could be done by other things already?

I haven't communicated my conclusions very well because they're not there yet, but I would ask that there be some discussion. Help me to clarify things in my head by involving yourself in a discussion about spirituality and life.

Of course you could just lie in wait for an unsuspecting simpleton to say something you can jump on. But I'm hoping if discussion begins, you will be courteous.

Definition of ponce

2008-12-08T09:26:00.002Z

Being French.

For example translating 'A Little Serenade' as 'Une Petite Musique de Nuit'

N.B. True definition not this.

Making History

2008-11-02T10:31:00.002Z

I've just returned from a conference of challenge and encouragement. I met some awesome people, some hilarious people, some challenging people, and some people that will remain friends for life. There were guys who were so passionate about the message they had received their end goal was for everyone to not only hear that, but also commit to it. There were those who were prayer ninjas. Some were entertainers. All of them were looking beyond their own mission and looking to God.

God was moving powerfully through the week. We were standing in the centre of the British Isles learning about going beyond our limits and looking to God. As I meditated on Psalm 139 one morning Jesus gave me revelation over how He was going to accomplish more through us because of our vision.

The final 2 verses of Psalm 139 say:

Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting!

He showed me how the people that go further for Him and achieve more than is possible are those who look to God for their purpose and motivation, rather than themselves. Why is this? Well, the 'way everlasting' needs to be contrasted with a way that finishes. All the other paths (i.e. those not ordained by God) reach a dead end. Those walking on those paths get to the end and then stop. They've done all they can. It's attainable by ourself and we just do it. God's way is so much bigger. He asks us to look beyond ourselves and what we can accomplish, and towards Him and what He can accomplish (which is everything beyond what we could ask or even imagine).

When the apostle Paul wrote Romans, he was writing to set up a missions base in Rome to then head out to Spain. His chunk of theology was almost a simple foundational section so that when he arrived he knew they would be on the same page so they could send him. What's interesting is there is no hard historical evidence that Paul ever made it to Spain. He knew God was leading him there and was being obedient to set-up the possibility of going, but he never got there. If Paul had known he wouldn't make it to Spain he probably would have never written Romans, which is now considered the most important book in the New Testament.

If we aim for what we can do, we will attain only a small amount. If we aim for what God wants, looking beyond our limitations, we will attain far more than we can ask or imagine. And the work will continue into the everlasting. That's making History.

Missing

2008-10-16T13:04:00.004+01:00

I'd like to say I've been busy, but I haven't. In the grand scheme at least life is pretty dull. I'm still without a job, and it leaves me at a loss for activity. The trouble is that without routine, disciplines like letting everyone know what's going on in my mind via this blog becomes a sideline to other less productive things. Even loading the dishwasher has become a chore. I have been thinking about a lot though. You shouldn't worry about that.

Jacob was a schemer. He tricked his older brother into signing over his inheritance for a bowl of stew. Then tricked his dad into giving him a blessing that his older brother deserved by being hairy for his blind father. Then he schemed to marry a girl called Rachel. The trouble is, Rachel's father was also a schemer. He asked Jacob to work 7 years in order for permission to marry her. Jacob was obviously smitten, and it lasted because he worked those 7 years and then attended a marriage. It was his own, but unfortunately not with Rachel. It was with Rachel's sister. That meant a little anger, but he sat down with his new father-in-law and agreed to work another 7 years in order to finally marry Rachel. This was true commitment. In the meantime, he began to collect sheep. What I mean is, he decided to create himself some of his own resources so sifted sheep from all the various flocks he was taking care of and created himself a nice little pension scheme.

After finally marrying Rachel, having a few kids with his first wife and one with his second, he left his father-in-law's land (with a lot of stolen sheep, cattle, and a few of his own servants) and hesitantly went back to his father's land. Predicting his brother's wrath he sent waves of gifts to placate his brother's potential pay back. With nothing left he finally met his brother. He expected quite a harsh reception and sent his brother away quickly with the deposit of his family. And then he waited in the wilderness.

He met a man, with no face and no name. This man wrestled with him. They wrestled all night. Dusk 'til dawn you could say. Contorted figures silhouettes to lone travelers traveling at the cool of night. Even though there was a clear winner so early, the faceless man had advantage over Jacob before they started, Jacob strived, kept going, and held on. As the sun gave it's first hint at light, the faceless man said to Jacob, "I must go now." Jacob began to see something new about his fighter friend.

He was fighting with purpose. This wrestling wasn't some kind of domination tactic to win as much stuff off anyone he came across in the wilderness. Jacob had nothing. He had sent everything ahead of him. Jacob realised this man, this faceless, nameless human figure, wasn't fighting for anything Jacob had, he was fighting for Jacob himself. Jacob became in awe as he realised he was wrestling with his God. The God who had given life to his grandfather's barren wife's womb, to his father's wife's womb, and was now coming down to give Jacob.... something.

He wasn't sure what, so held on. Knowing full well that God could just disappear if He so chose. Jacob braved words that had come out of his mouth once before as he had deceived his father many years previous. "Bless me."

He became stronger. "I won't let go until you bless me."

This stranger Jacob was convinced was God in 'some-kind-of-flesh' seemed to be satisfied with the response he was getting from the contorted figure that held onto Him so tight. "I will bless you," He said, then proceeded to press His finger into Jacob's hip, leaving Jacob crippled. The faceless man disappeared.

Jacob was motionless for a while then he stood. And now he walked, limping back his father's land, back to his family, with a clear message in his side that he was blessed by One that would fight for him. Always limping, and always praising.

Jacob - He strives.

I've been reading Ezra

2008-09-22T17:59:00.005+01:00

Ezra is a bit of a crazy book. It falls in a place in the Bible that is pretty hard to find, and he's not in it that much anyway. What it does lay out is a great theology of church and state working closely together. The king of Babylon, which had, as a nation, taken the whole of Israel away from their land to make them assimilate with the Babylonians, finally decided to send them back. There was a mixture of them causing trouble, and God prompting the king (by revealing that this God, YHWH, had given all the nations to Cyrus, the king, and God needed a house) to send His people home. The focus of their (the Jews') mission, the second they stepped through their home city gates, was simple: Rebuild the Temple. The Temple was the focal point of this community of God-Fearing Jews. The Babylonians had destroyed in their general pillaging, so the nation of Israel entreated the king at the time, Cyrus, to provide resources to undo Babylon's unhelpful way of doing things. Between the Jews and the kings of Babylon, the Temple is restored.

I noticed a few things in the opening chapters of the book of Ezra that struck me as odd and/or profound. (I have a friend who is profound - i.e. anti-lost.) The first thing to take away is as soon as the Jews found evidence of the original place of the Temple (namely, the cornerstone) they worshipped God extravagantly. There were sacrifices and singing and shouting. There was mourning for their absence from the land for so long, there was excitement at the prospect of the Temple being restored, there was engagement with God as they knew it was Him that had brought them home. It was a great time. They made so much noise the surrounding countries heard some of the raucous behaviour.

This leads me to think of a true reaction when something is about to happen, not something has happened. But they've hardly opened their toolbox when they stop everything and worship God for who He is. He's done stuff up to this point, but we also know He's going to do a lot more. God's pretty darn awesome. This worship was sacrificial. It cost them a fair chunk of their livelihood as livestock was being killed left, right and centre. But it was because He is amazing, not because He will give it back. It doesn't really matter if He will, actually. Just as long as we honour Him for His brilliance.

The second part is the confusion brought about by some enemies of the state wanting to help them out. This happens after the LOUD NOISES from Israel's people. Why would these enemies offer to help? Well, they claim to have the same God. It's true. They were know as Samaritans that were converts but in a twisted way. Instead of getting rid of their idols, they added God onto their list of gods to placate. The worship of this God of Israel wasn't the issue. The Jews don't really say anything on the matter. But why wold they accept and even rejoice in the help that comes from the king of Babylon, but refuse help from those semi-related to them (most Jews referred to Samaritans as half breeds, or mongrels...)? The point is in method. I will open this up more fully next time.

For a different approach to this book take a look at my older brother's study on liveasif.org. Do a search for "Thoughts of a Saint and Slave"

My Gospel keeps getting shrunk

2008-09-22T15:39:00.001+01:00

Ask me about it...

What to do with culture...

2008-09-16T10:18:00.003+01:00

Don Miller, author of books like 'Blue Like Jazz' and 'Searching for God Knows What', started a blog a while ago. His most recent post tackles the issue of what American politicians refer to as 'The Culture War'.

I responded to his questions...

1. Do you believe you are in a cultural war?

I think war is a strong word. And, if your terminology of war is correct (which I think it is - compliments to the writer), I don’t think destroying culture is even possible, so why try.

2. How do you feel (and respond) to attempts from the left and right to recruit you into a cultural war?

“Change” is word thrown around like it means something. The only thing it means to whoever is recruiting is making more and more people think they are right, and the other person isn’t. That isn’t change; that’s accentuating the SAME.

3. If war involves killing, and if a metaphorical war involves metaphorical killing, what does killing look like in this cultural war?

Killing is removing people/ideas that would otherwise remove you/your ideas. So it’s selfish arrogance that there is superior living, and it is achieved by me, all others must submit.

4. If you were to move beyond a cultural war, a step that might involve compromise, do you feel like you would be “giving in” to an enemy in any way?

I think I agree that cultural war isn’t good terminology for what happens when two different belief systems collide on a culture. If you don’t agree with something in culture do you allow compromise? Compromise must, probably, be defined as acceptance that it happens, rather than trying really for it not to. So, if abortion is the issue, we must accept that abortion happens. Whether it happens safely in a clinic, or possibly life-threatening-ly on the streets, is the response of society. That isn’t what I would call a bad thing. Facilitating abortion to the point of convenience and making it a necessary topic of discussion doesn’t help culture in it’s struggle with it.

Culture isn’t something to ‘give in’ to, but respond to. The response is the action leading to people believing in acceptance, rejection, or a mixture of both. Compromise leads to resenting something that isn’t bad until it is responded to. The response mustn’t feel like it’s giving in. It should feel like something we do as part of bettering (not battering) people. Jesus liked to respond to things, or tell stories to help people respond to him. It wasn’t really attacking culture, but the people thinking culture was the great thing we own.

5. What does peace negotiation (an important part of any war) look like in the cultural war?

I don’t know.

As a Christian community, there is a general mis-communication that makes people believe that culture is wrong. I'm sure I've posted on this enough times, but the idea of removing ourselves from culture is as equally absurd as deciding that culture itself dictates what we should believe. In fact, there needs to be an application of what I would call the Gospel, to redeem corrupted parts of culture to what they're frustrated trying to be, and a praise and strengthening of the parts of culture that bring the improvement of people. It is all in the worldview, brought about by the resurrection of Jesus, and the future hope of New Creation started by Him.

The idea that we war against cutlure is more like a struggle for middle ground. Church leaders are the ones who incorporate Christian culture into churches, and this increases relevance in the culture they find themselves. It isn't seperate, rather complimentary. There are different things, but styles of worship, communion, baptism (in the sea? only if there's any sea), preaching, is all part of keeping the Gospel applied to culture. It isn't seperate from the society it finds itself, because it always relevant. People always need forgiveness, and part of finding relationship with God is found in every section. It may be considered a little or a lot. It may be manifested in great and monstrous miracles, or through families putting the past behind them. But it is always possible because of the life, death, and Resurrection, the Faithfulness, of Jesus.

The question to answer is how to engage.

1. How should a church engage with the society it finds itself?

2. How should the two communities co-exist?

3. Where is the separation, and interaction?

4. Where does compromise for the majority come in?

Thought for the day

2008-09-15T23:25:00.002+01:00

A good way to look at your relationship with God...

The word usually translated pursue in Ancient Greek, literally means 'to systematically harass, or oppress'.

Paul told Timothy in a letter to "systematically harass/oppress righteousness, faith, love, peace, and people doing the same as you"

See what happens.

Hard Times

2008-09-01T23:07:00.002+01:00

I'm writing a post, which interestingly coincides with what went on tonight. It will be published tomorrow lunchtime. Suffering is an interesting topic and this study I am publishing will come back to it again and again as I go deeper into the frustration that has seen the 'prototype of Hope'.

The little broadcasting some of us get branded with...

2008-08-22T15:26:00.001+01:00

I've been watching God TV. I confess. It is pretty awful. When every preacher looks at the screen and yells at you to sort your life out it's not a great resource for societal improvement. However, it did get me thinking. The type of programming on this channel is a mix of weird Australian presenters talking loosely about some kind of 'Glory' that floats around, in reach if you pray for enough hours of your day; televangelists with no message worth laying claim to; liars telling you that the Gospel of Jesus Christ found in the Bible isn't quite right, unless you have everything sorted (or the other way round, that the Gospel is supposed to get you sorted in 48 hours of believing, contrary to these texts here, here, and here); and women giving profoundly foolish advice to lower-middle class people about how they could where trouser suits just like her.

It's not got anything worth watching. Todd Bentley was almost getting to a point where people might have invited him to their house for tea, only to see the strain of not taking a Sabbath (which many people learn is a dumb move) put strains on his family. It removes the people following one man, but it's not the best way to see that happen. I saw a trailer the other day to buy a cloth that (for only €50) would heal you every time you touched it. I came to the conclusion that this channel should not carry the name it does, unless it decides to shape up and get rid of the preaching people want to hear, and put in place preaching people need to hear.

This isn't their first criticism and it won't be their last. It makes me mad that people who don't know Jesus might watch this. It's a load of rubbish, and it's only good purpose is to practice discernment. I turn it on and ask myself, "How is this wrong?" It doesn't take me long to find out, and it's upsetting that that's what it's come to.

Enough about that, because on the other side of this chasm is a Channel 4 show called 'Make Me A Christian.' It's brilliant, and based in Leeds (my old home City), so it just makes it that little bit better than the average Channel 4 documentaries. It's not in the same league as Celebrity Wife Swap, but it is very good. There is a small issue I had with an Evangelical (I think) Catholic priest who tried to convince one family to have a picture of the latest pope over their fireplace. But the methods of the 4 church leaders are astonishing. One guy was in a relationship for 2 years, but still spent Thursday nights (Lads' night) going out, picking up girls, and sleeping with them. An unhealthy amount of one night stands (i.e. more than none). A Pastor decided the only way for him to come face-to-face with his blatantly absurd actions was to take him to an STI clinic, and get him tested for sexually transmitted infections. The man in question couldn't go through with it, but I think he got the message.

Another girl was so obsessed with her image she had had plastic surgery in a lot of different places to make herself feel better. She was so materialistic with her outward appearance she was in debt by £15,000. Not good. Another pastor went to her house, asked her a few questions, then realised what her issue was and quoted this from the Bible:

Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God. (1 Peter 3:3-4)

The power of these words led her to tears, and she wept for a considerable amount of time. Coming face-to-face with idolatry is a terrible thing, but it showed her, and the guy mentioned earlier, that there is something about Christianity that cannot just be an outward thing. It finds itself outwardly expressing itself in the faith of a believer. But what is ultimately important is what is in the heart. I didn't see any more of the documentaries, but could see the methods: Bring them face-to-face with their way of living to show them just how broken they really are. If someone is brought into a place of brokenness Jesus is a True and Great Hope that no one can turn down.

Returning to routine

2008-08-10T10:48:00.003+01:00

As usual, the Summer months dictate over a month between posts. There's been plenty happening that I could have reacted to, or even in my own study there's been plenty to inform you of insight I have seen, read, heard, experienced, in the past few weeks. But I'm looking forward more. I finally bagged myself a room in a house that is far more permanent, and feels like my own. That means an easier discipline, rather than feeling like you're intruding everywhere you tread. Job applications, I've realised, are depressing; especially when you send of 50 CV's a day to various companies, and get 3 phone calls a week as a response. That says to me 'you may be far better skilled than some people, but there is always someone else far more skilled than you.' Thanks.

As far as churches go, there are a far too many to mention in the little hamlet of London. The conference at Brighton, put on by New Frontiers, and featuring Mark Driscoll as guest speaker, finally had a focus I could engage with: mission. The trouble with the conference as a whole was it's formulaic essence. Driscoll was an incredibly insightful and engaging preacher, pushing all challenges beyond the usual 'make sure you keep yourself clean, and tell someone you're a Christian at least once a week.' However, the worship band leading the thousands of delegates played for 30 minutes without fail, even if you could sense the need to wrap up early, or continue for an hour or so more. The prophetic, of which has been recognised as something New Frontiers is strong on, was equally basic. You'd imagine, at a place filled with 7000 spirit-filled, prophetic Christians, there would be encouragement, and vision from engaging with God, but it was quite bland compared with the past. Maybe the visions set by previous years asked for something that could not be given in the same measure as we stopped changing season and started living in it.

London was targeted as a strategic city in the world, and I moved there three weeks ago. Since then, my girlfriend and I visited 2 and a half churches, and stuck with the second one. Our local New Frontiers church gave the impression it didn't want any new people, so we left them to themselves, and found a church plant in Dulwich (South of the river) called Beacon Church. That's about where I'm at. The church has quickly integrated us, and we feel part of the vision.

I've also been writing some comments through 1 and 2 Peter, which I'm writing in a more legible form at my new blog Theological Meanderings. Maybe I'll move over there for a while, we'll see.

SYIAB! (See You In A Bit)

The Pain of Forgiveness

2008-06-22T20:50:00.001+01:00

Just to clarify on my last post. I think I made it sound like condemnation is a natural feeling you have to just get over by yourself. I made it sound like, if you're aware you're a sinner then deal with it. Jesus has done the job so get on with real life, man. Well, I really just wanted to get across this immense feeling that forgiveness is not telling you it's ok, and it's not telling you that all is forgotten. The last thing God does is forgive and forget. He forgives you, but that is a pain borne by Christ that makes reconciliation possible. If He forgot you ever did anything wrong, He wouldn't be loving, He'd be utterly dumb.

Jesus knows you're screwed up. He was tempted in every way but didn't sin. It means He knows the struggles faced, so we have someone who can sympathise with us. Sin is bigger than you, but Jesus is bigger than that. If God is in you, which He is because the Holy Spirit indwells all those who believe in His glorious Gospel, then you can beat sin. That's something to have immense peace about. When Paul says don't sin, he knows it's not as easy as ABC, but, to quote the controversial man of the time, Todd Bentley, "I don't think about sinning when I'm singing spirit-filled songs of praise to God."

I have to agree with Todd on that one. That may cause a rift between some Evangelicals, because if a man is slightly wrong on one thing we shouldn't listen to him at all. But I am a firm believer of seperating the wheat from the chaff.

Interesting to feel like I'm side-tracking when in fact this fits right in; God takes your good, that is in you by His grace, and increases it. What is rubbish, worthless, offensive, etc. He burns away with His Holy fire. The pain of forgiveness is like a burning, but it was either Him or you, right? And Jesus took that pain so you didn't have to. So the sin is considered as dealt with, and you can feel free to be burned in a furnace to get rid of the crap, and refine your very self into what God wants you to be.

That's enough clarification for one day.

What God isn't...

2008-06-19T19:38:00.005+01:00

The amount of times I go to God, go to Jesus and hope he'll tell me it's okay is beyond the point in counting. I offend God, or sin against Him regularly, every day. It's not something I enjoy doing, but something I have to continue to evaluate. But I still want to go to Him, tell Him I'm very sorry for being a nit-wit, and hope that Jesus will turn to me and tell me it will be okay.

The fact is, it isn't okay. God's never happy about any of the stupid stuff I do. I never hear Him say, it's okay. I learnt a long time ago that saying 'okay' is one of the most ridiculous things to say. My dad would tell me off for lying, or cheating, or breaking something, and then I would say to him, 'okay.' In my ten-year-old way of pretending I'm taking the discipline.

He would say back to me, 'it's not okay, though.' And it would get me every time. Until I started to say sorry instead. It made me think about what I'd actually done, rather than react to what was being said to me afterwards. And when I turn to God everyday, for forgiveness, He tells me it's not okay. It's not okay that I do the things I do that offend Him, or say the things I say that offend Him, it just not okay.

But, and this is a great big but, Jesus is risen! 1 Corinthians 15, in it's mystical power, explains the extent of the resurrection to the point that if it's not true all Christians are to be pitied. I think sometimes I live in a way that is not pitiful if my faith isn't true. But, in that resurrection, I find strength (because God also likes to give that if you go to Him) to live a life that is worthy of the Gospel. It's not profound. It's much more than that. It goes beyond a simple, 'okay, I'll change.' It goes to the extreme that if what is truly on offer explained in that letter to the Corinthians, then it is better to live, leaving behind sinful practices, than, 'eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!'

Jesus loves to offer new life. I need it every day.

Forgiven Much

2008-05-29T09:01:00.000+01:00

The forgiveness of God continues to go far beyond what we can think, or imagine. I find it fascinating to look back at that day 2000 years ago and realise more happened than I thought had done yesterday. There are those people (I sometimes fall into this category) that when you become a Christian, God stops being a loving pursuing God, and starts being an angry perfectionist God. "Now you're in my family," I can imagine Him saying, "you go by my rules. My house, my rules."

There are other interesting personalities that get projected onto God, especially when it comes to trying to understand the Trinity. The Trinity is not, although it would be easier if it was, like stuffing three pillows into one pillow case. You look at the pillow and it's one pillow, but it's three pillows. Funny word is pillow.

So the personality is like the angry Father who thirsts for blood at every opportunity, then there's the loving Son who, wanting His Father to stop wanting to kill people (but Dad is being very self-controlled), comes down out of heaven so His Dad can look at Him, kill Him and then, when the Son is back in heaven, every time Dad gets angry the Son says, 'No, look at me instead!" And there's the Holy Spirit who floats around making everyone feel warm and fuzzy because Dad can't hold Him back because the Son is distracting His gaze.

Again, that's wrong.

Actually, Jesus dying was for a purpose, and His rising again was more than a receipt. It's always good to go back to basics, and I've said it before, but the idea of being forgiven a lot is so profound I can't really get my head around it. If believers in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (that Jesus is the Jewish saviour and King of the whole earth) can't forgive others then they don't grasp it's implications. Obedience comes in the realisation of Jesus as King. Forgiveness comes from the implications of acceptance through Jesus' blood. It's all a bit complicated, but it's as basic as I was forgiven so I will forgive.

What we really need is a bigger, better picture of God, who will pay whatever is necessary to show that He is God. Anyone who leaves Jesus out when talking about God has missed Him.

Nothing Hidden

2008-05-21T11:00:00.000+01:00

Would it be a revelation to say change doesn't happen apart from God?

You can be different and never change. There's something significant about the difference between knowing something and knowing someone. We can have books and books about a person, but never know who they are. And it's the same with ourselves. How do we know about ourselves, though, unless we take a step back?

The idea of worship hits a nerve with quite a few people. If you call anyone an idolater these days you can usually get into a bit of trouble. I see worship like breathing. If you're not breathing oxygen (and various other gases found in our atmosphere today) you're breathing something else. You can't breathe nothing. If you're drowning you end up trying to breathe water. If you're in a vacuum you try breathing anyway. To remove the atmosphere and replace it with something else doesn't mean we would stop breathing, it just means we start breathing something else.

Worship's like that. If you're not worshipping one thing you're worshipping another. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Our bodies were designed to worship. Our souls were designed to worship. To refer to nothing hidden in the title is no mere act of an aim to confuse whoever I can. Nothing hidden is an attitude toward God. God wants us to worship Him, that is how he designed our relationship with Him. The trouble is we have ruined our relationship with Him. Jesus didn't die and rise to help us have a relationship with God, we already had a relationship with Him, just it was rubbish and irreconcilable, we have done some terrible things. I've done some terrible things.

Jesus has done this restoration work, meaning He presents us to His Father, and if we believe Our Father, and we can start seeing Him for who He is and worshipping Him so.

We become what we worship. So the challenge comes when we want to worship God, but there's stuff in the way. Jesus dealt with it, but it must be let out to be dealt with. We must come to God entirely transparent. David's greatest prayers were his arguments with God. "Why am I suffering and my enemies living in abundance?" he would complain to God. Then he would go into the inner sanctuary, go to the presence of the Most High God, and everything would be at peace with his soul. Without the (first) frustration we can't have the (second) peace.

I suppose I'm coming to my conclusion, that we as worshippers must worship in spirit and truth. That means coming through Truth (Jesus) and having or spirits put in tune with God. As a community we must have a transparent, "nothing hidden" attitude, and allow God to shape our lives.

Funny

2008-05-19T09:44:00.000+01:00

Vatican says aliens could exist

Oh dear...

One of those email things, that have turned into facebook note things...

2008-05-16T18:38:00.000+01:00

I did this just over a year ago...

This is for your entire life:

(X) Smoked a cigarette
(X) Drank so much you threw up HAVEN'T WE ALL yes....but into a pint
glass, or a bin, or over the steps of a posh wine bar in London :(
() Crashed in a friend's car
() Stolen a car
(X) Been in love
(X) Been dumped
() Been laid off/fired
(X) Quit your job
() Been in a fist fight
() Sneaked out of your parent's house
(X) Had feelings for someone who didn't have them back
(X) Gone on a blind date - that's a funny story
(X) Lied to a friend
(X) Skipped school....
() Skipped an entire semester - Not exactly but it does feel like it at the moment
() Seen someone die
(X) Been to Canada
() Been to Mexico
(X) Been on a plane
(X) Been lost
(X) Been on the opposite side of the country
() Gone to Washington , DC
() Swam in the ocean
(X) Felt like dying - I have also felt like death
() Cried yourself to sleep
(X) Played cops and robbers - emabarrassing home video and all
() Recently coloured with crayons
(X) Sang karaoke (Badly!!!)
(X) Paid for a meal with only coins - ohh the shame
(X) Done something you told yourself you wouldn't
() Made prank phone calls
(X) Laughed until some kind of beverage came out of your nose
(X) Caught a snowflake on your tongue
(X) Made a snow angel
(X) Danced in the rain -
(X) Written a letter to Santa Claus
(X) Been kissed under the mistletoe
() Watched the sunrise with someone you care about
(X) Blown Bubbles
() Made a bonfire on the beach
(X) Crashed a party
() Gone roller skating
(X) Gone ice skating

OK, here are the questions:

What are you afraid of?
I don't exactly know

Most recent movie you have seen in the theater?
Nearly 300...but actually it was 'Bridge to Terabithia' in Canada

Seen a ghost?
Nope

Where were you born?
Sheffield

Ever Been to Alaska ?
No

Loved someone so much it made you cry?
How about something?

Favorite day of the week?
Probably Wednesday, it's the most fun to spell

Favourite Restaurant?
That one in Mark's basement that time

Favourite Ice Cream?
That's a bit silly. I don't have a massive flare for ice creams. Although I used to like those 'Feast' things.

Favourite Shake flavour at a fast food restaurant?
Well...it's Banania.

Favourite food at a fast food restaurant?
KFC...something from KFC

What color is your bedroom carpet?
Brownish...it's not been cleaned in a while

What is your favorite alcoholic drink?
That's a toughy. Red wine? Bordeaux '94 perhaps?

Favourite non-alcoholic drink?
I had an apple pie milkshake once...but it wasn't very good, so not that.

Tattoos?
On me? No

Body piercing?
For a hobby? Never really thought of it.

What is your favorite vacation spot?
I don't think I can answer that

Ever steal any traffic signs?
Did I? I don't remember

Favourite Salad Dressing?
Basic stuff

Favourite Holiday?
Canada was pretty awesome. It shouldn't have been a holiday.

------------

What do you do to relax? Eat. Or walk somewhere a bit picturesque.

Favorite sound? Waterfalls

How do you see yourself in 10 years? Hopefully as trim and thin as i am now.

Furthest place you will send this? I don't know.

How many times did you fail your driver's test? Nonce. That's quite a negative question.

From whom did you get your last e-mail? Why? Not really something timelessly funny to post.

What do you do when you are bored? Find something funny on youtyoob, which usually takes about an hour, and then I'm late for work or something.

Bedtime? Not yet, thankfully.

Favorite TV show? Hard to say, but I have been enjoying That 70s Show, you know, the one with Ashton Kutcher. But I think I'll have to stick with Arrested Development.

What are you listening to right now? The A/C

How many pets do you have? I went from 0-2-4-5-4-3-2-1-0, death sucks.

The chicken or the egg? Chicken (roast)

What would you like to accomplish before you die? Be the first person to climb Mount Everest. Not going to happen though.

I find that incredibly frustrating...

2008-05-14T17:22:00.000+01:00

I sit there, drinking my Starbucks, looking out over the shoppers, arguing and loving each other, wandering through town enjoying the sunshine, or avoiding the sunshine, or avoiding the rain, I think: nothing's changed. In the past 4000 years nothing has changed. But it's hidden very well by the word "progress" that things might have gotten a little better. So then we wonder to what "things" refers to. We look at achievements, merits, goals reached, wealth attained (or lost), and with those in mind we look for the evolution of society, when that never lies in the "visible first, satisfaction second" idea of such "progress".

An interesting question I've thought of asking Western society in general is"What's more important, experience or knowledge?" One of my friends answered a question I asked in an interesting way that made me doubt whether I really was fortunate to be born here. I had asked, "What's Britain's main crop?" Simon answered, "Information."

Information. The entity that, thanks to the internet, practically doubles every day. And this society has grabbed hold of it and made it cheap. The trouble with this is when we listen closely to those influential thinkers, like Billy Joe, who claim "Talk is cheap, but lies are expensive."

I know too much. Or maybe I just like saying that.

Just some thoughts on society at the moment. Maybe things will change.

How much further should we go?

2008-05-11T12:00:00.001+01:00

After posting two blogs on a possible reason for God and then a blog on why we don't need to do that I'm just taking a few steps back. My friend, Pete, sent me an interesting answer to the question I asked; how would you describe the God you do or don't believe in?

He said that "God would be a totalitarian dictator representing the purest form of totalitarianism."

For a while I walked around saying Christianity in a Kingdom or Empire sense was a dictatorship. God has complete sovereignty, and He does what brings Him the most glory, and brings most glory to Himself through the work He does in all kinds of situations. I thought it fascinating for Pete, who claims to be an atheist, to describe God in a very similar way. Of course since saying Christianity was a dictatorship, my father corrected me to say it was more commonly known as a theocracy. Still, that doesn't make me any less convinced of Jesus ruling my life.

The trouble with calling God a dictator is the implications it has based on the modern history we have of people like Hitler and Stalin. Both decided they would be the (and correct me if I'm wrong) ultimate authority in their empires and oppressed people left, right, and centre. That makes us think of God, if a dictator, as an oppressive baboon with only His own interests in mind. But the we look to the end of Pete's definition and see that he does describe it as the "purest form of totalitarianism." That makes me think I can redeem God as dictator (if that's even allowed) by saying that God truly is the purest dictator the world could possibly have. He is utterly sovereign, and considers His glory as highest in importance. However, unlike His human copy-cats, He does things in the most loving way possible. He knows that obedience comes from willingness, and He created a way for all to be willing to serve Him through sending His Son, Jesus, to die in our place, and raise from the dead, to defeat death, show complete love, and give new life to all who want it. That means that anyone following Jesus are under God's rule, and it is a purely loving rule. He deals with His creation in a way that overpowers anything because He loves, not because He has a lot of rebels in His kingdom.

Imagine this; a man owes another man, who he works for incidentally, a whole heap of cash. Something in the region of a few million, and he has no hope of attaining to that kind of wealth. His boss comes to him and asks for the money back, but he can't pay it, and it would take him approximately 500 years to work the money back, making it practically impossible. His boss decides, because he does love his employees, that he will cancel the debt. Just right it off. Nothing doing. This makes the man who owed a lot so joyful that he goes around telling everyone how wonderful his boss is, and does everything that he says and encourages other people to do the same, and treats other people in the same way as his boss treated him. He had been shown so much mercy it flowed forth into his own ministry of mercy to all manner of people. He'd got himself into an awful position but the redemption he experienced changed his whole outlook on life.

Unless there is that kind of experience with someone in authority over you, you will only ever resent them for not showing you any kind of favour, and if you keep doing what they ask you to the only reward will be more work because they know you are good at following orders. But Jesus said Himself that the people who are healthy don't need a doctor. It's the sick. He didn't come to save the 'righteous' - those who can follow orders - but save 'sinners' - those who know for a fact that they haven't kept up to the standard that their authority expected.

In light of this, God, The Authority of the World, who can be described as acting the purest form of totalitarianism, is the one who knows that true obedience comes from loving Him first. We obey Him because we love Him, and we love Him because He first Loved us. It all works out in the end.

If that doesn't make any kind of sense, then I hope you experience His love.

Like this Authority Duck ->

GO for a Drive

2008-05-08T10:11:00.000+01:00

I'm finding recently that Christianity is less of a way to think and more as a driving force. There is a tendency to beat yourself up so easily if you consider yourself as someone trying to follow Jesus but not thinking about him enough. Unless you continue remember that you're a damned sinner saved entirely by grace, you think, there is no chance I can live such a good enough life to model who I'm suppose to be following. And because you're not thinking about it enough you feel completely condemned and even more of a sinner. So it kind of works.

The trouble with the whole idea that you have to remember things about this, Truth and all that, is that in the end you're bound to forget so much of the time. The first thing you think about when you wake up is yourself. That's mainly because you are a major part of your life. If you didn't think about yourself how would know where to go, for example? The interesting paradox to this is the famous summing up of the Gospel by Tim Keller:

“The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. It undermines both swaggering and sniveling. I cannot feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone. I do not think more of myself nor less of myself. Instead, I think of myself less.”

— Timothy Keller, The Reason For God, New York, NY: Dutton, 2008, p. 181.

Where do I go from here? Well, the ultimate point I get to is when you stop trying to win intellectual arguments about whether God exists or not. The fact is there are people out there in the world who can prove that He doesn't exist, and there are other people out there who can prove that He does. But it means the argument stops being about whether or not God exists and becomes a competition about who is the cleverest. Someone would denote stupidity to believe in something invisible, only to be told they are closed minded and shallow for not believing in something unless they can see it. It leads to attacks on each other rather than being about what it's supposed to be about. The arguments about God finished a long time ago, and the people who really care, leave other people to write books and make movies, so they can live their lives in peace.

Belief is knowledge moved six inches downward. It moves from something else to put on the list of things worth knowing, and placed into a heart issue. A driving force that lets people live their lives. The basic premise of the Christian gospel comes down to a deep set knowing that you are loved so deeply it cost everything to have you. This sits in your heart and lets you live your life in confidence, as Keller says, thinking of yourself less and less. Jesus becomes ever more real as He reveals Himself to you, and you seek a relationship with a living God. This unchanging God has always been wanting relationship, and it comes to a head when you can see community after community transformed from people seeking God rather than their own success. Their heart has been transformed.

My heart has been transformed. I finally realised I don't need to be thinking about God 24/7 to know that He loves me. What I need to know is live with the confidence I have nothing to prove, and just work, silently, for the God who loved the whole world He sent His son into it. He's not a detached God, He never was.

There is always more to the Most High

2008-04-24T17:03:00.003+01:00

Being sympathetic to the emerging/emergent (I'm not sure which is what) church has become one of my little things, recently. I became tired of listening to the attacks against the community a long time ago, when thought it better to have their view in line with hundreds of years of tradition instead of allowing things to change their mind. I don't say this because I agree with everything this "new" church is saying, most of I think is ridiculous, but they are trying to understand God, and seeking Him with Jesus in mind, rather than a general "sincere faith" so many want to cling to.

Sympathetic has to be the right word, because they are trying to be heard so they can find out how people respond, but they are being trampled by BIG names, like John Piper and Mark Driscoll, who made a decision that they weren't doing things right, and ex-communicated them from their social network. Of course I'm making sweeping generalisations so you can hear my point, instead of trying to keep things inoffensive to some readers.

Most evangelical Christians, I've noticed, have two major characteristics: first, they are obsessed with the death of Jesus in such a profound way, even though He did rise from the dead (which is the important bit of the growth of the church), and they like to claim Jesus enjoyed the cross, when Hebrews definitely says He "endured the cross for the joy set forth before Him" and that joy before Him wasn't the cross it was us. Secondly, if they can't have ideas of God boxed up into nice sections (although these will sound quite silly), like omnipresence, omnipotence, the trinity, holiness, glorious-ness, then they get a bit upset. Doctrines seem to be very important.

Israel, after much winging and moaning, finally enter the promised land, or before that are freed into the wilderness, or before that are miraculously provided for by a brother who happens to be prime minister of Egypt, or before that have a family miraculously born out of a barren woman. They live their whole national life as a life full of experiences of God. They live in faith of that. Wandering through the wilderness they have food fall out of the sky every day for 40 years, and have a pillar of smoke during the day to shade them from the hot hot Egyptian sun, and have a pillar of fire by night to keep them warm in the cold cold Egyptian desert. They experience God entering the promised land, with miraculous victories over great people groups who worship foreign gods. They experience God in exile, when one man refuses to bow to anyone but YHWH and gets thrown to the lions, only to be casually asked the morning after "Did your God save you?" and He had.

God interferes with Israel at various stages of their disobedience, but it is because God wants them to experience Him. His main interference is through prophets, and that voice crying out is only that powerful message that God cares far more than you know, and will use His people to speak to His people. Even in the 400 years of silence from the end of Malachi to the arrival of John the Baptist, there was an expectation of God breaking in, because 400 years is the longest God has ever gone with being silent. By the time Jesus had done what He'd come to do, ascended into glory, and left His Spirit to empower His New People to do greater things that He had done, there are more and more accounts of God being experienced, and that changing lives. With God, there is never a dull moment. Experiencing Him is something He is hungry for us to do, and He wants us to be pursuing Him to do great and mighty things.

The Psalms are filled of praise of the work God does on earth, in equal measure to the characteristic of God which aren't simply titles, but demonstrated among His people. The Israelites didn't have doctrine they had experience calling to mind the wonders of God. Why should we decide knowing about God is the real way to meet with Him? Isn't that the arrogance of man to say, "you've done enough, God, leave us to summarise You in our own words."?!

I'm hungry for, maybe even craving, some of this spiritual milk, this tasting of the goodness of Jesus in profound new ways in our churches. I get the feeling He wants to break in more powerfully than we ever allow when He meets with us in our meetings together. Community should be more than enjoying a personal comfort, it should be God turning lives around, making miracles an everyday occurrence, and seeing churches grow through the wonderment of this Great God: Jesus Christ.

Let me reason with you

2008-04-11T17:18:00.009+01:00

It's not enough to argue a creator based on morality. If there is a God, He has surely revealed Himself through this creation, it would resemble part of Himself, just as I can't write something objectively. There are always reflections of ourselves in our creations. I think that mentioning beauty and ugliness in my previous post briefly should have caught your attention, although, again, I'm not going to elaborate any further than that.

To draw onto all of the 'religions' in the loosest sense of the word and look at their concepts of creation, they all resemble a 'Big Bang' of some kind far more than the Christian account. By this I mean that they all describe as the world coming together out of chaos, whether it be a war between 2 gods where on wins and the others destruction is used to create life, or the more classic and (apparently most widely accepted fact among scientists) convincing idea of 'The Big Bang Theory' where something verytinyindeed exploded for no obvious reason at the exact speed needed to have everything neatly form after everything has been colliding for billions of years.

The Christian idea of creation is, unfortunately for some, best described by Genesis, where the world comes together in sections, an order that is all good and made to be the place where everything works together. This is the only, I repeat ONLY, account of the creation of the universe where everything comes out of harmony, love, and peace. So, if we are to reason my last post into this post, morality (or at least the sense of the good, the bad, and the ugly) must come from a starting of harmony, rather than a starting of chaos. We want the world to become better, which would come from it once being that very thing, rather than wanting and willing it to get worse, which is what the motivation would be if that is where we had come from and where we were headed. (We are not headed for total annihilation as I believe, at least, see this post.)

There's not much more I can say to flesh this out. The bones are there and it's up to you to really decide if what I am saying is good enough to explore Jesus further. The fact is, if we were not from this ordered creation, our sense of morality wouldn't be as it is. Our very nature points to an ordered and loving God. Our frustration with the world matches His. The release that comes from knowing there is a hope is the great sense that Jesus death bore the pain forgiveness brings, and His life brought to life the hope needed to carry this life through to completion. His life, a prototype for ours, has moved forward to show in many ways how our need to improve the world is grounded, perfectly, in an eschatology (eschatology literally means the study of the last days, but I really just mean the certainty of our future) that brings to birth a new heavens and new earth. The old earth is burned up by fire, destroying what is perishable, the evil, and ugly, and all the things that have come from the frustration of the whole world; and leaving only what is imperishable; the things God called good in the beginning, and those works and motivations that brought the hope closer, working with Jesus on His great project. This brings renewal and the future of God's people is carried on. (More on God's people next time.)

Who is this God of which I speak?

2008-04-09T15:34:00.005+01:00

I received a book in the post recently that has a commentary on Romans; a book of the Bible that I studied about 18 months ago. One of the verses in the first chapter says something along the lines of "they know God exists but reject that knowledge." It's interesting that I've also been reading another book by a guy, Tim Keller, who recently released his book "The Reason for God; Belief in an age of skepticism." He spends the first half of the book answering common objections to Christianity, and the second half of the book on the offensive, showing how Christianity is the set of beliefs that makes the most sense. I have a few things to say on one of his chapters, chapter 9 'The Knowledge of God.'

It all, and always, boils down to morality. In the past 200 years the foundational assumption of God has been steadily removed from society and state as a whole, leaving an unfounded moral principle that avoids God. The fact is, morality is based on a higher set of principles that can then be filtered down to application in society. I am, of course, referring to human rights. Laws of the road only have as much to do with God as to say anyone who drives badly probably shouldn't have a fish on the back of their car. Human rights assumes the dignity of all beings, and it appears to have been most fully recognised, although I can't say that with absolute certainty, in Western culture, where "freedom" of speech, religion, etc. equal rights, and discouragement of segragation is, on the whole, established and held to. The trouble with it is that this freedom, especially of religion, says that there is a clear need to keep your faith in whatever it is we can't see in your private home and don't bring it to work thank-you-very-much, when, as a driving force of one's life, it is practically impossible to do.

So, then, the comments on Tony Blair's decision to start going back to church on a more committed basis after his term as PM makes us wonder where he was getting his ideas from before that. Maybe there is an element where we, as the English, think ourselves better than the US because they like to have their religion stated next to their name. It makes me wonder why, if our human rights realisations are good and right, why we would then try and make them universal when there are a number of cultures where even murder is socially acceptable if it's used to save face. What is our trouble with morality, on the one hand, and God, on the other, that makes us avoid so much of communication between the two, when the only explanation for either of them is the other one. For reasons sake the two ideas (morality and God) support each other.

Where am I going with this?

The underlying problem with morality is that it exists, but if God does not exist it actually shouldn't. I am talking more of a moral awareness (of right and wrong, good and evil, ugly and beautiful - just to throw another idea in the mix) than of a set of legal standards. The simple fact is that we have shelves and shelves of books outlining laws for this that and the other, but we don't know where it comes from. It's as if a decision is made and it agrees with everyone, but if anyone were asked why, they wouldn't have the slightest idea what just happened.

At this point I have been talking about God as the idea (a greater more substantial force that at least started this whole life thing, even if he didn't sit there and decide what colour a fox would be, and how many stomachs a cow should have.) The reasoning, however, cannot end there.

I wonder. If there were one question I were to ask the world, it would be this.

How would you describe the God that you do or don't believe in?

Answer? That's up to you.

The Bible has a lot to say

2008-03-29T12:01:00.002Z

The thing I find fascinating about Jesus is His interaction with Peter more than anything else. Peter is probably the most disappointing disciple in the pack, next to Judas. And Judas seems to have his title of disciple put into question fairly frequently, so Peter quickly takes the bottom peg again. When Jesus first called Peter, Peter was a fisher man and Jesus wanted to turn Peter into a fisher-of-men. I'm not sure how that would look in the Greek so it was either a clever word play, or just another kind of job.

After Jesus rises from the dead (yay, Easter!) He goes back to Peter and says, "Peter feed my sheep." That is a big difference. That's not collect men, that's lead them and sustain them. That's a call from a fisher out on the water, to a shepherd on the fields. That is in harms way, and responsible, and all kinds of things. Now, Jesus had gotten His identity from the Old Testament, and lived out of that. He had told people things as explanations for what He was doing, and people followed Him. But what I like best about everything Jesus said, is that His explanations were victorious ones; or Good News.

The difference between News and advice is simple. News demands a reaction, advice asks for action. So the difference between Jesus' message, at the time, and everyone else's was that people needed to make decisions as to what they would do next, instead of make decisions on whether they would do something or not. Jesus, when He called Peter and commissioned Peter, was giving Peter the needed reaction from who He was. He already had seen the News and it was time to act on it in the right way.

The thing I find greatest about the Bible as a hole is that it's not a list of moral principles to weigh up and act out. The Old Testament looks like it, but it's basically a massive set-up anyway, Peter wrote about that himself. The Bible is, in fact, a massive story with bits of everything put in there; journal entries, letters, history books, hero stories, romance, poetry, all-sorts. And it acts a premise of victory. Jesus explained Himself in a context of Victory. He told people who were stuck in patterns of sin to "go and sin no more" and they went away not sinning anymore.

The Gospel is the Good News (metaphorically) of a victorious King coming home to His city, and His people hear of His victory in a battle and ready the city for celebration and everyone loves the King. All other kinds of moral codes from other religions as I have observed, is good advice of a defeated king coming home to his city sending word to the city to ready it's defences for an oncoming attack. The difference in attitude between the two cities is obvious; one is a victorious reaction to a King who has won a battle for them, the other is action of advice to some possible onslaught, and fear.

I suppose Good News demands a reaction, bad news needs advice. The news today on TV communicates bad news so we all know what a rubbish situation we're in, making any action excuse worthy. If the news showed good news people wouldn't know how to act because it demands a reaction rather than getting advice for action.

at the garden's edge beneath a speechless sky
as his friends all slept
Jesus wept- and no wonder
and now you say you wanna be set free??
and wanna set me free???
well I'm told that can only come from
a union with the One who never dies

The Power of Poverty

2008-03-28T11:27:00.000Z

There's a power in poverty that breaks principalities
And brings the authority's down to their knees
There's a brewing frustration and ageless temptation
To fight for control by some manipulation

But the God of the kingdoms and the God of the Nations
The God of creation sends his revelation
Through the homeless and penniless Jesus the son
The poor will inherit the Kingdom to come

Where will we turn when our world falls apart
And all of the treasures we've stored in our barns
Can't buy the Kingdom of God?
Who will we praise when we've praised all our lives
men who build Kingdoms and men who build fame
What will we fear when all that remains
Is God on His throne, with a child in his arms,
and love in his eyes
And the sound of his heart cry

Coke solves all the worlds problems

2008-03-21T11:55:00.000Z

On belonging (continued)

2008-03-17T10:54:00.002Z

To draw out some kind of application from my previous post, these is much to see as good and bad from deciding we don’t belong. What is important, I’ve seen, is that the exiles described in Jeremiah 29 had a different view told to them. They had been removed from their land, and were being forced to live and abide by the culture of the city of Babylon. I have posted on the city before. There are excellent things about living in a city. If someone lives in a city, but lives like they are waiting for their escape, it’s not use to anyone, especially not themselves. On top of that, escape is not our goal. We will inherit the earth in all it’s fulness. This earth will be renewed, not destroyed. To abandon it would be a foolish thing to do, and I know I’d feel a bit stupid if I’d thought I was escaping somewhere I end up living in for the rest of my life.

In my study of Philippians, I wrote a simple statement: dual citizenship (see previous post) means an embracing of two cultures where one take precedent over the other. Jeremiah 29 is God speaking to the exiles in Babylon saying “seek the welfare of the city, because it’s welfare is your welfare.” This wouldn’t really have been popular, because they were a chosen nation and wanted to be different on their own terms. There were 2 alternatives in joining a city of ‘pagans’. The first would be tribalism. Tribalism is what was encouraged by a lot of the leaders in Israel. It was a structure of living to stay apart from the city and stay different. They would live their own way and not engage with culture. This is partly how some churches operate today.

The second reaction, which is what was preferred by the Babylonians particularly, was to go into the city, engage with it, and become like them. Adopt their ways, receive their education, and leave your old people behind. By that I don’t mean leave your grandparents at home, I mean leave your nation at the city gates and become a ‘new person’. This is another equally useless operation of some churches today.

The reaction God suggests is to go into the city and stay different. As a people go into the city and increase in number, be the best politicians, doctors, teachers, bankers, and tradesmen you can be. And be the best in line with being different and belong to God, not the city. Be a people of God in the city, as part of the city. The Babylonians at best wanted peoples to come into their city and decrease in number, so the descendants would be assimilated into their culture. God’s way is the polar opposite. It is an increasing in number and in consequence would transform the city.

This is the responsibility of dual citizenship: to seek the welfare of the city, for it’s welfare is your welfare. As citizens of somewhere else I we should be the best citizens here, because we live here. At the right time the work here will be part and parcel of the transformation of the place we live into a place that reflects the place we belong. Excellent!

On belonging nowhere you can see

2008-03-14T10:48:00.001Z

I recently did a study on Philippians 3. I didn't realise how much effect the preparation was having on me, until I went back to reading 1 Peter. What you have to realise is I spend a lot of time just browsing around the bible and seeing if there is something good I should write down somewhere. For the record I am never disappointed, but I don't always have a pen. There are similarities between the people of Philippi, to whom Paul writes, and the recipients of Peter's first letter. It's not just that they believe in Jesus, there is something even more significant.

The Philippians were a colony of Roman citizens. They were mainly veterans of the Roman Empire, shipped off to somewhere else because they were retired soldiers and had a habit of causing trouble. With a colony built on the background of Roman veterans, the majority of the inhabitants of Philippi considered themselves better Romans than people in Rome. It was like Rome away from Rome. Paul wrote to the church there, and wanted to shift their thinking a bit. If you're writing to a church that is already an experience of dual citizenship, it's worth getting them more accurately thinking of their citizenship. Paul tells them in chapter 1 verse 27 that they should "live a citizens worthy of the Gospel." This would have perhaps caught them off-guard, but probably also helped them to realise they were living as Romans not in Rome, so should probably live as followers of Jesus, though not with Jesus at that time.

On the other side of the proverbial river, was Peter writing to a scattering of Christians, from all over the known world. He refers to them as "elect exiles" and pushes them to think, not of where they were from and where they are now, but actually what they had been born into (verse 4 chapter 1 of first Peter) and what they can look forward to. They have an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, because of the power of Jesus' resurrection. That is, then, the premise of a life of rejoicing in all circumstances. The premise by which this whole section rests, however, is an exclamation of such power: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!"

Paul in Philippians chapter 3 complains about these "mutilators of the flesh" who were in basic terms performing ritual racism. They were wandering around telling all the men that if they were really to belong to this new "people" (i.e. the Christian community) they should get circumcised. What that said to the congregation was what the Jews of the New Testament and Old had been guilty of all along; their nation was the chosen nation and superior to all others. They had to belong to this specific people group. It would be like telling a black man they had to have skin grafts so they would be white and fit into the church. However, Paul's whole point by the end of the chapter is obvious: "...our citizenship is in Heaven, and from it we await a saviour..." i.e. We belong in Heaven and as we are already seated in heavenly places we can await the coming again of Jesus, living in the perspective of our transformation, that great inheritance promised to us by the God-Man Himself, Christ Jesus out Lord.

These two distinct and precise ideas have been floating through my mind as I've wandered around, really noticing a difference that Jesus has made in my life, and others, and realising I belong to Him and to them, and not to anything I can set my eyes on on earth. There is a transition that can be seen as people trust fully in Jesus. It's incredible. The real challenge is living as a citizen worthy of the Gospel. But my reaction to living somewhere I don't really belong came out in a poem I wrote last night. I hope you like it; it made me laugh when I read it.

Exile

I don't belong here
I don't really fit
There's not a neat space
Why isn't the world like a kids toy?

The picture is called "I don't belong here" from explodingdog.com

An Aphoristic book...

2008-03-07T22:14:00.007Z

The Bible has been given a reputation as one of the most quoted books in history. This blog is guilty of helping that along a little. My trouble with the quoting of it, however, is not a standard argument. The Bible says a lot of great things. It also says a lot of confusing and sometimes worrying things. What my concern with where I see a whole bunch of people are going is quite straight-forward. People have view points and find Bible verses to back it up. As an example, the Gospel of Mark is 16 chapters long with 678 verses, only one of which gives us an "atonement" theology of the passion narrative. That verse is Mark 10:45, when Jesus is telling his disciples how they should live in an upside-down world. That tells me that that book isn't really about "atonement" but about Jesus as a revolutionary, living an alternative "right-way-up" life and upsetting the people he had come to "save."

Wouldn't it be better if people stopped quoting scripture that supported their action plans, and started reading the Bible for it to inspire their action plans? That has been the trouble with so many church movements of the past, that decide "it's how it's always been done" and change is a word used for your own private spirituality happening at home, not an intrusive word you "new" churches seem to be discussing. It's the trouble with a lot of established churches, and even church movements, that when they are told that, perhaps, Martin Luther (the man responsible for the split of Catholic and Protestant) wasn't completely infallible. When he translated "salvation by faith" in Romans, he added "alone" so he could clarify what he was trying to argue in a Catholic run society. And down the line, that means confusion when the Bible doesn't say that explicitly.

My annoyance isn't with salvation, though. Salvation is a wonderful thing, and we are saved by grace anyway, not faith, so that's fine. What is my pet-peeve, is that reading the Bible gives you one kind of theology that can never be totally clear cut, is always malleable, and it continues to tell you that Jesus is bigger than that anyway. I think I noticed my annoyance the most when I was given "The Doctrine of Scripture" as a lovely clear-cut manual. The paper/lecture involved a man quoting this verse out-of-context, followed by that verse out-of-context, and then jump between these two other verses out-of-context, with this man saying this about this man (out-of-context) and another man saying this about the Bible itself (apparently), and that was out-of-context too. My point being that in all of that I thought it would be much simpler for someone to say "I'm not convinced of the idea that the Bible is all God's word," to which the defense would simply ask "have you read it? You should. If you have keep reading it and it will change your life. If you haven't start as soon as you can for your own sake." I'm more convinced of the Bible's authority from reading it than from someone else telling me, and reasoning with me.

The word Aphorism means, basically, a proverb. As much as the Bible is full of the wonderful stuff from God, I've never been up for memorising scripture. I have one reason. I hate being told I'm wrong out-of-context. We can draw "atonement" theology from one verse in Mark, without realising Jesus' point was much more important than telling everyone he was going to die as a ransom. In fact, his dying as a ransom was a message that was illustrating his point from the argument it's a part of. Not many people know that because they jump to his insight into that cross without realising he probably only said it for readers a few thousand years later to have something to hold on, when he was saying something much greater to his disciples.

I come to my conclusion. I've gone off topical preaching, because all I've just described happens, and we don't get anywhere. We get stuck like a broken record on our vision and values, we get stuck in our own self-help Gospel, without reading a book as it's been written. We get bored of hearing the same things because no one tells us that the Bible is bigger than "20 Christian Basics" and we're left in the rubble of preaching through a book of the Bible because it's the "right thing to do" when we look for our topics in the Bible and leave the text where it always has been; black and white on a crumpled page. The church that makes assumptions of the body is the one that takes doctrines and topics in suitcases that they fail to unpack but merely throw around with corners catching people in odd places bruising all sorts of people. We need to realise that as a unified body, working together, to deal with the Bible is to share in it's story from creation to new creation, wrestle with it, dwell in it, live in it, and enjoy it as it's authority is found in Jesus, not in the words itself.

Multi-coloured Wisdom

2008-02-29T15:51:00.004Z

I wonder what multi-coloured wisdom looks like. I'm actually making an extra special effort to post a blog on the 29th of February because, of course, there's at least 4 times less opportunity to post on such a wonderful day as today, than any other day. I'm fortunate enough to have had some thoughts today that tie together wonderfully, and think it's good to post about something positive when you want a quick thought list on the web.

Although I am annoyed spell-check wants me to spell colour without a 'u'.

In Ephesians (a book of the bible found in the New Testament) there is this phrase which got me thinking a lot about the church and today's culture and society.

Chapter 3v10-11 says: [The] intent [is] that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It's good to have the whole sentence there for less confusion, even though there is a lot in there. I wanted to focus on one word. That's how much I value the Word of God.

πολυποίκιλος - polypoikilos

1) much variegated, marked with a great variety of colours
a) of cloth or a painting
2) much varied, manifold

I like the term 'multi-coloured wisdom.' It adds something different. I think it adds something extra to what the agent it is referring to, namely the church. And can you imagine a multi-coloured church? Wouldn't it surely be a nightmare? Well I know, and you know, I'm not saying that. The whole idea of God's church, God's people, is that it represents perfectly God's heart. It does that because God loves all sorts of people. Everyone to be precise. It sounds wishy washy and vague, but it's true.

The greatest sign of God's love is the Cross of Christ, which can't be fully understood, but it is that while we were far off from God He came near and saved us. I especially was far off, because I'm not a Jew. Jesus came as a Jew to open up the promise or covenant of God's people to be for all nations, as it always had been, but not under the Mosaic law (the law of Moses) under the grace of God and love of God shown through Jesus Christ's death. His resurrection causes all "rulers and authorities" to bow before Him. How is it shown? Through the multi-coloured church. It's one of those funny things I can't get my head around, but the wisdom of God is foolishness because He shows that people, who shouldn't work together, can.

There's more, and I think I got a bit carried away there. The multi-coloured wisdom of God can be seen in the church. And the church is far more than some spiritual anomaly of a wisdom that looks like foolishness. When I say "people who shouldn't work together can" I don't just mean working class working with upper class, managers working with bin men, artists working with salesmen, men working with women, there is a crossover that will happen through the Spirit of Christ which shows far more of God's wisdom than that.

The whole point of the Jewish mission was to go 'forth' and tell the nations of the One and Only God of the world, the creator of heaven & earth. Jonah (prime example) went to a foreign city to tell them God wasn't happy with them. There are numerous occasions in the Old Testament where God blesses 'foreigners' or 'aliens' who please God because they act in faith that this God is the true God. Jesus' death and resurrection opened up the blessing of being a covenant people to fall on all who believe that Jesus is King, not just those who have been circumcised; which is excellent news to men in general.

In fact, there was a certain amount of rebuking done by an early follower of Jesus, named Paul, who was against the circumcision of new believers because it could send the message that there is still only one nation that belongs to God. The multi-coloured wisdom of God can be seen by the multi-coloured believers in the world. A multi-coloured church, representing many nations, languages, colours, and so on has the capacity to proclaim to rulers and authorities that Jesus is Lord and they aren't (church or state). God's blessing of all nations comes when the Gospel is shown to give the potential of a rainbow-coloured church.

And so my final point. The rainbow. I know this is something of a leap, but I think there is something in the multi-coloured nature of God's communication with His image-bearing creation. In Genesis 9 (the first book of the bible) the end of the story of the flood with Noah as God's agent is described. A dialogue happens between these two characters (God & Noah) which has instructions and promises, both to be kept by each other.

“I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
“When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds,
“I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
“When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”

YHWH (God) has a habit of repeating Himself. I'm jumping to this conclusion, but I think God has decided to create a new rainbow on earth as it is in the heavens that when we come together as an all sorts church, as a church that consists of all kinds of colours, nationalities, backgrounds, languages, job-titles, family sizes, God is reminded of His covenant that he will not only 'remember His covenant' so that 'the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh' but, in fact, look to His son, who died on behalf of all flesh, so that the world would be blessed by His own covenant people. God looks at the church with adoration, because it is the body of His only Son, and He wants to use it with the intent that "now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I hope that made sense.

I don't get politics but...

2008-02-23T21:36:00.004Z

I was listening to a lecture by some guy called John Piper. He quoted some Bible that says "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit." It's from 1 Corinthians 12, if you're interested.

What I found most intriguing was that what John Piper started to explain was the meaning of the passage, was not at all what I expected him to say. The reason I say this is because Piper is one of those good bible teachers that you trust most things he says. One thing I also know is that 1 Corinthians was not a letter written to Bethlehem Baptist Church (of which Piper is a preacher). If it was it would called something like 'Paul's first Epistle to that future church of Bethlehem (not in Israel) of the denomination Baptist (no relation to John the Baptist)' At least I'm pretty sure.

What Piper said as a nice explanation of the verse, regardless of the fact that he was using it to illustrate a different point to the text itself - it talking about gifts of the spirit and the nature of that Spirit. He decided a good way to explain this text by applying it an actor on stage.
'An actor,' this is a paraphrase of what he was saying, 'can perfectly easily say "Jesus is Lord" without having that Spirit. That's not the point of the text. Basically the text is really saying that no one can claim Jesus is Lord of their life and really mean it.'
Before I start to really lay into old John, I'm not saying he's wrong. He's right. It just struck me there is a much greater and easier explanation of the verse.

In the context of the letter, obviously, this pagan non-Jewish collection of Christians were a little confused and their church was going a bit wacky. On top of that, it was a city situated in the depths of the Roman Empire, and as much as Christianity was growing through any means possible, the fastest growing cult of the day was the 'Caesar cult.' The majority of citizens in the Roman Empire believed Caesar was descended from the gods, he was a son of god and was the Lord of the world. So many people believed this that there was a danger to even consider that someone else could be 'Lord.' I hope you know where I'm going.

A truly dangerous thing to do would be to claim that someone other than Caesar is Lord. Jesus for example. In fact, the implications of saying Jesus is Lord, is to inadvertently draw on the assumption that therefore Caesar isn't. So an encouragement would be to tell people who are bringing immense judgment on themselves actually have the Spirit of Jesus in them.

And what an encouragement all the more that if you're saying this and trying to live a life where some man deluded by power isn't dictating your life, but Jesus son of the Living God, who is risen from the dead is ruling you life, then there are some great gifts on offer for you?! Well. I'd say enough said, but I might just follow through a little more. Paul has written:

"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone."

So he says on this subject of gifts of the Spirit, just remember who you were first. You were led astray by all manner of distractions. Don't be ignorant in this. There are gifts on offer if you'd just pay some attention (key word is gift brothers). You should have full assurance that if you're claiming Jesus is Lord and therefore Caesar isn't then you have the Holy Spirit living in you. Does that make you feel good or what?

This spirit gives you loads of different gifts, and there are different things you can do as a Christian because of this one Lord, you're stuck with doing one thing. But whether there is some kind of special work of the spirit by a gift that builds the church's spirit, or a gift of service that you do empowered by that same Lord that builds the church's body, either way, it's the God, the God of Israel, that empowers these acts in everyone.

I have to be honest that sits right with me. In today's society, obviously, we don't have a massive empire, claiming to be immortal, with a dictator who is convinced he is a son of god - though there are some pretty crazy people in power; there always are, I guess. It takes a bit of work to get that to fit with the Western culture, but the understanding fits with the writing in a much truer way.

Be encouraged then, if you stand on your faith even though it brings persecution, that should serve as a reminder that the gift of the Holy Spirit, and all His gifts remain on offer. Is Jesus King in your life? Then be encouraged that every act of service you do, or any point where you allow God to work through you, you are a true channel of the Spirit of Jesus.

Well done!

Watch out world

2008-02-18T21:40:00.014Z

The trouble with allowing yourself to get carried away when you're typing is that you end up somewhere you didn't expect to be. Last post was entitled 'What do we become?' which was fitting with the content. And yet, I had on my heart something different to get across. As soon as I started talking about baptisms (and there's a danger for me to get carried away again), I got so excited by all the inner deep meanings of it. It's a wonderful thing in all sorts of ways. But I had wanted to talk about another universal truth that I had started to understand and wanted to express.

What do we become? It is full of meaning. The future is what I'm getting at; what do we become in the future? This is what can be described as the slippery slope of success, to use alliteration. Or the treasuring of a timely truth. (I know I'm annoying someone at this point.) Perhaps, to universalise it in completion; the worship of the world will go one way, the glory of God leads us another.

Two things are true in society today. One is that everyone believes something. The other is that everyone is worshiping something. This shapes a person, a community, a society/culture, and the world. The West would most likely believe they don't have God to worry about, life is about success and it is expressed by having a lovely house which is clean and has plenty of stuff in it. The East would most likely decide God is a silly thing to worry about, whether He exists or not, and the most important thing is the appearance of your family; anything that brings shame on you, brings shame on those who share your name so be very careful how you act, and what you allow out into the open.

A good question to ask both East and West is 'what is this God you don't believe in?' but I think that's for another time. The thing I wanted to drive at was this crazy wall of an idea that you become what you worship. Maybe a better term would be sacrificially love. So we can deduce (for example) that a generalisation of the West is that they 'sacrificially love' money, and as such they define themselves and others around them as customers, partners, debtors, creditors, rather than as fellow human beings. It becomes worse if there is a worship of power.

What am I saying? That we can't do community anymore? Well, there is a high class individualism I've experienced and it's not healthy. Sometimes, people don't realise we need other people. If I go out for coffee, I need one or two bus drivers, someone to take my order, someone to take some money off me, and someone to take my cup and clean it. The establishment needs a supplier, which would need transport, which would need a driver/pilot, etc.... That's a lot of people for one coffee. I don't think self-sufficiency is very cool. I'm not sure if that's a good term, but I have been watching a fair amount of 'That 70's Show'.

I suppose it's a danger to worship things that make us into objects rather than human beings. As humans we're supposed to be human and the only way to really be human is worship something that we bear the image of; let's say God as revealed in Jesus. So imagine a whole community worshiping Jesus; like church for example. It's getting to the point where I would say church is a great thing and it's full of wonderful people being really human :o)
It's not, but it's something that has more chance of happening among other people trying to be really human, than being around a load of people looking at each other in terms of good financial categories.

What's the church for though? We can worship Jesus until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it the best place in the world for every human being. Worship isn't just for Sundays, it's a lifestyle. The thing about God is as we draw near to Him in worship, He draws near to us. We notice in the gospels and elsewhere that the way God/Jesus generally worked was drawing His people into intimacy with Him and then sending them into the world to start it's healing. I think that is a good 'generally' for the church. We come together as a body to be corporately drawn to Jesus in His embrace. We live our lives together and apart being drawn to Him, and sent out by His same love to carry out healing on the world that He so longs to see.

He started it in the resurrection, and continues it in each person who believes in their heart He is risen from the dead. It's an ongoing process and it's hard work, but so rewarding in terms of where this world is headed; transformation.

What do we become?

2008-02-16T15:29:00.007Z

Church threw in an extra service the other night for the sake of some guys in our church wanting to be baptised. I love the imagery. Baptism is always more than getting a whole lot wet and drying off for the sake of some guy in the sky. I don't even think he's "up there" anyway; Jesus that is. When I was baptised nearly 2 years ago now, I didn't fully grasp what was taking place. I think I grasp a bit more, but it continues to astonish me. I've been sharing a lot about this new creation (or inaugurated eschatology) recently which has led me back to the reminiscent state of me becoming what has been popularly known as a Christian.

A lot of my friends came along to watch me get wet. I didn't quite get it; it's obviously a massive deal to those who have realised more about what happened to them, and want to witness it in others. Getting baptised gave me an opportunity to share something of my journey. It turned from a travel diary into something of an awards ceremony. I thanked 5 different people.

My parents: They have been together for about 25 years and I never saw them argue. It was a sign of what is really going on with Jesus and his followers. They were good parents to me and gave me freedom to make the faith I now have my own, not reliant on their's.

My older brother: I had seen him change, seen his passion for the bible, and seen his passion for theology. It made me want to study the bible myself and that kicked me into the final steps of becoming a child of God.

My younger brother: He grew my faith by continually working with a fluctuating youth group, that had more interest in playing games than anything serious. The members had been faithful, then unreliable, then bored of it and looking for something else. He had stuck with it all, helping the worship in the more Jesus focused meetings feel like it was owned by the group itself.

As I shared the part about my younger brother I had cried. More of a blurt than an outpour of tears but something had hit me. To this day, I can't really work out what it was.

I thanked Jesus for working in my life, and thanked Dave Mullen for convincing me it was something I needed to do.

After it all I look back and I can see it was crucial. I modelled externally what had happened internally. Primarily, new creation. The dunking signifies death. Jesus died too. Let's publicly share in that, is the general way of thinking about baptism in today's church. The bringing up out of the water brings the cheer. It also brings a sense of relief to both the dunkers and the dunkee. And probably the viewers as well. That signifies new life. Like eggs. I say eggs because they eventually hatch and you've got a fluffy yellow problem on your hands. That could lead me to a further point, but I think I'll leave that for another time.

New life. Why new life? My friend Adam was preaching at the baptisms this time, and with his remote control convertible car he explained - that is more of an in joke to anyone reading this and reminiscing as opposed to those people wanting to find out what happened. What happened was remarkably predictable, but I found out a certain Mike Reeve was very good at telling his story. There's this verse, which is usually taken as a single sentence to prove a point - like taking a random sentence out of this increasingly long post to show something which may or may not be relevant - which says 'anyone in Christ is a new creation, the old has gone the new has come.' Lovely and poetic.

Besides my hang-ups with the term in Christ because it's so ambiguous in the original language so I won't go into it, it's a good verse. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead you will be saved. Despite the massively political agenda hidden in the verse there, which is highly irrelevant for the point I'm making, the prospect is clear. With Jesus being raised from the dead New Creation begins. Anyone believing with their heart that he has been raised from the dead can now, quite plainly, be termed as 'in Christ' whatever that really means. I guess I'll go with being crucified with Him and raised with Him...therefore also a new creation; which fits with that other verse.

I like that, it's pretty darn good. I'm not sure what my point is, but baptisms are a great way of encouraging everyone who believes and confesses and stuff that they have this new life to live. Nice.

More on Hope

2008-02-11T15:59:00.000Z

I've been reading a couple of books recently. As is usual with me if something doesn't quite fit with what I believe, or it's something I used to believe but I realised was wrong, it doesn't calm me down. On the other hand, if something I realise I was believing was wrong, but now I've got it right in my head, it doesn't calm me down either. The product, however, is different. One causes excitement, the other anger. You work out which is which.

The two books differ massively in their content. 'Purpose Driven Life' by Rick Warren is a 'day-by-day' devotional book, putting life into perspective. I read it about 2 years ago, or so, and thought it would be good to read it again since I couldn't remember anything about it. Before I even got to the point where the book started to anger me (my challenge earlier must seem easier to you now) I spotted a simple, but ridiculous annoyance with the content; the translation of the Bible. He is a user of the Message translation. It's not really a translation anyway, it's a paraphrase. That basically means that every time he quotes the Message I'd much prefer him to give a bible reference and paraphrase it himself. I not really a believer that this particular paraphrase does justice in interpreting most of what the bible says.

The other book is called 'Surprised by Hope' by Tom Wright. I think I'm most impressed with myself because I must be about halfway through and I only bought it on Thursday, which is pretty good going for 'has-to-read-it-in-my-head-as-if-it's-being-read-aloud' me. I like Wright's provocative prose (that rhymes..or something), simple summaries of alternate view points, and the sense of 'as much as this is setting out some pretty important stuff, I'm going to have some fun along the way.' I'm a fan of Wright, anyhow, because when he quotes the Bible, he doesn't use other translations meaning he would then have to tell you that 'this word in Greek here, actually means this', or anything like that, he just looks at the Greek and tells you it's a translation into English...which it is. I also like him because I have a few friends who tell me he's a genuinely nice guy, and my dad backs that up. He has a soothing voice too.

Day 6 of Purpose Driven life (doesn't sound it's setting itself up for a great finish if my problems come so early), and Warren sets about describing a response to a biblical life metaphor. Life metaphors (as a short aside) are those those things we best describe life, which work themselves out in how we live them. Warren gives three; a test, a trust, and a temporary assignment. My confusion comes right there, between 2 and 3, if you like. A test I can just about deal with. My life is a test. OK, I should probably aim to do well. Why is it a test? Well (one might say in light of a Christian worldview) if you really believe in Jesus then surely your life should reflect that by the way you live you life so God will test you.

Why, then, do I have confusion arise between trust and temporary assignment?

A trust, means God decides to give his world to us humans and trust us with looking after it. We are stewards of the world. OK then, I'll do my best with it. Just for you.

A temporary assignment, means I don't live long on this world. I'll be leaving soon so nothing really matter what I do here because I'll soon be gone forever.

Each on their own work nicely, but together they mismatch, conflict, and tell me to react two different ways to the same thing. But the Bible, which he quotes (from the Message, bless him), doesn't give two different reactions to the same thing, it gives the same reaction. I guess you'd guessed that.

'Surprise by Hope' contrasts the last point, and I didn't even realise it would, to my surprise. Wright comes along, talks a lot about the resurrection of Jesus, shows historically that it has to have happened (leaving the historian and scientist to make up their own mind, because no amount of evidence will back up a claim that it didn't happen; i.e. it takes faith) and then works through the mass of implications that follow his resurrection. There seem to be quite a few.

He summarises all the various beliefs of the past 4-6000 years or so, and shows how each one doesn't really work. The biggest one is platonic in it's roots; that the material world is bad, but the spirit inside each person is the thing that lives so let's a whole amount of that, thank you very much. Gnosticism is the belief in body and soul (two separate elements) and the soul is what's really important so let's make sure that our souls are well attended through some kind of spirituality, and then we'll all bundle off to heaven when we die, tra-la-la.

This belief has crept into Christianity (that rhymes). The 'going-to-heaven-when-we-die' has become one of those naturally accepted facts, even though it's not that biblical. The reaction to that would be: it doesn't matter what happens on earth, because I'll be in heaven soon enough; life is but a wisp of smoke. It's what Warren clearly says, but his own advice on how to react to it is completely in conflict with what has just been said. If I'm going to end up elsewhere, this life really has very little to offer so I'll take what I can thank you very much. Warren suggests (and it's true but just not in line with the 'facts' he's putting behind it) that this world is never fully satisfying, but heaven is, so live as if you're a citizen of 'up there' and don't hold on to anything here. The trouble with that is that no one is holding on to anything 'down here' and just using up the whole lot and hoping for the heaveny bit at the end.

Do you see now the conflict between these two metaphors? How can I be entrusted with something that doesn't matter? Isn't that a bit foolish of God? I thought he created the world for a some reason, not just to have it done away with in the end.

It appears that creation itself is evil. Not that it was once created and it was very good, but now it's not but I hope someone comes along to fix it, but that it was created by God, it wasn't ever really good, and Jesus has come to give us a chance to really get away from this wretched place.

God made this world because he wanted it to be good, and really it is. It's got a lot of evil continually making it less and less good, but ultimately the fascination of creation is that it is beautiful, whether that's really explainable or not I don't know. Is it ever as beautiful as it once was, I don't know, but I do know, that it is attractive enough to reflect bits and pieces of God here and there in an attempt to give us the hope that life keeps going.

The resurrection of Jesus creation starting again. It's new creation. Inaugurated eschatology if you want some posh words.

To start the gospel with sin, is to put the whole world in condemnation and give everyone a hope of getting out of here. To start the gospel with God and him creating a whole bunch of wonderful stuff, is to put the whole world into a groaning waiting, yearning, hoping for the wonderful new creation, and gives everyone who would choose to believe in the death of Jesus and the implications of that, and the resurrection of Jesus, and the implications of that.

Sorry, Rick, day 6 wasn't so helpful for me.

Something about what the papers won't shut up about.

2008-02-09T11:26:00.000Z

What an embarrassment. The secular world (at least the UK) can't find anything better to talk about than religion. How fun. And at the forefront is the leader of the Anglican communion on the front page of most newspapers for 3 or 4 days in a row. I think the way it comes across is that the last thing society expected an Archbishop to do was comment on it.

Rowan Williams in a clumsy little way has taken Britain by surprise a few times already. That doesn't make it ok. I wonder how many chances a man in this kind of stature should get before he's recommended early retirement. I personally would prefer to keep the post and show that it was no mistake to give him this kind of responsibility.

What's in a name?

2008-01-19T09:22:00.000Z

There are three things I've seen this morning that have made me cringe at the faulty worldview of society. I'm not saying that my worldview is correct, but the need to run from the problem that humanity has self-diagnosed simply because they can't think up a sufficient answer is worrying. I'm basically saying that what I believe is more correct than the general secular public (the general secular public believing they don't believe anything).

The first thing I saw was a poster on the back of a bus that states: "The Power of Me can tackle bullying." (This isn't right.)

The second thing I saw was a poster on the side of a bus that states: "You can choose to stop abuse." (This is wrong)

And the third things was a newspaper headline that claimed a 5 year old girl had been raped, leading to question about what her life would be like in the future.

The first two made me angry by the blatant attempt at society trying to save itself from self-destruction, while the last one made me utterly frustrated at the general medias need to express more bad news. It's starting to get the better of me. Day after day I read of people being harmed in a variety of unoriginal ways, and equally people offending, and the papers give the usual doom and gloom with not real look at any possible hope. I've had enough. Who, in their right mind and day-to-day reading, decide that the best way of finding out what's going on in the world is to read about more death, assault, abuse, poverty, famine, disease, and general depravity? Equally, who thinks a good way to make money is to fill pages and pages of recycled paper with the same stories as every other week but with names of people and places, and ages, changed?

Society has reached a stand still. Nothing is improving. We have gadgets and gizmo's that make us find out about this non-improvement faster than the week before, but I wouldn't call that an improvement. I'd call that masochistic. I don't mean to rant but it does really grind my gears.

You know what else grinds my gears? The posters on buses that I mentioned.

How can we improve society when 80% of the population have chosen to follow their own "enlightened" path, instead of learning from the past 6000 years of human history and realising something has to change?

As part of Western culture I can't say I'm not to blame, but if there's no realisation that things won't improve by doing things the way they've always been done, then I won't continue to be associated with such a deprived way of life. The trouble with the past 50 years has been the need to include everyone, offend no one, and save everyone from everyone else with protective barriers meaning children won't get the right discipline in their situations, adults won't get the right discipline in their situations, and, if you think that you can't do your job anymore, you can sue your boss. I'm getting to my point. I just seem to be coming across as a profoundly angry man; which I suppose I am.

What you may have come to realise is I believe that all this...boils down to Jesus.

And it's enough with the chit-chat...Jesus is the message that people need to hear. It's the thing that empowers and releases the people from their own depravity. Bullying is never about having to stand up to the person who bullies, the answer to it is that the bully himself interacts with people in a way that he knows works, and keeps him in survival mode. It's that basic. The bully wouldn't act the way he does without good cause that boils down to the fact that, in every case, whether it's bullying which we don't particularly like or lying which we don't think is that bad, or abuse, or murder, it boils down to the fact that the sinner (the person bullying, lying, abusing, or murdering) was first sinned against. It becomes a vicious cycle that is always traceable back to a need to create a survival mode of keeping people at a sufficient distance to remain ourselves.

In reality, to know all this helps no one. To know Jesus came to demonstrate such freedom is much more vital knowledge. What's coming around is the need to realise that the gospel (the good news that Jesus is Lord/King over all things because he was raised from the dead) is the power of God in motion. It's power (not the power of ME) is the thing that will be able to effectively fight bullying or abuse because it doesn't just bring freedom to the bullied and abused, but it also brings reconciliation between the bully and the bullied. This is something that has been decided unthinkable, but it is the power and wisdom of Yahweh, not some human concept.

To finish with a story, a girl (let's call her Jane) was sharing something in a school assembly. She spent a short 15 minutes in front of 200 or so teenagers telling them the most important thing for them to was 'follow your heart.' It was a passionate message, and the children were clapping her and thinking, 'this is a good message, I like this philosophy.'

Afterward a friend who had come to listen to her share asked her a simple question. 'Would you have said the same thing if you'd know that a young Hitler was sitting in the audience? Or a young Staling, or Genghis Khan?'

She replied, 'I'd never thought of that.' As shock filled her face she realised the mistake she'd made. She had assumed that the human heart is primarily a source of good. Which it isn't really.

The trouble with telling people that 'the power of ME can tackle bullying' is that there will be a portion of people who will interpret the message to think that, with enough will power, they can reverse the roles and become the bully.

I'll leave it there I think.

This Hope (08)

2008-01-03T11:29:00.000Z

I recently read an article called 'What Evangelism Isn't' and then went on to list 3 examples of things considered evangelism which he then said it wasn't. The first was personal testimony, the second helping the poor, and the third apologetics. I then read some responses to the article...

Commenter 1

We need to have a way of spreading good news to
the wealthy and the well and the educated who have too many answers and too much
to eat and have no need of a doctor. They also give to the poor but they are
wealthy enough to do it. However, their souls need saving by Jesus too. The way
to reach their heart is to shock them by our becoming poor and yet still feeding
the poor ourselves from what little we have, even while we are poor. We must
become simple and poor yet generous and kind. We must give up wealthy lifestyles
and give up our education and give up our health and yet still minister in joy
and thanksgiving to the educated and the wealthy who have not been redeemed.
They must surely be ashamed when we who were once wealthy have stepped down and
become outcasts for the kingdom. Too many pastors want to be called reverend and
want to be revered for their learning and hold high positions and be consulted
by politicians and attend town functions and parties and be highly regarded.

Commenter 2

Excellent article! I am surprised at how many
of the commenter's want to hold onto a weaker version of evangelism where merely
feeding the hungry, or merely helping the poor is held up as equivalent to
preaching the gospel. Yes, those things are important, but there is no
difference between the service work of the atheist and the Christian if the
gospel is not preached.

Commenter 3

The ridiculousness of this article just
highlights what a false category 'evangelism' is. Jesus didn't worry about what
evangelism is and isn't and neither should we. He preached the Kingdom, he
healed the sick, he fed the hungry, he invited the outcast in. Let's go do the
same.

You may guess that the one I agree with the most is the third commenter. The funny thing about the three examples set by the author of the article is that they don't carry at all the same thrust. Jesus practiced primarily the encouragement of feeding of the poor, followed by personal testimony (in some form), and I saw very little apologetics (the defense of the faith). How on earth did apologetics even get in there?

When Jesus walked the earth He was beginning to realise what He had to do. He was becoming more and more self aware and, by the time He first stood up (or sat down, because that was the tradition of teachers in those days) in front of a great crowd in the temple He had pretty much worked out His mission. Even though It upset everyone He began something that we could call evangelism. Or just plain mission (pretty much the same thing). His life was a demonstration of something greater, and it was His life that made everything after it possible - the growing of disciples, the church, the Spirit falling on so many, people being set free and healed, etc. His demonstration was a representation of the gospel, or the kingdom, or a mixture of both. By welcoming in the outcast, or going out to the outcast so they can be brought in Jesus was demonstrating the love that would be ultimately shown in it's fullness on the cross.

By living the life He led, healing the sick, helping the needy, pointing out the religious, and shaming the people against God, He demonstrated the Gospel giving Himself opportunities to then explain Himself. Saying things along the lines of, "The kingdom of God is like.." What happens when actions are piled onto actions, and the actions aren't self motivated ways of building self image but, in fact, gospel, Jesus-motivated acts of pure love because they were first loved by God the actions force the person at the thrust of it to be challenged by their own worldview. When someone acting a certain way doesn't make sense the natural thing to do is challenge it.

Jesus living His life the way He did challenged people in more than just showing them they might be wrong. It was practically a living attack on their lifestyle. It challenged the self-righteous the most in His day, because they were right and their living made everyone else feel rotten. Nowadays the lifestyle of Jesus would be similar but it would cut through the heart of all those people who think themselves as right and the ultimate authority. He would challenge racism, sexism, prejudices against the ugly (or the pretty), hatred against people who are rich or poor, in need or comfortable, healthy or sick, whatever the thing that divided communities He would challenge. Imagine that kind of character. You would ask questions straight off, or at least challenge their authority.

This is the lifestyle that all disciples of Jesus are called to. A lifestyle that attacks (a better word may be 'intrudes') the worldview of everyone not yet adopted into His family.

That's a long way round of saying I think apologetics is a poor excuse for evangelism. It's no use to unbelievers, non-Christians, whatever you want to call it. The Wisdom of God (the thing that makes the whole life, mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus make sense) is foolishness to anyone who isn't born again. Arguing about facts whether truly factual or not won't create converts. People will be persuaded but that's only another step.

True evangelism is the lifestyle that forces questions to be asked and speaking words in line with the lifestyle that explains and reinforces the kingdom of God. And it's interesting that in the book of Jonah, Jonah's gospel presentation goes: "Forty days from now Nineveh will be destroyed!" That's it. No lengthy explanations of the doctrine of the trinity or the incarnation of God in Jesus, or the doctrines of grace and love from God. I suppose it's that classic argument that St. Francis of Assisi used - "Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words." I don't think he's completely right, but he's got a better idea than 'preach the gospel, if necessary demonstrate it.'

Speaking Sacrificially

2007-12-29T20:57:00.000Z

Of course we love to think of ourselves as a self-giving society..that is the Church. A kind of counter-culture compared with Western society. We somehow find pleasure in depriving ourselves from things that are so useful...or at least satisfying. We 'obediently' give up things that help but don't help (apparently) and discover some kind of secret blessing. So New Years comes around and it's time to be more disciplined, do less of this, more of this, be more open and honest, stop and think before saying some silly things, and that is supposed to improve our lives. When deep down we know that all the motivation in the world wouldn't be enough to hold back, or even start something. That is, without Jesus. All decisions are never put in the context of Jesus, it's always our personal gain, pleasure, improvement, salvation.

I remember reading in the Old Testament (the first half of the Bible, where Jesus is only hoped for and things in His place are killing sheep, goats, doves etc.) and Yahweh says "I don't want sacrifices..." I was more than a little taken aback. Didn't God put into place the sacrificial system? There is another bit to that verse, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Yahweh would much prefer sacrifices not happening. The other half is something like I desire mercy, or loyalty. Basically God wants people that follow Him, not people who kill animals to save themselves. God put into place things that meant He could look on His people, but His people looked at the sacrifices as saving them, not God as saviour. And why is God saviour? Well, is He not the one who own all of creation? Is He not Himself named as Provider? He is the one who provides not only the means to redeem His people but the resources to accomplish it too. This is something of stewardship, but where a sacrifice is made it should really be a sacrifice, not a necessity. A sacrifice is something that takes just a little more than is sensible away to be given to God.

And God much prefers mercy and loyalty. In all of the things God asks of His people, He never ever wanted them to turn the laws into their own gods. When Paul talked again and again about the law, about religious people, he tried to show that the reason the law is in place for the same reason as any comparison is put in place to show that one cannot be the other; i.e. anyone following the law, in fact, cannot. With that in mind Paul spends time in most of the letters he writes to various churches describing himself before he met Jesus. He was the exact kind of person that Jesus spent a lot of time making fun of, challenging, or being in general conflict with.

The conflict comes when one person (let's say, Jesus) comes along living a perfectly sinless life but living in a way that is empowered by both grace and truth. The grace would be fully accepting and the truth would be completely steadfast in how He perceived the world. And another person (let's say a pharisee, or lawyer) has been living a 'blameless' life keeping in step with all the laws set by Yahweh. The trouble with this conflict comes when someone who sees

themselves as righteous but then told they are full of hypocrisy; or even children of Satan.

Imagine that someone telling you your mum had slept with satan.

Anyway, Jesus has been telling everyone that He had come to earth, not to follow the law, which is as much, and no more, than any other man could do, but that He had come to fulfill the law. What a claim.

"You see all of these commandments written in stone here, and listed in the courts here, and the temple over here, I'm not just going to be doing exactly what they say (with the right perspective, not any of your religious mumbo jumbo nonsense like not picking an apple from an apple tree on a day of rest if you're hungry), I'm going to accomplish it, fulfill it, complete it."

That is only possible if this guy isn't just a man, but also divine. i.e. some kind of God-Man.

What does this have to do with sacrifices? Well you probably know the basic link which is Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, the most pure sacrificial lamb dying for the sins of His people. But there's more than that. Jesus had this crazy idea that people would follow Him. And this is where it gets tricky. Jesus, making the sacrifice necessary for us to do nothing to gain favour asks something of us. Jesus said, "Anyone who wants to save their own life will lose it, but anyone who wants to lose their life for my sake, will find it." It's a bit cryptic, but Jesus is getting at something deeper than our own life.

What He's getting at is a new worldview, a new perspective of life. He wants people to see their lives as something utterly different. Currently everyone would be living entirely to save their own life (the religious, for example, working up their good deeds for inspection), but Jesus came into the world knowing He would have to die. The only way someone could live a life that fulfilled it's potential would be for them to give up their own life for Jesus' sake. If people lived trying to live a good enough life, by their own means, they would lose it, because it would be motivated by their own selfishness (whether visible or not). If someone realised they couldn't save their life, but Jesus could, giving up a life for Jesus' sake, to change the world, as Jesus wants all His followers to do, that would be the fulfilling of a life, in the way it was supposed to be done.

So a sacrifice is quite simply giving life a new perspective, holding loosely to it in order that life may be lived to the full. When you hold loosely to all things perishable life is much easier to live.

Jesus at Christmas, and some insights...

2007-12-28T16:47:00.000Z

I had to ask myself, what is Christmas about, really? I've been to church 5 times in 3 days and a lot of lovely things were said but I couldn't see everything adding up. We have God in Jesus being born, finally, after 4000 odd years of waiting, and on the other, after 2000 years we give gifts and sit around a tree, eating turkey and hoping some family time is established. So 1 (God) + 2 (Problem) + 3 (Israel tasked with restoration) + 4 (Jesus starting what Israel started) = 5

There's plenty missing.

This post grabbed my attention somewhat. But I think there's so much more to the Christmas story. The celebrations that happen make no sense. They sit with a conversion of a pagan festival, some use of an old viking character and mixing him with a good saint. There isn't enough of Jesus to make it worth while. On top of that, Jesus wasn't even born in the winter months. If the Shepherds were out in the fields then it would have had to have been sometime between April and October. So that adds to the oddness of all this season throws at us. Enough of the complaints you hear say that the Christmas season has lost it's meaning when, if you look at all that's going on, there isn't any meaning to it. Some could say peace, love and joy, but that's not solely a Christian sentiment. It's a general religious sentiment that has established most religions. This season has at some level that magical fairy story edge to it all. It's of the truth of prophecies and the realisation of God putting into motion the final pieces of a chess game where the opposition, no matter how well he thought he was doing, realises the last moves he makes are futile.

But that is what the season and celebrations represent. The Christmas story found in Matthew and Luke, with some alternate angles from John, has some key elements that put the birth of the universal Saviour into the steps of someone who live out a purely prophetic life in every way. Leaving a trail that can only point to Jesus as the one True God in Human form heading for the ultimate penalty to give His life as a ransom for many. etc. etc.

It begins in the temple. Zechariah (or Zacharias), some priest of the second temple in Jerusalem, was visited by Gabriel, and angel. He said to Zak that his barren wife would give birth. He didn't believe it and so, as is Yahweh's wonderful sense of humour, he was struck dumb. He couldn't speak. It could have been worse, though. Unbelief can be deadly. But this reflects the beginnings of the nation of Israel whose God is of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. These three, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had married women who were barren. Which wasn't something to be proud of in them days. But, because this was going to be the nation of God not man, God did what He wanted and gave these three barren women the ability to bare children and give birth. So for three generations starting the nation of redemptive history, God was the instigator of the next. As is the case 3000 or so years on, Zechariah starts the preparation of this new remarkable story with the same story as Israel had begun.

We briefly stop off at a small hut. And this is all the more miraculous. Gabriel, not one to be given a lot of work, but clearly key for speaking for God when the prophets had died away, visits a teenage girl and tells her that she will be 'with child.' She says 'I'm not married,' which meant in those days 'I haven't done anything that would make it that way, and I'm not planning to until I get married to my partner to be, Joseph.' This is something that shows how this event is leading to the climax of Yahweh's redemptive plan. After Adam had condemned the world through disobeying God, Yahweh was going to use Israel to undo what Adam had done. The descendants of Abraham, from the line of king David was the key to it all. And it wasn't to save itself, but to save the world. This is how redemptive history is developing, and it starts again through the preparation of Zechariah's wife giving birth, who will prepare the way of the Lord; John the Baptist's cousin, Jesus the Christ.

In Bethlehem is where the truly significant stuff takes place. Beside Jesus being born, Gabriel takes a few of his friends out and sings to some shepherd telling them to go visit this new born King. The shepherds on the field will not have been picked because they were the only bunch of people outside at night. It's a prophetic symbol. Yahweh in the old testament is referred to as a shepherd of His people a number of times, and Jesus refers to Himself as a shepherd as well. The shepherds are prophetically chosen to show God's purposes in the birth of this youngling. On top of that they bring with them another prophetic symbol. A lamb. This is another representative symbol of Jesus. Jesus who is known in heaven as the lamb that was slain. It is a symbol of His death, as the shepherd is a symbol of His love so wide that He would go out of His way to find His lost sheep. Self sacrificial symbols and all He's done is lie in a manger,

Then some visitors arrive. Another number of prophetic symbols, visiting the King and representing Him at the same time. Some wise men arrive with 3 gifts, They're sometimes called kings, which is the first prophetically minded detail; seeing as Jesus is the new born King as told by Gabriel the angel. Wise men would mean they have wisdom, looking deeply into word of God and discovering that a sign would be certainly seen. They saw a light to follow, but it is the wisdom I am interested in. Jesus lived a life of wisdom prophetically living out the purposes of God, as these wise men, these magi, are doing the same thing, representing the walk Jesus began. They brought some gifts, Gold for His royalty, frankincense for His religious place in the history of His people, and myrrh for His eventual death, burial, and resurrection.

And we finish back in the temple. A guy called Simeon, a priest, had been promised he would see the Son of God before he saw death. He did and committed the rituals necessary for any new Jewish son. The Jewish law states: "Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord." This is symbolic, or even prophetic of the setting apart of Jesus for His ministry. A lot went on and a lot of special things took place. But in all the events surrounding Jesus birth, Yahweh's incarnation or embodiment in the world, there were probably a maximum of 15-20 people who really knew the significance. I had always thought why people thought Jesus was being ridiculous when He started His ministry after so much surrounding His birth, so much expectation. But when we look at the people who really knew what was going on, Mary and Joseph would have kept it quiet with a pregnancy outside of wedlock, Elisabeth, who knew Mary's child was significant, would have been more overwhelmed with her own womb being full of a child when she had been barren so many years, and the shepherds were local to Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth.

I'm still not sure the purpose of the celebrations when we try to make it a Christian festival and yet nothing of the 'traditions' bring anything to mind. This Christmas I have missed God a lot more than others, even though I have heard many good things said. Nothing helps me connect the two; the traditions and Jesus birth. Anywhooo

Merry Christmas.

What is prayer?

2007-12-24T09:22:00.000Z

I was looking at how Jesus taught his disciples how to pray, thinking and meditating on it's various forms and came to quite a good conclusion of how we should pray. I'm not sure whether I'll share it with you, but I'll definitely share some thoughts on the lyrics of Cliff Richards Christmas number one from years ago...

Nothing against old Cliff.

Firstly, Jesus addresses His father. That's fairly important.

Circulating around Jesus' message we can quickly discover He's not a crazy man trying to give some kind of escape from what we think we need freedom of. In fact He decides to come along and show us we need freedom something that we were previously unaware of. Pretty good going Jesus. Moving on, His message moved quickly from something else to 'save' to a belief system that put God at the top of your tree. Quite literally He, God, Yahweh becomes your Father. You, by believing in Jesus, become 'grafted onto the vine,' or 'adopted into the family.' Basically you get a new responsibility, and a new pecking order. Pretty good going for something as simple as believing in Jesus. Jesus, in addressing this head-on, teaching others to pray by using a title as intimate as father, shows a family quality of this faith, that previous and alternative lifestyles wouldn't allow. Children from the same family must come together, especially when they have a perfect father, not some competitive, favouratist father.

Next we have the location of Yahweh. He's in heaven. He's in the 'not yet.' Or the kingdom of heaven that Jesus is showing is upon us. This is where He is, and this is what you inherit if you're part of the family, so join in. It puts everything at the right point, in order to set the world view in motion.

Thirdly is this interesting and dense phrase; 'let your kingdom come, let your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.' Notice it doesn't say in heaven as it is in heaven. This is definitely about changing this earth not waiting until we are taken from this place.

This is something at which we take action. Jesus tells everyone He meets that 'the kingdom of Heaven is at hand!' This only provokes this odd reaction because it's not supposed to be invisible. This phrase offers our complete surrender to God, while at the same time wanting to see more of Him. Your kingdom come; Your rule over more and more in it's invisible yet tangible reality. Your will be done; Your way of doing things, not mine. One earth as it is in heaven; bring these two conflicting realities into harmony with one another. Make them come together and be restored. Awesome.

Give us this day our daily bread; provide the things that are bear essentials
Forgive us our sins; I'm wrong you forgive, let your grace rule over me
As we forgive those who sin against us; make me more like you, Jesus

Lead us not into temptation; Renew my heart and mind into a holy and blameless living sacrifice
and deliver us from evil; be gracious and protect me from the unworking of this world

Yours is the kingdom; your rule is the greatest and best way to work
Yours is the Power; your will is so abounding I want to see it work
Yours is the Glory; and all I want to do is for your honour and praise
For ever and ever; I can't see you losing
Amen

I notice one big thing in all of this prayer. There aren't any questions. There is not explicit guidance. Imagine that. I remember a friend sharing with me an insight that said something along the lines of 'wherever you go the light of Jesus, the lamppost, the lantern; it won't lead you, it will follow you.' If Jesus wanted a lot of His sheep to follow Him explicitly we wouldn't just be a complete pen of clones, but we'd also all be tripping Jesus up wondering where He would go next. To follow 'The Way' would not be some kind of special path, although that metaphor is used. It would be closer to having the right kind of glasses on to be able to see what's up ahead and which options could be taken. Jesus never really tells us to go to God if we have three job offers and they're all pretty amazing, but one's got these extra perks that I'm not sure would be a good thing because what if it makes me less content and...blah blah etc. etc.

He says things like 'don't you expect God to provide, you of little faith?!'

What if this happens, Jesus? Well then make a decision. You have this renewed spirit that shines my light wherever you go. It doesn't really matter what decision you make as long as it doesn't mean you sin. And if it does mean you sin then turn around and come back. We all make mistakes. Basically, what His message is is 'we're not ruled by law we're ruled by grace.' Jesus taught us to pray everyday for the basics. That way we've got all the bases covered and we can live in trust that God is bigger than us, and always will be. It's a good family to be in.

Of course in all of this...I could be wrong.

This Jonah character

2007-12-19T09:21:00.000Z

What would it mean if someone said to you 'the greatest sign I will perform is the sign of Jonah?'

I'm sure we'd all remember the bit where he's in the belly of a massive fish; at least that's the bit that stands out for me. Especially when he starts singing; it must have been quite a weird sensation for the fish. So we could assume the sign of Jonah would be a marvelous magic trick whereby the victim in question would disappear into the belly of a fish...only to emerge again after three days. Of course the book of Jonah's story has more in it than that. He hears clearly God's voice and clambers on to a boat going in as far the opposite direction as possible. He gets thrown out of the boat and nearly drowns (gets eaten, then thrown up on a beach) hears God's voice and tries to run away a second time, then finally gives in and does what he's told, only to be utterly disappointed with the results. So maybe the sign of Jonah is disappointment. Surely the conclusion to a story reference would be more applicable, not just a pretty extraordinary feature to the narrative. Just like the story of the prodigal son is because 042518. You work it out

Of course the prodigal son is probably a bad example. The familiarity of the story has made term prodigal to mean something utterly different from what it really is. We have this idea the a prodigal would mean someone who walks away from his family, but it doesn't mean that at all. I think in some senses the prodigal son referred to did not think through his words that carefully and perhaps what was said and taken to heart wasn't his basic motive. He was saying he wished his father dead by asking for his share of the inheritance, but I doubt he had thought that far. His living shows that, although the sign sent said 'I'm wishing you dead and getting out of here,' he wasn't bright enough to think about other people. He saw a large wealth, thought half would do him nicely and asked for it. And he went off to live as a prodigal. A prodigal meaning someone who lives lavishly.

Jesus was the one who was claiming his greatest sign would be one of Jonah. And yes (you may have already cottoned on to it) he did go into a tomb (belly) for 3 days before rising again. But was that really what He was referring to? Or, at least, was that the only thing He was referring to? Just as Jesus' life was about His death Jonah's life was about something major too. Jesus, by living established and accomplished many things. Maybe even more than that. His life had new teaching, astonishing claims, fights starting, questions asked, miracles occurring...could that be it? Who knows? I'd like to think I do, or I wouldn't speculate over here.

What miracles did He perform. Well; there was that water into wine moment, and the blind man - wait - men seeing, a couple of the lame walking, some leper cured, a woman cured of bleeding of some kind; then He fed 5000 on one occasion out of a small packed lunch, then fed 4000 on another occasion out of a smaller packed lunch; He calmed the sea, walked on it, told a fig tree to shrivel up and die and the tree didn't argue; He talked to a Samaritan, He went into the houses of prostitutes, and terrorists, Roman collaborators, and thieves, sinners in general in fact. The last set doesn't seem particularly miraculous does it. Maybe stepping out your comfort zone and taking some pepper spray with you just in case, but nothing magnificent.

Besides the fact that the various 'Jesus Critics' if His day weren't particularly happy with His choices, there was a man who wasn't afraid of divides of any nature. (After his resurrection even physical dividing walls didn't put Him off walking through them.) He came into Jewish culture to...'perform the sign of Jonah?'

What was that, really?

Jonah's mission wasn't to get swallowed up into the belly of a fish. His mission was to take the news of God's kingdom to the city of Nineveh which continued to disregard God's threats and go their own way. God stepped in, told Jonah to tell them to repent, and tried to sort the place out. God is concerned about the whole world, not just His own people, it appears. Jonah went into a fully disobedient, sinful city, that didn't know God, told them that if they didn't turn from their ways and worship God they would be destroyed and saw the whole community transform. Jonah wasn't happy, only because Nineveh were His people's enemies. That was the reason Jonah kept wanting to run away, but it wasn't worth his life, fortunately. He turned around in the end.

I'm not saying Jesus didn't come to die. He did. But the accomplishment of His death is one that removes those prejudices, and it's one that Jesus acted out while He was alive as an example of what was possible after His ascension. The idea of this reconciling spirit I discussed somewhat in a post about a month ago. The ultimate description is that Jesus died for a personal salvation and a corporate transformation. What on earth did you think the church was for. Nineveh, as a whole city, turned around. Imagine what could happen in your local community if Jesus was at the centre of it.

Why should I hope if my death is imminent?

2007-12-15T18:54:00.000Z

Looking into the verse halfway through the first chapter of Philippians where Paul claims 'to live is Christ but to die is gain.' What on earth does he mean? Looking at the whole book and what Paul was writing for, it appears Paul was almost definitely heading to his own execution. Paul was the kind of guy who'd stirred everything up. Jesus was around and had told plenty of Old Testament scholars (or experts in the law, or Pharisees) that they were completely religious and were working to their own destruction making law-keeping higher than God. Paul, so oblivious to the fulfilments of prophecies and the law over the years suddenly had his eyes opened in some kind of 'Damascus road' experience. He saw Jesus fulfilling the law, and the prophets' words, and realised the 'Messiah' had come. Paul spotted, in Jesus, after years persecuting the church, that the liberator of the political system and a whole alternate life had been accomplished in Jesus. He turned things around in his ministry because of what Jesus had done on the cross.

This was good news for the body of Christ, bad news for the Jews, and the Romans, and the terrorists of the day, and almost every other belief system in effect. In practical terms that meant 'the world' was not a fan of Paul. It meant the authorities thought it best for Paul to stop preaching this 'good news' and he should be sent to jail. (In the book of Acts he is recorded to have been arrested by the Romans, by persuasion of the Jews, at least three times.) So now, writing to the church in Philippi, he's living out every day, working closer and closer to his execution. I guess, in some sense, his death looked like a relief. His letter to the Corinthians gives some insight:

I know I sound like a madman, but I have served [Christ] far more! I have worked harder, been put in prison more often, been whipped times without number, and faced death again and again. Five different times the Jewish leaders gave me thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked. Once I spent a whole night and a day adrift at sea. I have traveled on many long journeys. I have faced danger from rivers and from robbers. I have faced danger from my own people, the Jews, as well as from the Gentiles. I have faced danger in the cities, in the deserts, and on the seas. And I have faced danger from men who claim to be believers but are not. I have worked hard and long, enduring many sleepless nights. I have been hungry and thirsty and have often gone without food. I have shivered in the cold, without enough clothing to keep me warm.

Then, besides all this, I have the daily burden of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak without my feeling that weakness? Who is led astray, and I do not burn with anger? If I must boast, I would rather boast about the things that show how weak I am. God, the Father of our Lord Jesus, who is worthy of eternal praise, knows I am not lying. When I was in Damascus, the governor under King Aretas kept guards at the city gates to catch me. I had to be lowered in a basket through a window in the city wall to escape from him.

He's had a rough time of it. Now he's in prison waiting for the day when he can leave it all behind and go to be with Jesus. And we get to the point after he's just said 'But the ones who are jealous of us are not sincere. They just want to cause trouble for me while I am in jail. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is that people are telling others about Christ, whether preached in pretense [we need more converts] or truth [these people need to hear] I will rejoice [says Paul].' Then we get a bombshell. He goes from having a hard time, to death. And the gold comes forth from his lips; and it's quoted many times with little understanding as to what he really meant.

'For to live is Christ, but to die is gain.'

What?

What the hell does that mean?

If I'm alive then it's Christ, but if I'm dead it's better?!

Me living=Christ?

What?

Yes. Paul has gone mad. Twice in two letters. He's saying first that he is a much better apostle because he's been given more punishments for good than anyone else. And then he says that that life is Christ. Oh. Wait. It makes a little more sense. Jesus' life consisted of constant rejection because He was doing good. Jesus' death was complete agony, punished for not sinning at all. Well. Obviously people don't like people who make no mistakes. They wouldn't fit in. Paul has been living a life exactly as Christ. What it means is the reaction to his actions will be the same as the reaction that Jesus got to His actions. And everyone who realises who Jesus was and what He achieved through living and dying and rising and ascending really was want to be just like Jesus. A mini-Jesus; a mini-Christ; a Christ-ian.

So to live as Christ is to live with the consequences Jesus showed us. And it is to persevere through those things as if they were 'momentary afflictions.'

To die is gain? Well, perhaps Jesus' death is a lot more meaningful than any Christ-ian, but I begin to think that perhaps Paul was onto something. Jesus died, went before God suffering the death He didn't deserve but chose to take it, rose again in this wicked new body (that's wicked in a good way) that could walk through walls, tried it out on the cursed earth, probably playing a few tricks, opening scriptures, eating fish, and then He flies off to heaven to be with His dad. Pretty awesome.

Until Jesus comes back to judge all the world, to die is to just get up to Jesus be with Him and the Father, in fact be with the whole Triune God for ages and ages, until we get our fresh new bodies with add-ons. Of course, that would only be for those who have experienced the 'live is Christ' bit. That's the hope of an imminent death. Being with Jesus. Look it up; it'll be pretty cool.

What was Jesus doing, coming down to earth like that?

2007-12-14T19:30:00.000Z

I started reading this book - mentioned last post - and decided to investigate the public opinions of the author and his writings. I came across this. This guy, author of the blog, has recently released a book called 'Spiritual Discernment.' After reading the review & finishing the book it reviewed I analyzed this guys thoughts. It didn't truly impress me. What I could see was some guy writing a book then attempting to show how to put it into practice. I suppose that's the trouble with the people who blog. People like me. The downside, of course, is he did a bad job. The book I read is, most definitely, challenging. One could almost say offensive. It challenges the 'Heaven after you die' mythology, the box of culture in which we put Jesus, and, although mentioning little of His death, the mission Jesus death. I see this book, not as redefining, but showing more of Jesus; a bigger Jesus, if you will. Of course if this new perspective is true some of the old perspectives must be thrown out, but that does not mean all other perspectives are wrong. We must look to hold many perspective together, as God does His own attributes.

For example, at the McLaren level of which Jesus enters the Roman Empirical culture, Jesus' mission is to show and establish the kingdom of God as a new political system, freeing the oppressed into a new way of life. His death & resurrection showed that the Romans could not succeed against the advancing kingdom of Heaven.
At the traditional level, Jesus' mission was to establish Himself as an alternate leader, a Messiah; Ultimate Mission: The Cross (i.e. His death).

Perhaps this wouldn't be so bad, but it leaves holes all over. Jesus came to proclaim the kingdom of God. His mission was to show how the kingdom the people of God envisioned, though seemingly impossible in the current situation (and, in some cases, unwanted) - too many poor, too many soldiers, too many sick, too many sinners - was, in fact, at hand; here; upon us.

Of course if Jesus came to be that prophet of challenging so many His death seems, not only inevitable, but accomplishing little. Now, if Jesus came to do both, that would show something of God that is, in fact, in perfect sync with His character. God is concerned with both body and soul, mind and matter of the people of earth. He wants to see the world working, not just into this world preached an awkward and intriguing message, each day stepping closer and closer towards the inevitable; His execution. He knew it would end this way. He wouldn't shut up about it, on occasion. And yet, He wasn't obsessed with it. He came to turn the whole world upside down; He came to take some young fishermen, tax collectors, terrorists, under His wing and send them off on the continuation of God's mission. And He ended His missionary journey with the most horrific death imaginable, treated as a criminal even though He was the only man ever to do nothing for His own selfish ambition.
What was His death?

It represented many things. It is the obsession of many of His later disciples. It is shown, quite plainly, as the ultimate act that puts His whole life into context. Every action would only make sense because He was killed/sacrificed, and that He rose from the dead, victorious over the most unnatural thing in the universe....DEATH.

I think the key sentence is putting His whole life into context. Without His death, His life makes no sense. Any other person doing the same things but escaping execution would have been a hypocrite. He had to die; not simply to be that sin-offering, that sacrifice, that man with His arms open wide as the greatest act of love ever seen. He had to die for His life to be fully meaningful. All His message taught, all He stood for, it was heading towards His death to show the kingdom of God was more powerful and was advancing and was upon us and was here and was something to be part of and was a kingdom worth the citizenship of. More powerful than the Roman Empire, advancing stronger and forcefully and not losing ground and fully sustaining; more so than the Roman Empire. It was more real than the Roman Empire, and it cost the life of Jesus for our citizenship.

Surely we can change sung Dave Crowder

2007-12-14T16:00:00.000Z

And the problem is this
We were bought with a kiss
But the cheek still turned
Even when it wasn't hit

And I don't know
What to do with a love like that
And I don't know
How to be a love like that

When all the love in the world
Is right here among us
And hatred too
And so we must choose
What our hands will do

Where there is pain
Let there be grace
Where there is suffering
Bring serenity
For those afraid
Help them be brave
Where there is misery
Bring expectancy
And surely we can change
Surely we can change
Something

And the problem it seems
Is with you and me
Not the Love who came
To repair everything

Where there is pain
Let us bring grace
Where there is suffering
Bring serenity
For those afraid
Let us be brave
Where there is misery
Let us bring them relief
And surely we can change
Surely we can change
Oh surely we can change
Something

Oh, the world's about to change
The whole world's about to change

Why review a book?

2007-12-13T15:34:00.000Z

I have found an increasingly frustrating aspect of me that means half the things I'd like to get down on paper don't end up anywhere useful. My mind thinks. It thinks a lot. At any one time I may have as many as 5 different concepts all trying to work themselves out of me. I theorise about ideas, world views, Jesus, people, psycho-analyse myself, and there is general chit chat in the midst meaning, during conversation, I will make a remark that seems completely unrelated that I will try and draw back to the original point but the responder simply takes hold of new subject matter and sees a shift in direction, rather than a slightly bigger picture.

I'm also struggling with sentence length.

This week my thought processes have been fairly narrow, primarily consisting of the theories of interpretation of Revelation (the final book of the Bible), what Jesus' mission was at a cultural 1st century level (which I may try and show does link back to Revelation, but wouldn't appear to), how to correctly represent the ideas of a video for the church website, and what Christianity really is all about and the need of the 'Born Again' prefix for clarification in this day and age. Oh yeah, and Christian culture.

All that in one week.

Last week I was preoccupied with the transfer of sin and righteousness with relation to Jesus' death. I thought I'd come to a definite conclusion then read another couple of opinions and realised the mistakes we make. There are draft of three posts I was going to publish, but wasn't overly confident in material so I left them. I'm not sure, yet, what to do with them. That is what predominated, at least. I don't remember what else was going on but I guess there were some odd conversations in retrospect.

I remember having a conversation which was trundling along at a steady pace, talking about food or something, and then I asked if they'd watched any '24.' This, rather than opening up some more of the subject, took the whole conversation down a different path, and, perhaps with extra observation over knowing my own mind, must have seemed somewhat strange. I also know from experience I use commas far too much.

I think, now, comma comma, I'd like to open up a little into Jesus. I wonder; what did His death and resurrection look like to the first century Jews, living in a Roman Empire?

More appropriately, I'm basically going to summarise my thoughts on a book I've just finished (Everything Must Change by Brian D McLaren). It's opened up some kind of ideological world view that is actually pretty accomplishable. Not because I'm so great, or you're so great; that's kind of redundant and, to be perfectly honest, not true. It's because God is great that these things are possible.

So Jesus looks like, either, this guy born somewhere small disrupted a bit of Jewish life, left rather abruptly after dying and rising again, never having made a political party, made loads of money, he died penniless, homeless, and rejected by his whole country. Not really that much of a big deal. Or he looks like this amazing character from history who turned millions, if not, billions of lives, upside down. He changed the course of history, fulfilled prophecy after prophecy, did many miraculous things, represented fully God on earth, was God, died to fulfill the law, rose to prove his accomplishments, went to heaven, and is now watching over His church with expectancy, waiting. Waiting until He can come back and be with all His followers in person.

These are two quite different pictures.

No one has ever tried putting the two together. It's always been one or the other for me. Historians of no affiliation to anything special have shown the world Jesus lived in, and what kind of person he was; a homeless teacher with less followers than Hitlers fan club, with a tragic end to a less than effective struggle. Theologians have shown him to be a great man, doing many wonderful things, preaching a glorious message, accomplishing what only God could accomplish (because He is God in Flesh), and He is someone worth getting to know now, before you see Him at the Judgment.

Who do you think most people saw, while He was alive?

Who is He really? Has He fooled us all?

Obviously my point is that He hasn't, but do you see the vast difference?

It turns out, actually, that His presence on the earth is as mind shattering in physical terms as the theologians rave about in the spiritual terms. Jesus' message was one of those kinds of messages that completely changes the way you think. A little like finding out Santa doesn't exist (although he still does for those naive lot out there), or working out that babies do actually come from one stork; which is why there are so many single mums out there. The fact is, Jesus wasn't trying to stay alive for 30 years, preaching stuff to upset everyone so He could be killed and fulfill some prophecy about Him, so all the Jews would realise who He was and that be done with. Jesus shows how all of Israel as a people were living a misled life, because He used the same scriptures they did and He lived an entirely different life. Why? He allowed the Old Testament to shape his world view; the lens to view life from. He didn't come at the inspired words of God from one world view trying to make them make sense, He tried to make the world make sense after experiencing scripture.

His whole message was from a different world view that should change how the world appears. The best way to put this is, as much as the cultures had different uses of language, making Jesus' words hard to decipher, at the brunt of it all was a man preaching into a self-destructive society that suffered as much in it's day, as we do in ours, over drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexuality abuse and confusion, sickness, death, corruption, war, famine, and so much more that is all caused, and a bi-product of their and our living, not something else we have to deal with on the side.

More to come; but the point is, His physical goings on 2000 years ago caused almost as much havoc (which almost makes no sense, having an eternal effect, but not quite), as His eternal spiritual goings on did somewhere in the kingdom of God.

Revisions....

2007-12-12T12:33:00.000Z

This is a rather long one...

Since writing the two part extravaganza on atonement and the issue of status transference surrounding it, I have since read up on Tom Wrights "simple" explanation of the righteousness (available here) of which Paul talks about in 2 Corinthians 5:21. With this shaping my ever malleable mind, I re-evaluate my stance. At one level some of what I have said still stands, but the relationship between sin and righteousness seems less relevant. This is mainly because the 'Jesus became sin that we me become righteousness...' is better explained as Jesus representing one thing and us representing the other. Summarising Wright's article it is basically part of an argument showing the authority of Paul. Wright suggests that Jesus is shown by Paul to have, on the cross, represented sin and taken the punishment, bearing the sin of the world as a representative, not having a clean account filled with other people's disobedience. What it means is that, with Jesus death accomplishing reconciliation, our relationship with God means we can represent His righteousness giving us authority to admonish one another. That's about as much as you're going to get until I finish thinking all this through, but the key in the PSA theory is not whether or not righteousness jumps from soul to soul, but what happens to sin. This would begin to explain an alternate title I was thinking of for my last posts; 'What happens to our soul?'

So, in light of my research I'm going to tackle sin. This is, supposedly, why Jesus had to die. Without sin, Jesus was fine where He was. Of course, if sin is not considered in a certain way, Jesus' death was unneeded, in one sense. Inevitably, sin must be dealt with, and the sacrifice laws made in Leviticus some 3000 odd years ago play much more of a part in Jesus' death than we like to say.

What is sin?

It can be described in a number of ways.

Sin is...

...disobeying God, and His laws

...not acting loving towards one another

...acting outside the identity of Christ

...the view God sees of your rejection or lack of relationship with Christ

At the most foundational level, the breaking of the first commandment (love God) means the other 9 will be broken. Similarly, Jesus' 2 commandments (love God, love others), are only possible if the first is kept. Whenever the first is broken the second follows quickly. So, to act outside the identity of Christ, or to be seen as a rejection of Him, is to not be a believer, or to not have the faith in Jesus. This means that any action ('good' or 'bad' in the eyes of the world) that isn't done when believing the gospel is a sin. But where did sin come from?

Where did sin come from?

Supposedly, Adam sinned first. First came sin, then came death. It goes right back to God's whole plan. He created Man in the image of God and, because He gives us responsibility, we can naturally assume we should know more than we do in order to do a better job. So, whether figuratively or literally, Adam eats of this fruit which gives him knowledge of both good and evil. The trouble is that makes him worse at his job than he was. He disobeyed a direct command from God and God has to give the consequences suitable to the act.

The trouble is, it wasn't a harmless mistake. The knowledge, where some think it could have freed us to make a better decision, is actually the thing that entraps the human race to slavery. There are lies in the world, telling us we have free will. It's not a biblical term, and I believe the Bible is fully truth, so I'm hesitant to use such terminology. Freedom is available, for sure. What I see, however, is not Adam making some decision of whether to be fully cooperative or not, but rather the greater choice which we have very little say in; who is your master? or, alternatively, what are you a slave to?

I would like to propose that we do not have free will. We are slaves to sin. Adam's action in the garden condemned the world. The repercussions are far greater than being chucked out of a proverbial garden. I puts the whole human race into slavery to that which condemns, destroys, and is utterly punishable. We can't break free because we, on our own, can't break the chains of the master which is, at one level, the sin which we serve, and, at another level, the law which shows us how much of a slave we are and never works for us.

The only possible way to be freed from the condemnation of the law, and the slavery of sin, is for some external source who is not a slave to sin, and is in perfect relationship with the law. Someone like that could come, and die, pay the price and free us from the destructive slavery. This act would be so much greater than the act of Adam because it purchases our redemption from sin, to be made slave, instead, to righteousness. The act is so much greater than the curse of Adam, because it dies to the "marriage" with the law (the only lawful way to be freed from a relationship of that nature), and rises us into relationship with God. Free from sin, and the law; slaves to righteousness, and friends of God, we rise victorious.

I would ask: where is the transfer of Adam's sins to us? and where is the transfer of our sins to this redemptive power of a sinless man (Jesus for those not following my thoughts)? What happens to our sins?

It turns out there was never an issue of our sins. We have a nature that isn't free and needs to be. There is no talk of a status, rather an attachment. The transfer doesn't have to take place because the righteousness is not an alien righteousness, as is argued in the doctrine of justification, but rather the righteousness is the relationship outside of law, and a slavery to it. We can now be enslaved to righteousness because Jesus dies the perfect death on the cross freeing us from condemnation by the law, and freeing us from the slavery to sin we once had. It makes us slaves to what is good and right and holy and positive, not destructive. It turns the world around. Jesus resurrection is, therefore, more important than simply some hope we have for the time when Jesus returns, some great gift of a new body with no dysfunctions or imperfections, a real body.

Jesus' resurrection means we rise into a life free from the law, and free from sin. It is not just proof of God's great redemptive work; it is necessary in this life, where we have so much to change, to live a life pleasing and holy, upright, pure, walking humbly before our GOD, Jesus.

So now you've heard both sides of what I've been thinking about. Maybe it's all wrong. I could have bits that are right. I don't know. I'll find out one day. What I do know is I am right with God because of Jesus' death and resurrection. That is what saves. The bible says so. Whether one thing happened or another, the Gospel is that Jesus died to make me a son of God and heir and to save me from the sting of death.

Hoping on the hopeful - Part 2

2007-12-11T15:40:00.000Z

I haven't studied for decades on this subject, so this is most definitely not the main article to read on this subject. I'd like to show whether or not the transfer takes place through faith in Jesus' death & resurrection or not. Obviously, at some level, the most important things to agree on are the statements of faith in the accomplishments of His death. His death accomplished a reconciliation of man to God. It was accomplished by God, and it was that act done in that way that signifies His Love for us. Now, why, to take this head on, is this a display of God's love?

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and
sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

What it could be if the transfer isn't a part of this great act at all:
To be honest I can't see this side. Until I do further reading this will remain short because I haven't had time to complete my research. I've had the conflicting ideas - was there a transfer? wasn't there? - for about a week trying to see if the idea that no transfer took place could work. I came to a simple conclusion - much deliberation has made me say this because I don't think I'm wrong, but I can't see how the alternate viewpoint has come about. If there was no transfer then Jesus had no need to die. All he needed to do was come and teach the things he wanted to and then leave again. He turned the world upside down, but that would matter. This gives no hope. The sacrifices of old were of no use because they could only take sin away, not give righteousness. The spotless lambs, sacrificed for the people of Israel were representations of righteousness, but they weren't righteous.

The transfer takes place:
This is love. Jesus, on the cross, bore our sin. He was made to be sin. He was more than a spotless lamb, because he was completely clean. His status before God was RIGHTEOUS. God looked down on Him day after day and was utterly pleased with His Son. Jesus pleased his heavenly father in every way. He was utterly obedient. Obedient to death, even death on a cross. In that moment, where Jesus hung between earth and sky, Jesus took onto His shoulders the sin of the world. In that moment Jesus' Father could not look at Jesus, because God cannot look at sin. In that moment Jesus offered His perfect righteousness up to God as a sacrifice for the perfect unrighteousness of the world. The wrath of God toward sin was poured out on Jesus. This is love. That Jesus would die for me. My sin. My whole status of rejecting was replaced with Accepted.

The penalty of sin is death.

In James it says that if just one part of the law is broken, it's as if the whole of the law is broken. It doesn't matter if you've only committed one murder ever, you deserve to die. But Jesus died. He died for us. He took the punishment that sin deserves. He took our sin, and I, in my insignificance, weakness, and undeserved state, take His righteousness. He counts faith in this foolish message of a homeless peasant dying somewhere in the Roman Empire 2000ish years ago, but also His triumphant resurrection as complete proof and utter hope, as righteousness.

For those who know much about the other side to this 'argument,' feel free to respond.

Hoping on the hopeful - Part 1

2007-12-11T15:30:00.000Z

In recent weeks I've come across many the article on the controversy (I call it that to see what the reaction might be) on the idea of the possibility of transferability of the state of the soul. Peter Kirk, author of the 'Gentle Wisdom' blog, brought to my attention the comments of Mark Driscoll from his recent appearance in Edinburgh, preaching on atonement in the church leaders meeting before the Men Makers conference on Saturday 17th November. Adrian Warnock, equally, comments and publishes the notes he took from the preach. The link comes as Driscoll says "I murdered God", and Warnock is publishing articles on John Piper's book in a response to N. T. Wright's theological insights. I'm throwing a lot of names around, but it's important to know that all these high profile thinkers are simply trying to understand an unfathomable God.

So, Driscoll claims he murdered God, which, by generality, means I did too. In fact, everyone did. What Driscoll is getting at is that, as I posted on 'Gentle Wisdom.'

Surely to claim we all had a part in murdering God is not on the level that you see in the gospels. At that level Pilate was the one doing the final sentencing, with the Jews telling Pilate it was the right thing to do (lucky Barabbas). But if it wasn’t for all of us, past us’, present us’, and future us’, Jesus would have never had to have gone through what He did. What I can see Mark Driscoll saying is, our lives are part and parcel of Jesus death. He didn’t die despite our sin, but because of it.

Our sin puts us at a point where we deserve to die, but Jesus came along and became sin for us. He took the punishment for our sin on the cross. And this is where problems arise. Did our sin transfer to Him and His righteousness to us in that moment? If Jesus takes the punishment for our sin, that doesn't mean our sin is on Him, only that Jesus propitiates (a posh word for divert) God's wrath from us onto Him. He is the only one who can take the wrath in our place because (2 Corinthians 5:21 for those interested) 'He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.' The words become sin have always confused me; this is how some translations portray this passage. Peter in his first epistle says something similar; 'He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.' Paul's letter to the Galatians tells us Jesus became a curse on our behalf. There is a definite relationship between Jesus and sin on that cross and it's a lot bigger than some people are trying to shrink it to.

In one simple illustration we can see that the idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) - the correct terminology for Jesus death on the cross as a sacrifice for sin - is not 'cosmic child abuse,' as Steve Chalke suggested in his book 'The Lost Message of Jesus.' Firtly, at the level to which Chalke has reached, to punish a child for disobeying a comman from his father would be completely within the parents rights as the one responsible for his upbringing. The argument against this is that Jesus did nothing wrong. Ever. This is most definitely true. So, without further research we can conclude simply that Jesus death on the cross was of no concern. He did not have to die because there was no reason for him to. To see more than his unfair trial and death sentence, he did die for his cause. He was teaching outrageous things that provoked, not only the religious leaders, but also the officials and authorities of the day, and the political movements as a whole as well. This was the main reason for his death, perhaps. It was prophesied some 700 years before. This 'Messiah' would come and die. But why die? According to Paul (becoming a curse; dying for our sin; dying for us), Peter (1st epistle 2:24) (bore our sins), and other New Testament authors, he died for us. At this level, he did have to die.

Without our sin, he didn't have to even come to earth. But our sin means he did. He had to come, because he loves us and wants to save each one of us. What was going on on the cross? It's important to note, here, that Jesus' life is just as important as Jesus' death. Jesus whole life pushed the inevitability of his death to a level beyond comprehension. He was never afraid to die, and, in fact, chose to talk about his death a lot. This message of his death was supposed to be hopeful. No wonder he spoke about it so much.

A test at story telling...

2007-11-19T22:45:00.000Z

To summarise a couple of weeks of mania; remain teachable and skeptical in order to move forward. When things like your entire basis of the future of the planet is pulled out from under you and replaced with a much more basic structure, or your assumptions of the world in the present are proved wrong in a blink of an eye, or your musings over a man from the past turn out to be quite simplistic and inaccurate at best, you need to keep your sense of humour alive. It should be the best way of responding to a passing comment on your beard growth; a lifter in those 'far-too-heavy' conversation moments; that way of presenting a large group of friends with a provoking speech to get out of a building and do real stuff. Whether you pretend you're in for the long haul of Movember, when really you can't be bothered to shave, or even just trim; a small 4-year-old head butts you so you don't forget it's a good way way of saying goodbye; or you encourage people to enjoy some prophetic brownies, humour is crucial.

Jesus was a funny guy. I think he chose Peter to be his key follower so he could do a lot of set-ups.

"Get those two swords my friends," cried Jesus as they headed up to the hill for an after-meal stroll. And up they went. Jesus had a way of leaving explanations of most of his requests for days or weeks later, so no one questioned his motives. So he kept talking about his death, all his disciples decided he was probably doing one of those other symbolic language games they weren't too sure of.

Up on that hill Jesus kept dropping hints that he wasn't going to be around much longer, and even wanted them to join him in his relationship he had with his father. It was an intense time. He had gone into nature to pray, but to the disciples going away into nature was more of a place to relax, and that meal had made them in the need for a good little kip.

They slept and Jesus wrestled with God.

He came down from his spot after a couple of hours and woke up his closest friends. It wasn't a nice wake up either.

"Guys! What are you playing at. I brought you up here to either join me, or keep watch, and you just lay here digesting some food. Didn't you here everything I said tonight?"

There was some murmuring at the back. After three years of following Jesus they couldn't help but get used to letting him down. "Erm..yeah. Sorry, Jesus. We were just a bit confused by it all." Peter, the honest one, never failed to speak the thoughts of the group. Sometimes he didn't.

There was one time when he did both in the same sentence. It was about 6 months before. They were about 80 miles away from Jerusalem, and, under the mixed idolatry of a town mixed with Roman, Jews and Greek, Peter had blurted out he believed Jesus was the son of God! At which Jesus had commended him utterly.

"Well done, this has been revealed to you by my dad. But I will soon be taken and killed. Only to rise again on the third day."

Peter got a little cocky, most likely, from the excitement of finally getting an insight from a God he was starting to get to know quite well. "Never! You shall never die!"

Jesus suddenly lost his mysterious air, and angrily shouted "Get behind me Satan!"

The disciples had grown to love Peter, if only to make the mistakes they would have. What a funny guy to lead us, though, they continually thought.

Jesus pointed down the hill to some lights surrounding the paths back down. "My hour has come." The disciples started to look a little worried. Who had Jesus invited to join them? Weren't they his elite?

As the group drew closer they realised these weren't a group of followers invited to listen to one of his famous sermonettes. These were some Roman soldiers, and priests. They came nearer and nearer, surrounding the group of men, carrying torches, swords, and spears.

Immediately, from out of small gathering of sleepy followers came Peter brandishing one of the swords. How did he get entrusted with such a weapon? Screaming slightly maniacally he jumped into an average size guard and cut off his ear. He wasn't very well trained in the art of sword play. Jesus pulled Peter away and stepped towards the soldier. He picked up the ear from the floor, blew the dust from it and, with his healing hands, grafted the ear back onto the warriors head.

"Peter, what were you thinking? Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

"But," Peter protested feebly, "You said bring the swords..."

What a set up from young (33-year-old) Jesus.

The effects the city has on 'country folk'

2007-11-03T17:04:00.001Z

Tim Keller is a very intelligent man. He has seen his church in New York grow through his insights into the human condition and his cross-centred preaching. He sees things that I would never see, and yet as soon as he says them it all makes sense. The most basic thing I heard was in his sermon on the chapter of Acts where Antioch church is planted and flourishes. In this passage it ends the story saying 'this is place where the disciples were first called Christians.' A simple phrase that, after listening to Keller's insights, carries so much weight. Why? The city of Antioch was a thriving city. The message I have based this on can be downloaded here.

The Roman empire was full of thriving cities. Some were so large they could be easily compared with some of the biggest cities we see today. Antioch contained, probably, about 1 million people. What happened with Antioch, however, is something of an oddity, but not unheard of. It was designed as a multi cultural centre. The architects involved with the building of this populous decided to build walls all the way around to protect it from outsiders. Then, because of it's diversity, the inside of the city had walls surrounding various neighbourhoods. Why? To protect the city people from each other. Withing the city there would have been many conflicting cultures, and what better way to keep a city together but divide it up? There will have been violence breakout when some young man would step on someone else's robe in a market, but they could always find refuge in their own neighbourhood.

Why do I say all this? So a city has lots of different people in it, so what? So does Leeds, or Toronto. Just this: the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Why? They were another culture. And this culture was not one that seperated itself from the rest of the city people, but it brought different cultures together. The Holy Spirit unites. They needed a name to label this strange group of people that were changing the workings of the city.

What does this have to do with 'country folk'? I was one once. A little village with a small church that would sing songs about Jesus every Sunday, and be nice to each other. Lovely. A great culture. The early church described in Acts saw many people's lives changed through the amazing story of Jesus. But the first 10 or so chapters has this focus of the Jews. All the evangelists (the people who were gifted in preaching the Gospel, or good news) saw many converts from the people they were most familiar with. The Jews were religious, and they knew the scriptures that pointed to Jesus. It was easy to take the scriptures, show them that they were about Jesus, show them their religiosity would not save them, and see them join the other disciples. What the Gospel touching Antioch showed these evangelists, and all who had come to believe, was that the Gospel wasn't just available to those who knew Jewish history, and who had been involved in Judaism. This Gospel could change anyone's life. But they only found that out by taking it to a great city. A multi cultural, diverse city. A city like Antioch.

Moving to Leeds showed me the power of the Gospel. I was in a church of 30 or 40, everyone had lived in the village since before they were born and had all grown up to know their place. They were in the church and served Jesus wonderfully, but all I saw were these people who had grown up in church joining the church. What I saw in Leeds was a city church, in fact, many city churches touching the people through the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins to bring us to God. And the people were not the people I had known of church before, but people from all walks of life, from all kinds of histories, whether students or professionals, young or old, locals or international, they were all changed by the work of the Holy Spirit and united to the same churches, through that same Spirit. Each time I see something like this it makes my God even bigger, even more powerful, and I think it's incredible that this big God loves me.

Beautiful young Minds

2007-10-14T21:56:00.000+01:00

BBC 2 surprises me, so many times, with it's programming. Various shockers including Stephen Fry about HIV and AIDS. And now, Sunday evening, comes a program about some teenagers that are so good at maths they enter the International Mathematics Olympiad. A massive prestigious competition in maths. The guys that are taking part are predominantly male, and of varying degrees of oddness. Primarily they have been diagnosed with some form of autism or aspergers.

Enough background; one of the teenagers competing to enter (where only 6 from the whole of the UK end up at the IMO) and a coordinator who had won a gold medal nearly 15 years prior were some of the most aware people I have heard speak in a long time. Entirely logically minded the degree at which conversation flows is completely fact based. The teenagers name is Jos and almost no experience travels through to the young boys mind. He is not phased by comments made towards him and is not discouraged to anything. He decided to work alone rather than work in a team, and has noticed that he is not always right, but rather than accepting that, he avoids the confrontation of being wrong and works on his own. He is very intelligent, but this has effected a lot of his life. When asked about his parents he could not understand their need of him, only his need of them. He knew he needed them for full providence and did not take them for granted, but the only reason he could think of for them keeping him in their house was because he could set up the internet. The interviewer commented that those facts were merely practical, Jos suggested the interviewer was trying to coax any emotional feelings out of him, then remarked that all the feelings are based on practical happenings. The practical leads to emotions. (Interestingly, not vice versa.)

Question: Would they have conceived him because, one day, the internet may be required in the household?

You decide

What is the point to notice? He doesn't know what emotions are. Or rather he does, but not to the extent of feeling, only definitions. Asked if he was nervous, he said he had reasons to be nervous. Asked (when failing to make the final team) whether he was upset, he said he knew he should be suppressing it so was doing just that.

All the logic in the world, that made his life make sense, amounted to "nothing".

I'm not trying to comment on his life; this is an example.

Intellectual reasoning in the world is purely a get out. An escape. The rest of the team that went to the IMO's were primarily intelligent, passionate people who (besides one) realise the little importance of being rewarded a medal. One of the finalists was a 15 year old who claimed to be Christian, and was then challenged, by the interviewer, 'But you believe in the scientific approach..', to which he replies, 'Yes, and?'

I get to this point and I think it's been expected. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, who gave up everything to then give everything, so, by faith, we could have everything, is not something that can be intellectually argued. Can you convince somebody they are a person who has desires that are evil (not desiring something evil) which means they deserve to die? Not really. Can you go through all the Truth of the world, giving a world view that puts Jesus as the focal point of the universe and the be all and end all of the entire reason of existence and convince somebody? No. You need something more, something profound, something astonishing that is beyond human control. It is not easy to leave to Him, but it is always required. I don't make the call to turn and repent, God does, Jesus does, and at that point they will turn with the right amount of work in their hearts, done, not by man, but by the Holy Spirit. In Acts 16 the Jailer ran into Paul & Silas' and asked, 'sirs, what must I do to be saved?' though all he had heard were prayers from Christians, not a long debate convincing him he needed salvation.

How much of my salvation was the work of all the Christians I had come into contact with? Well, I'll leave at it was God. I couldn't be convinced, although I know all the arguments. But we can't make a point intellectualising a truth that is only possible by letting go of everything and clinging to the one who died because we are evil. And rose because He's that good.

2007-09-04T07:03:00.000+01:00

Reading Revelation has put something interesting in my mind.

Verse 18 of chapter 21 says (NASB), ‘...the city was pure gold, like clear glass,’

I am intrigued by the language here. Is it describing a new kind of gold in the new heavens and new earth, or is it giving a new dimension to this earth that will be restored? We all know about gold. Gold is the kind of metal you would want to be pure, and the way to purify it is to put it through a refining process, whereby the gold is put into a furnace and melted, and any impurities rise to the top and are skimmed off the metal, so when it cools it is more pure. This is usually repeated to make sure the gold is as pure as can be. Parallels have been drawn between this process and the things God puts us through in our Christian walk.

MacArthur comments on this verse saying, ‘unlike earth’s gold, this gold will be transparent so the overpowering radiance of God’s glory can refract and glisten through the entire city.’ I am in the habit of disagreeing with John MacArthur, because it’s something I’ve become used to. He isn’t always wrong, none of us are always wrong, but I find that, particularly in the study notes he’s produced on the book of Revelation, he takes too much time trying to interpret what it means, and not enough time applying what it says, to life, as Scripture is intended (2 Tim. 3:16).

I hasten to believe that his interpretation of this verse is something of a get out for the amount you could write on this, and some of you may already be seeing where I am taking this. How do I put this? Gold, as it is, will be most pure when restoration has taken full force. It will not be transparent, as MacArthur says, because gold is not transparent. To say it is like clear glass is important to see the context of the city it is representing. The new city, the new Jerusalem, will be filled with God’s glory (something that cannot be seen in it’s fullness right now or we would all die), so full of it that there will be no night. It will always be day. As it says in 21:23 ‘the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.’

I agree, in some way, with MacArthur’s note, that the gold refracts, or reflects, the radiance of the glory of God. I want to suggest that, in fact, where gold is seen simply as metal, and could be getting in the way of God’s natural splendour, gold was truly created for the glory of God. It represents His glory, and royalty, and reflects it as His glory shines upon it. Why, then, does John refer to gold as being clear like glass? This becomes simpler as we work through the text. It is like glass because where God is not directly shining His full glory in the city it is reflected in the presence of pure gold which makes up the city. The city of New Jerusalem is made up of representations of God’s glory, while also filled with the glory of God. Can you see, now, why I would say that like clear glass would mean, instead, that, like a window that has been painted over by the very view that is seen behind it, so the gold of the city fully represents the glory of God which is inside the city.

What if we are gold? We are, aren’t we? Precious to God, and kings to God by His adopting nature. He purifies us, over and over, by our circumstances, making us from ore to precious jewelry. And we bear His image. We reflect His glory in our lives, by the very fact we are overcoming the world by the word of our testimonies and the blood of the lamb. God has been revealing His character as one who would have us go through tough circumstances to build our inner self to someone that does greater things in revealing His character. We are that gold which in some way, because we are not yet fully sanctified, reflect His very presence, like a sheet of glass in front of Him. Jesus did a much better job than I, or any of us, as He was the visible image of the invisible God. But, of course, He did a better job, He is God. He was tempted in every way and didn’t do one thing out of step. I’m glad He went first, modeled how to be a true worshipper, showed how to live empowered by the Holy Spirit, so that, when we take centre stage before God (and only God), we can live like Him. And we will one day be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.

Be gold, guys. You’re precious to Him.

The heights we could reach

2007-08-18T18:36:00.000+01:00

It's been nearly two (I nearly wrote too...which is wrong) months. Far too (that's correct) long for me to fill you in with anything worth knowing. They've been filled with a variety of different episodes that have no relevance to anyone but myself. Nevertheless, the most important chapter happens today, when, after much deliberation, I decided to return to this page and start writing again. I thought I had left it too long to give any continuation, perhaps I could write a signing off post, and leave it to the ether that is 'the abandoned blogs of the interweb'. But something has been stirring me and the words of Jacob Murphy (of Toronto, Canada) - read Governance - made me push the boat out, stop lounging about watching my screen refresh to see if someone else has written to me through facebook.com, or the old fashioned email, or even more old fashioned phone call, and put the thoughts that have been brewing into legible words on some foreign IP for anyone to critique and make fun of.

Perhaps I was afraid of the amount of people on facebook who will receive this on their news feed, or that living with people who read it make it a little worse...I prefer the unfamiliarity of anonymous comments, if I'm honest. It's bad enough putting a face to these words, without someone imagining what it would be like for me to read them aloud. Maybe one day I will. But not today.

It starts from about 4 months ago, when I started seeking intimacy with that God so many define as far off, and found it was so much easier than those 'good works' people talk of, or disciplining oneself, or ridding the personal world of anything electronic. It's as easy as acting out what you need. You need intimacy with Yahweh. Fact. So I found secluded spots and chatted with God. Simple. It wasn't the usual one-way prayers that so many of us have consciously, or sub-consciously, experienced, but a 2 way dialogue with the living WORD. What happened? He challenged me. When God doesn't speak you can create your own faith. When you start to get to know the voice of God it becomes harder to form a lifestyle that's comfortable. It's easier to trip, or give in to that temptation you know you constantly struggle with, and if He asks you to get rid of something and you don't, He doesn't move on to other things. He sticks with it until you've done what He (and you) knows will be most beneficial.

Then I heard a song. 'Fools Turn into Gold' by that Jason Upton fella. It's a simple song about the need to enter the furnace for the gold to be purified. To God we are more precious than gold, and He wants us to be pure, as His children. I could have got that from the other song 'Refiners Fire' but that's irrelevant.

Don't worry, I'm getting to the point. Right now, in fact.

What on earth is this furnace? God asks us to trust Him, and walk right into the fire; right into a blazing heat that would kill any normal man. Daniel's friends went into a furnace so hot the soldiers died because of the heat, but they remained unharmed, in fact, Jesus joined them. What is the difference in approaching the fire now? If you are a child of God, it's simple. Your identity is not longer with the world. The sinful ways of social structure, and cultures, aren't part of your identity anymore. Your identity, my identity is in Christ. And Christ is God's only Son, who died in my place, so that I could live. He rose to prove it.

Where Revelation talks about the world being destroyed, it's sinful practices crushed, and the rulers being subdued, that is something that a child of God has nothing to worry about. That sinful nature, that habit of continually doing wrong, giving into temptation, is destroyed; put to death; crucified with Jesus. You may pray, every so often, for Jesus to just come back, right now; 'I can't deal with it any more'. It's a good prayer to pray, but it's not something you need to pray. The suffering going on, or the sin you know you always do, or the place you always see in sin, doesn't end, but you, child of God, Son, Daughter of God, have overcome. You overcame the temptations, the sufferings, because of the blood of the Lamb. You overcame them. Those persecutors.

Today is the day I have to stand up and associate myself with these words and claim, I am a son of God. He loves me, and knows me. I am confident He will say that He knows me on the last day. Can you say the same?

Whatever is happening in my heart is something of a preparation. This next year will break me. Great and terrible things will happen to me, and I am confident in that refiners fire. That furnace which purifies my heart, will strengthen me, push me forward to take the next step, and, only by the work God does in me, not by my own strength (in fact, I boast in those weaknesses I have), I will reach the top of the mountain. I will get there by the steps I take, and I know, that if He had lifted my up, I would only topple by the winds. At time we need lifting, but in the end, we must get there ourself, not by our own strength, but by the power of Christ, which is perfected by our weakness. Join me; rather; join Him. Join Christ. I implore you.

Friday's Question

2007-06-22T17:54:00.000+01:00

Thanks to Pete Hardy for this one

So I was working with a group of ten year olds.
"Come and answer their questions," said the teacher.
"What about?"
"Your faith, what you do, why you do it. You know? Basic stuff."
"OK," says I, "'love to!"
We were about twenty minutes in when this lad says, "Sir. What does it feel like to be loved?"
Got that out there?
We'll start with the easy ones and work up OK?
So, answers in the comment section please. Oh, and please remember that some kid out there is looking to you for any help he can get.
What does it feel like to be loved?
Love,
Pete

Friday's Question

2007-06-15T12:23:00.000+01:00

The next statement has no punctucation, where should certain punctuation go to make the statement make sense?

Youre not what you think you are but what you think you are

Thanks Bryn

Tired again

2007-06-14T12:11:00.000+01:00

You know when you're so tired you wake up to your alarm and accidentally hit the off instead of 'snooze' button on your alarm? It happened to me this morning. I was mad. I'd given myself a bit of extra time to snooze a little and instead I had to wake myself up because my alarm was officially useless. At the same time it was good be up a little earlier...although I wasn't. I stayed in bed thinking 'I could get a shower with this extra time' but ended up staying in bed until 5 minutes before I had to leave. It must be the weather.

It'se been a funny few days. Overwhelmingly sunny, with outbursts of more sun, followed by cold nights, or just all round muggy days and nights, constant temperature and, therefore, sweat. Then, today, and yesterday we get rain. rain, rain go away, come again another day (Round the Twist). It's odd as well. The heyfever sufferers have a few days grace (praise God), where the pollen isn't travelling and they can have a few clear days. Problem: it's around the same time the absent minded of them finally take action and by allergy medication. God's timing is perfect but it appears foolishness to the wise.

I wanted to prove my true Britishness by talking about the weather. Especially as the inspiring thing I see when I look outside are the many rain drops racing their way down my window.

Friday's Question

2007-06-08T01:32:00.000+01:00

Is it possible to miss subtlety?

Tiredness mixed with Cawfee

2007-06-05T23:38:00.000+01:00

Last night I stayed up too late. Fact. It wasn't until 3 o clock that I got to look at my bed, and boy was it a lovely site. Genuinely the best thing I saw since I got home. I had been walking home with a drunken Danish man who smelt of the can he was drinking out of. It changes your perspective when you're not entirely sure why you decided to stay and get people to read poetry at you instead of thinking, it's time for bed now...for the both of us let's leave it for another time. Still, we did go quite crazy and the conversation was almost non-existant...hence the poetry reading.

This resulted in my discipined self waking up at the usual 8 o clock, meeting with good ol' Jonny, breakfast, home for CV refinement (thanks Dave, Chris, and Dad) and then some random online job applications. I browsed the internet for what felt like hours. It was hours. My body, at least at that point, wasn't terribly disoriented. By 3 o clock links had started to fail, as had motivations, it was such a nice day outside. So I donned a jumper and headed for town, not quite sure what the agenda would be when I got there. Would I pray on the unsuspecting clipboard clan? Buy a coffee and sit and read? Run around town like a mad man persuading people that a free hug is priceless? Sit and read while drinking coffee? Odds are I would read, sit and drink Coffee. And I did. Quite fruitful.

Reading such facts as, the initial sign for Christianity, the ichthus (fish), was an acronym for 'Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour' not just something about fish, and that the cross is the most offensive sign any Christian could have chosen for the symbol of faith. And yet, it has stuck. The cross. An astounding message of overwhelming, shameful torture. Jesus hanging on a tree for the sake of the elect (whomever they may be). The message offending many ears, only a few softened hearts would dare respond to such a foolish message, and I am one of them. Furthering my thoughts to the point of thinking the resurrection of Jesus happened to prove the finished work two days before. Not to finish a work that was going on on 'Bad Saturday'. "It is finished" cries Jesus as He breathes His last, yields His Spirit to His father, after undergoing the shameful and perfected torture under the Romans hands, taking sin on Himself for the sake of, literally, billions. All to show that God is a God of love. Showing also that He is violently angry at sin, and would rather, out of love, pour His wrath on His own Son for the sake of many, than give many over to their desires.

In the end of the day, when the sun goes down, and a strange shadow makes life uneasy, there is one thing that is certain. Jesus, the rock, the cornerstone, died a terrible terrible death for sin, rose again to prove the finished work, and hung around for a bit to explain it properly to people.

Jesus, the charismatic, showed me how to live.

Fridays Question

2007-06-01T15:01:00.000+01:00

Why is bowling even considered as a good date for two people?

Dentists

2007-05-30T22:41:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I went to see the dentist.

Why is it that after walking past so many dental nurses that are pleasing to the eye, I end up in a room with a middle-aged woman who is slightly menacing? She was quite impatient and, after a decent clean of the old chomping devices she firmly told me the 'mouthwash is there!' Which was nice. I left feeling a little beaten, but no bruises. No. I have bruises thanks to a trip to Ilkley moore wi' t'at. And someone taking liberties and punching me. She got punched back and people shouted at the whole 'hitting girls' things, which, quite frankly, I think is an absurd thing to enforce.

Anyway, I went to see my parents new house today. It's bigger than I remembered, and the fields contain more scenery than I remembered, and the graveyard of the church contains more sheep than I remembered, and the Churches Bible contains more books thanh I remembered. Regardless, the trip was fun, if a little wet. We then went bowling. Wait until Friday for my opinions on that.

Wandering aimlessly through my thoughts, I've come to a predicament. I am officially a non-student. I won't be attending my graduation, thank you very much, but it does mean I need a job, and a place to stay/sleep/eat. All in due time, says God. It's starting to become a very large, possibly over-wide, trust game with my heavenly dad now. Provision is hard enough from day to day, as the bank account slows down and parents start to remember debts to be paid. Sometimes I wish there were many more people like Jesus, who give themselves for the debt of others. Not to take advantage of it...but I do have to get me some of that. If there's anyone out there willing to support me for the next 12-15 months, please let me know.

Thank you.

Misunderstandings or simple mistakes

2007-05-24T15:25:00.000+01:00

I just want to make apologies for the previous post if there were misunderstandings of the aim of blog. I wasn't trying to name and shame the housemate in question, but was simply inspired, in light of the surrounding circumstances, to encourage a rethink of ourselves. I truly believe it is more important to have a good character than a good reputation. I would retract my previous post but that could almost go against the message I am trying to bring. It's not about what you do but about who you are, and, although the previous post could have been misleading, who you are, or can be, is a child of God. That is something to be that is more important than having a reputation of saying wise-words, or never paying for things, giving out free drinks at your work place, or always being late.

The unfortunate event of eavesdropping

2007-05-22T15:36:00.000+01:00

"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are."

I am a busy person. Rushing in and out of the house, running errands, and completing tasks as well as I can. I returned home today through the back door, saw a house mate in the kitchen (still in his dressing gown), said good afternoon (as it was afternoon) and walked through the living room, where a couple of people were, caught the eye of one or two, but merely walked on straight up to my room to start the work of printing something for my final ever day officially at university. I reached the top of the stairs to hear a house mate - who has attended church with me, and I've noticed, playing out the back of the house, isn't very good with children - say "he's so f*****g ignorant. He didn't even say hello. I've went to church with him not a while back as well; such and arrogant c***." I then turn to my laptop to check my email, and my parents have put the above quote about halfway down. Funny.

Nothing said by Chris affected me, words rarely do. I'm a quiet person who, if needs must, gets things done. I was intrigued as to why he would say that today, of all days, when I rarely say 'hello' to my house mates, I merely acknowledge their presence and continue with my tasks. I'm not in a lot, but it does surprise me that there is such an assumption on people who don't say hello.

Character is definitely much more important than reputation. In Romans 5 it says tribulations produce endurance, endurance proven character, and proven character, hope. The proven character proves the faith you have in Jesus. Confidence in Him, means the continual character building going on through a walk with Christ is worthwhile. I have confidence in my identity in Jesus, my life of integrity, and I always aim to be above reproach. Nothing anyone says can change that. My reputation in this house differs from person to person, as it does in other circles. As Jason Upton said 'what other people think of you is their business' not yours.

Thank you, Jesus.

TV Character of the week - Buster Bluth (Arrested Development)

This Google Game...I think it's quite good.

2007-05-17T18:01:00.000+01:00

Rules: Google Game: Go to Google and type in quotation marks your name and then "likes to" (eg. "Steve likes to"). Type in the first ten things that come up and repost in your own note.

1. Toby likes to chew on the Christmas Tree
2. Toby likes to tell people that his Korean middle name of Soo Chul is pronounced, "So Cool."
3. Toby likes to visit his cabin in the mountains
4. Toby likes to spend his spare time surfing, snowboarding and scuba diving
5. Toby likes to collect cookbooks and cameras
6. Toby likes to "play" with his food
7. Toby likes to play tuff guy now and then
8. Toby likes to build systems that ‘just keep going’
9. Toby likes to rearrange things once (if not twice) a day
10. Toby likes to read blogs

Some are true and some aren't. having a name that is also popular with dog and cat owners there are a number of results later on that involve chasing my tail. I say my tail...Toby's tail. I suppose Toby is a better name for a dog than Cassandra...but if you acquire a dog called Cassie that shouldn't taint your view of all pets names.

I especially like the possibility of assuming the identity of the semi-Korean Toby with a middle name of "So Cool". I might assume that. Toby "So Cool" Isaacson. It has a ring to it.

In time...

2007-05-08T11:34:00.000+01:00

The word of the week is parturient - bringing forth or about to produce something, as an idea.

With it being another hand-in day today, I thought I'd go from writing many many words for the sake of a BSc, and, instead, write some words about being expectant. Expectant, for example, that one day, no matter who they call themselves to be, they will, most definitely, find pleasure in Facebook. Expectant that, in one years time, I will be somewhere entirely different, with new friends and old friends mingled in some crazy stir fry. Expectant that Jesus is coming.

All are valid. All come into play at some point in life, and all have a some kind of effect on making me smile. Facebook is expanding like the theoretical primeval soup is speculated to have done. Stir fries are becoming more common among student (according to a recent survey). Jesus is coming.

If such a mind-bottling (you know, where all your thoughts are all messed up like they're stuck in a bottle) thing is to take place it would be only right for everyone to know about it. Like the iPhone took everyone by storm, and anyone who knows anything about it wants one, like Google, becoming the next major retailer through Google Checkouts, like the Wikipedia project gaining more respect and less speculation, like Jesus coming back.

Expectancy, in the English language, is different from other definitions. Expectancy, in English, is about regarding something as likely to happen. Some knowledge has made your mind believe something will take place, and it take an expectancy to live in the time before it. In many other languages it is much more about simply waiting. Waiting for Jesus to come. Waiting for Facebook to be the place to live. Google to have the entire internet covered in green. It's not based on conclusions drawn from certain evidences, but a waiting that it will happen. In other settings it is to ask for. Expecting someone to receive you into their home is much more a request. So, in light of this, let us put aside assumptions that puts Facebook in a place to watch what might happen, or Google in an RSS feed reader, just in case something curious happens, or Apple being themselves and making new things with the sole intention of coming out on top, and wait. Wait for Jesus to get rid of these darn mortal bodies and help us to see His glory. He IS coming. No 2 ways about it. One way. In a word: trust.

Why is there tin foil in the bath?

2007-04-21T08:29:00.001+01:00

It's always a bad sign when you have to rinse your feet after a shower...

'nough said.

Being Rational

2007-04-18T17:33:00.000+01:00

It's Rationalist Week at Leeds Uni this week. Which means, to me, that there'll be a tent of people sitting around not being productive. I've found that, of all the real "thinkers" in the world, atheists are the least open minded. Someone, named Paul, I met yesterday who believes himself to be a rational, humanist, atheist. In other words he believes that the only conclusions that can be drawn are scientific. Being 'intelligent' (his definition not mine) he thinks science is not compatible with God, and that faith is an end result to many evidences, as opposed to the beginning of any belief structure.

I have one big problem with his assumptions. I would have loved to tell him, but he wouldn't allow me to finish any of my sentences. Anyway, he believes he is right but won't say that it is based on faith. He says it's based on facts, he even said the textbook line "we've got the fossils." Fool. Fossils are, actually no indication of anything, and the very fact he couldn't understand any of the simple arguments of infinite regress, and positive mutations (which I conclude neither are possible), meant I couldn't make any progress because he used arguments that required these to be assumed as true, but he could explain why. I started on mutations, where the example of down's syndrome which is a negative mutation where an extra half chromosome appears from nowhere, came up. This didn't convince me that evolution on cross-species level was possible, because it's a NEGATIVE MUTATION. i.e. it doesn't actually move the species forward but backward. I think that makes it clear that another example is needed. He didn't have one.

I also tried to talk a bit about the Bible, but he would accept it as evidence for the existence of God. So I decided to refuse any scientific evidence he threw at me to show that it was a foolish move to make.

Interestingly, as a final point, it's irrational to deny the existence of God, so he's kind of a walking contradiction. Like most of us, I suppose. I know I am too. I sin, yet not a sinner, thanks to Jesus' sacrifice in my place. I'm more worried about my relationship with God than Paul's arguments against my faith, but I'll be praying for him none-the-less.

"We've got the fossils..."

This week

2007-04-04T22:42:00.000+01:00

I don't know if you've noticed I'm a Christian..but I am. And this is something, quite major, quite a life changing thing, that shapes my life.

What if your life was actually significant. Imagine a life of significance. Do you feel like you're remotely important to anything going on? If so the you may be able to relate to the statements earlier. If you don't you'll have a better chance of coming to terms with things like scientific theories of evolution that don't involve God, and jungle people...or atheists.

If your life is important to yourself and a few others, the you'd want to make sure whatever it is that you pour the majority of your time into is also significant and important to some people. If, for example, you go to university, you'd hope that the course you're doing is worth the time and money, and then that you enjoy doing it and being part of what it's a part of.

This week, as is the title of this post, I've been wandering around with my head in the heavens, and my feet firmly on the ground. Even now I feel both far away and extremely close to the keyboard I'm typing on. God is really something. He has been showing me a new part of Him that I don't want to let go of. A constant intercession with Him, a similar experience, I would say, to Jesus; who walked through so many cities telling stories that had so many levels all the crowd will be amazed, not just the poor or rich, or pharisees or whatever. I've been wandering around in the very presence of God. If you knew what that felt like you'll understand when I say I never want it to stop. I've spent times just laughing because I don't know how else to react to that truth that He loves me so much.

How many of you can say that, no matter what has happened this week, good or bad, the perspective on your life is always the same. I'm still going to this place at the end, whatever happens.

Some have days where they feel they could live forever, and others they could die tomorrow. I tell you that today is a day that commemorates freedom from the idols we have. Idols, is a word I use to bring across that point, that if you pour your very being into anything, it needs to be something that will last. Girlfriends or boyfriends won't last. Jobs won't last, Family won't last. Nothing that you respect and want to see work will die for you. Your job, or uni course, or house, or car, or musical instrument, or computer, would die for you. Only one thing would surely die for you, regardless of how you treated Him. That is Jesus. Find out more.

Springity Spring

2007-04-03T11:12:00.000+01:00

Taking a break from my lack of blogging, I thought I'd just mention that Spring appears to have sprung. A friend from Canada saw a Robin, which shows that over there, the Spring is upon them. England, being a little more rubbish with it's 'changeable' weather means Spring was here a while ago, but people weren't quite sure.

God is moving in Leeds. I felt His presence so amazingly yesterday. Nothing could tear me from His closeness to me. He really was closer than the skin. I couldn't help but smile all day...and today seems to be the same. Now I have to do some worky. Hopefully I'll survive that onslaught.

I've been writing a preach for Easter people next week. I'll let you know how it goes, but I think it's going to be great.

Awesome God.

How Great Thou Art

2007-03-19T20:58:00.000Z

Wednesday night saw the start of something new. How Great Thou Art, a final year project for 6 of us, and an alternative worship event for the rest of Leeds, took up the challenge of showing a God of ultimate proportions to the world. It was done through more than just song. Split into 3 sections the evening moved closer and closer to a revelation of God, which many wished had never drawn to a close. It was something new in the face of worship begging questions of how should we worship God? Is it more than singing soft rock songs? and Why have I never done this before?

Over the next couple of weeks I'm going to try and explain why worship to God is not an isolated event in a day, but something that should be done continually, and consciously throughout our lives. The first stages being set out by this event I will share my reaction to it and first steps from that.

First the feedback:
Two main themes come from the people who attended, or who helped out. First was the venue and the other was the concept.

The venue, usually a place for drink and non-God-glorifying noise, became a place of worship; a church community from the North that made the evening take a different perspective. The floor space being used, not to cram in as many screaming fans as possible, but as a place for stations of various types of worship made all involved move around in a different way. Freedom to move, I think, helped come to terms with what was going on. As the band opened I felt 'You have a new freedom now.' What better way to open an evening knowing you have freedom to do what you like? The introductions from my video, and then Craig and Chris, put the whole evening into perspective, and, though it took a while for people to feel released, I could see, from the back, a real sense that they could worship God in this place. No holding back. For the Leeds Met students there I felt so thrilled for them; 'this is your university,' I thought, 'worship in this place, come alive, don't feel limited by your surroundings, God is so much bigger.' The evening unfolded and I knew that this venue should be used again because the reaction from everyone involved showed that the change of attitude towards this place was totally groundbreaking. Worshipping God through singing in your own university is only an aid to how we should worship God on our courses.

The concept was refreshing. This felt like a pilot over what was to come. God was moving, and is in Leeds, and the evening took a stance that said 'God is Great. Sing and worship, dance and draw, relax and mingle, here I am starting something new.' The band opening and closing the overrall event was like an easy way to draw people in. The majority of people there were used to a song and dance style worship - words on the screen and we follow the crowd. This is far from where we wanted to take it, and as the atmosphere relaxed, and people felt free to worship in their own way, through song, the second stage (that of worshipping God through the Arts) meant that the relaxation of starting with the comfortable and moving to the uncomfortable was taken in full stride and people began to get involved. There was no need for the stewards to make sure people were doing something, the delegates were finding people to enjoy the evening with and were naturally moving from section to section to section as the hour moved on. The atmosphere stayed, as well. In my experience, in the past, tries at this kind of thing have lost something in the transition, but this time was different. People were continuing their concentration on God the great artist and creator and the mood was only filled with excited people realising there was so much more to worship than singing soft rock songs (so that answers a question).

It's exciting, I'm excited, and the move forward in this movement, I cannot wait to see.

A new blog

2007-03-13T17:58:00.000Z

I've decided to take a break from the 2 week daily updates about Canada - although at some point I will have to right about that final, crazy, over-tired day - and focus on this instead. This may become more of a rantings blog..I don't know.

In line with some inspiration I decided to start a new blog while over the pond in North America. It's an attempt at an application-based commentary of the entire Bible. It can be found at http://inexperienced-as-i-am.blogspot.com

The idea is fairly simple...using the gifts God has given me to build up others as opposed to keeping it all to myself. I'm not the wisest person on the planet, so comments and stuff would be appreciated, if it's good/bad, long/short, thin/fat, that kind of thing.

The updates will be irregular but frequent enough, so I would suggest finding an RSS reader like Google Reader for an easy way to know when it's been updated. You can also use most web-browsers now...Internet Explorer 7 has something for it...as does Firefox, and Safari.