Saturday 21 December 2013

A study on the book of Romans (part 3)

We move on to the next section of Paul's letter.  It is important for us to remember that the division of letters into chapter and verse is not in the original texts.  These were added later to help the reader.  This means that Paul's letter flows naturally from the last study.

If you have not read the last two short studies, I recommend you do, as they set the context for this passage.

Romans 2:1-29

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.  Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.  So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?  Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realising that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

[Who are these people passing judgement?  This applies to both sides of the division in the Church in Rome, but in light of the previous section, it is particularly salient for the more conservative Jewish Christians, who might be feeling put on a pedestal of righteousness by Paul's harsh words about pagan life.  We can imagine the puzzlement, however, as a Jewish Christian might be thinking that as a good Jew, they have never committed any of these sins.]

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.  God ‘will repay each person according to what they have done.’   To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life.  But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.  There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;  but glory, honour and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.  For God does not show favouritism.

[The Jews would have believed that God does show favouritism - they, after all, are God's special and chosen people.  As a Jewish Christian, they would have a willingness to accept that glory, honour and peace is given first to the Jew and then the gentile.  But Paul's careful words are a sobering reminder that there will also be trouble and distress - first for the Jew and then the gentile.  Paul is carefully positioning his argument that both Jew and gentile are treated equally by God.]

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.  For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.  (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.  They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)  This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

[A confusing concept for Jewish Christians in that day is the place of the Law, which was the Jewish Torah and teachings of what we now call the Old Testament.  The Law is how they knew what was sin and what was not.  What then of gentiles, who knew not of the Law?  Paul is here laying out a revolutionary concept.  The gentiles can be considered to be right by the Law when their hearts and consciences result in behaviour that is consistent with the Law.  Now Paul here cannot be referring to the very Jewish specific customs and dietary requirements, but rather the overarching concepts as Jesus refers to in the words of the Great Commandments of loving God with heart, soul, mind and strength, and loving our neighbour as our self]

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,  an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth – 
[at this point, we can imagine the conservative Jew nodding enthusiastically, because deep down, this is what many believed and indeed is the case of many in our church today]

 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?  You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?  You who boast in the law, do you dishonour God by breaking the law?  As it is written: ‘God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’

[Paul is asking the conservative Jewish listener to consider their own hypocrisy]

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.  So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?  The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a law-breaker.

[And here is the nail in the coffin of the Jewish arrogance.  Paul, himself from a respected and strict Jewish background, aware of all the requirements of the Law, is saying that the non-Jew is morally on higher ground when their behaviour is better than the Jew.]

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.  No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God."

[And here is the crux of the matter.  Pleasing God is not a matter of legalistically following Scripture, but of a renewal of the heart by the work of the Holy Spirit.]

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

There is a desperately sad irony that in our Church today, many of the more conservative wing quote Romans 1:18-32 at other believers as a way of condemning them and their views, trying to show how the law is clearly against them.  Yet in doing so, they are using a passage designed to do the exact opposite - heal the division.  What Paul wants of us is to live life by the Spirit.  In doing so, we live as God wants.  This is not a licence to sin, but a warning against legalism and judgemental attitudes against other Christians.

Tuesday 10 December 2013

A study on the book of Romans (part 2)

Following on from our last study (http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-study-on-book-of-romans-part-1.html), we now will look at one of the most controversial passages in Romans.

Before we do, however, I would suggest revisiting our first study (see link above) to understand the context in which Paul was writing.

There is conflict, division, a real tension between more conservative Jewish Christians and gentile Christians (who would have been considered much more liberal by the Jews).  Paul's purpose in writing is to promote unity in this divided community.  This is a crucially important background to our next section.

Paul starts this next section by affirming the Jewish position (remember, they were the minority group and were looked down upon by many gentile Christians).  A Jew would be acutely aware of how they must differentiate themselves from non-Jew.  Their strict laws and observances were drummed into them from a young age.  Paul writes in a way to get them on board by highlighting the pagan world round about as we shall see in verses 17-32.

Romans 1:17-32

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[Here, Paul addresses the issue of non-Jews being aware of God, despite their lack of education and training in Jewish ways.  Essentially, he is saying we can know the Creator by his Creation.  We cannot make the excuse of not having been educated as a Jew.]

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

[Here, there is a clear reference to pagan activities.  Paul is not talking about Christians, but about pagans who have rejected God and instead chosen to worship false gods.]

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is for ever praised. Amen.

[Many of the pagan temples were known for their hedonism and sexual activities, including temple prostitutes and orgies.]

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[The only reference in the Bible to female sexuality of this kind - it is not known if Paul here means lesbian activities, or women adopting a sexually aggressive and traditionally male role in sexual activities with men.  Rather than the natural sexual intimacy of a loving relationship with a woman, we hear of a licentious and lustful behaviour.  We do not know the exact nature of the men's shameful acts with other men, but can safely assume they were sexual and "un-natural"] - see however, my other postings on how this relates to homosexuality today.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.  Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them."

[Again, Paul clarifies that he is not talking about non-Jewish Christians, but those who choose not to  acknowledge God.  The fruit of this life is wickedness, evil, greed, depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, hating God, insolence, arrogance, boasting, doing evil, disobeying parents, having no understanding or fidelity or love or mercy.]

At this point, bearing in mind that this letter is likely to be read aloud in public to a diverse audience, you can imagine how the Jewish Christians will be buoyed and will anticipate that Paul is on their side (after all, he was himself a strict Jew).  By highlighting the sins of pagan worshipers of false gods (remember how Paul introduces this - with images of mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles), Paul is raising the Jewish awareness of how they have been set apart as God's people.  This was an important affirmation that the Jews needed to hear, particularly proclaimed aloud in front of their gentile brothers and sisters.

Before they can get overly arrogant about their position however, Paul quickly turns the tables on them.  We will explore this in the next chapter.

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

A quick point needs to be made about homosexuality here.  Many Christians use the above passage as "clear evidence" that God condemns all homosexual activities.  However, there are 2 points to be made here.  Firstly, if this is a true reading of this passage, then equal strength of opposition needs to be made for all the other groups of sin mentioned in this passage - including gossiping, boasting, arrogance and dishonouring of parents.  To have integrity in applying God's word fairly, we cannot take one sin and put it on a pedestal of unrighteousness, while turning a blind eye to others.

Secondly, and of paramount importance, is that the people Paul is describing here are clearly pagans engaging in promiscuous and licentious living.  The fact that everyone knows about these behaviours means that it is not the private intimacy of a loving couple, but instead public sexual promiscuity and in all likelihood associated with temple worship.  The people being described "neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him".

Our debates today on homosexuality in the Church are about a much different people - brothers and sisters in Christ who do seek with all their hearts to glorify God and give thanks to him.  The fruit of the Spirit is at odds with the acts of the sinful nature and we must be careful not to compare a homosexual Christian with this group of sexually promiscuous and licentious pagan worshipers Paul is referring to in this passage.  This is particularly important in light of the next part of his letter and the whole purpose of what he is writing in this letter, right through to the end of Romans.

Tuesday 3 December 2013

A study on the book of Romans (part 1)

Like every parent who says they don't have a favourite child, I am going to confess that Romans is one of my favourite books in the Bible.  Luther himself is alleged to have described it as the most important letter in the New Testament.  There is so much theology in it, that it is a rich resource for anyone wanting to understand the Christian faith better.  However, it is also one of the most powerful templates for conflict resolution and dealing with difference in the Church.  And yet, ironically, it is frequently used as a tool for division.

This has prompted me to write a series on this book.  Today, we look at some of the context and Paul's introduction.

Romans - the context

Paul is writing to a church with a unique set of problems.  A predominantly gentile Christian group, worshiping alongside a strong minority of Jewish converts.  These Jewish Christians believed (understandably from their perspective) that faith in Christ required an additional adherence to the Law (the Torah, or first 5 books of the Old Testament).  In this way, Christ fulfilled this law, but did not do away with any of its requirements.

The gentile Christians, however, did not have this background and would struggle to see how in order to become a Christian, they must first become a Jew.

The infighting and division was not just light-hearted debate.  Some believe that Jewish Christians were actually expelled from Rome by Claudius around AD49 as a result of this in-fighting, and that the gentile Christians looked down on Jewish Christians.  Only around AD54 did the Jewish Christians return, shortly before Paul is believed to have written this letter.

This melting pot is actually a powder keg.  And Paul's desire is to sort it out.

In the context of this strife, the opening words of Paul are deeply significant.  I will copy them below from the NIV translation:

Romans 1:1-17

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God – the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

[Note here the affirmation of the historic Jewish faith of the Holy Scriptures and the prophets and of the line of David.  Paul here is giving a place of importance to the Jewish minority, affirming that they are the ones who initially called Gentiles to belong to Jesus Christ]

To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:  Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.

[Note Paul's use of the inclusive "all of you" and the love he bears for this Church]

I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong – that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith.  I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

I am a debtor both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome.

[In this context, the Greeks and non-Greeks show Paul's love for both Jew and non-Jew]

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.  For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed – a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’"

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

In these last words, Paul emphasises a key component of the Christian message - our "righteousness" comes by faith, and not by following rules and laws, which the Pharisees were keen to promote.

Paul, in his introduction, is very cleverly crafting a letter that aims to unite a divided audience.  He affirms both Jew and Gentile, bringing them together under the banner of Christ.  

The next section in our study will explore how Paul continues to bring people together.  Ironically, the next section is often quoted completely out of context by some Christians to divide other believers and to call others sinful.  We will explore what Paul is really saying and doing in our next study.

In the meantime, I close with Paul's own greeting.  Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sunday 1 December 2013

Black Fridays indeed

If you ever need a reminder how low humanity can sink at times, you might wish to look at these Black Friday video clips: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/28/walmart-fight-black-friday_n_4357939.html

For any reader blissfully unaware of this phenomenon, it is a shopping day, the first Friday after the American celebration of Thanksgiving.  Stores in America will have lots of special offers and sales and it results in stampedes, fights and even deaths.

Let's be clear, this is not a problem with America.  The American consumer culture just happens to be the context for this expression of humanity's darker side.

Paul, in an often misquoted passage of the Bible says that the greedy will not inherit God's kingdom (1 Cor 6:10).  It would be entirely inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament if we read this at face value to mean that any expression of greed bans you from Heaven, like a list of misdemeanours that God and his angels are on lookout for (we are saved by faith in Jesus and the deposit of the Holy Spirit in our lives begins a process of renewal and transformation in us).  What I think Paul is saying is that a life far from God shows itself in its fruit.  The fruit of humanity without a relationship with God can be ugly indeed.

Don't get me wrong, there are some wonderful atheists out there also, kind and good people who strive to live a moral life of integrity with their personal values.

Yet Paul is speaking to a Christian audience in his letter and he reminds us to keep an eye out for the symptoms of sin in our lives.  When we find ourselves hurting others for our own personal gain we spectacularly fail to model the life of Christ to others.  The life that loved others, served others, healed, helped and listened to others and made real personal sacrifice for others.

The solution is not to try hard not to be greedy (we can tiptoe towards salvation by works if we are not careful), but to reconnect with the life of Jesus whom we are following and fill ourselves with the awareness of God and allow the Holy Spirit to work in our lives.  The fruit of that Spirit is good indeed.

Then we can see the black Fridays in our lives transform into glorious Resurrection Sundays.

Thursday 28 November 2013

The design of the body and its appropriate uses

I don't really want to be too graphic with this posting, but I have been asked on a few occassions to explain how it can be appropriate for 2 people of the same gender to have sexual activity when their bodies are clearly not designed for this.

It is an interesting question.  I was specifically asked by someone to address this issue without recourse to Scripture, so I will attempt to do so (my initial response was that we do not judge our morality from our biology or anatomy, but from the Bible).

A good example to explain my views on this is the act of romantic (mouth to mouth) kissing.  Our mouths are clearly designed for eating, speaking and partial breathing.  Kissing mouth to mouth is a very human thing to do (unlike the transfer of partially digested food in birds to their young, for example).  It is not natural in the sense that it is using a body part for a purpose it was not created for.

We know from studies that kissing has a chemical and hormonal effect on our bodies (mostly beneficial, but also the transfer of germs and bacteria).  However, it is clear that the primary function of kissing is not reproductive in nature.  Instead, it is an emotionally intimate interaction between two people.  That interaction serves a purpose.  Most consider it good and enjoyable.  Many cultures believe that owing to the intimate nature of mouth to mouth kissing it should be only between close partners.  There is no clear or unified teaching on the theology of kissing (that I am aware of!).

The key point, however, is that it is the use of a human part of the body to engage in an activity for which that part was not designed.

If you genuinely believe that no part of the human body should be used to do something for which it is not designed, then homosexual activity would be precluded, as would kissing and a host of other unnatural uses of any part of the human body.

My very young daughter finds it hilarious to sit on her mother or father's head when they are lying down.  She is not using her bottom for the purpose it was made, but I would be hard pushed to scold this behaviour in light of her using it as a form of humour and bonding with her parents.  We do, of course, help her understand that there are times, places and people where this would not be appropriate!

Within the intimate relationship of a couple, the use of sexual organs clearly has a reproductive function.  However, for couples unable to have children, we would be hard pressed to find a respected Christian argument that they should not engage in sexual intercourse because their bodies are not being used for the purpose of reproduction.  Instead, there is a clear romantic, intimate, bonding and stress reducing purpose to that behaviour.  My argument would be that this applies equally to a couple of the same sex as they express their sexual orientation this way.

Before anyone jumps on the "but the Bible says it is wrong" argument, I would like to remind that I was asked to discuss this without recourse to scripture.

I must however, return to my Biblical beliefs.  I believe that this level of sexual intimacy should be (for Christians) within the loving relationship of a marriage covenant (although there is interestingly no passage that says sex before marriage is wrong).  This is why I believe we need to extend marriage to include homosexual Christians who wish to honour God with their most intimate relationship and commit to lifelong fidelity and love.


Wednesday 27 November 2013

What can we learn from Paul?

Do you remember the days when we hand wrote letters?  Scarily, some readers might soon say "no"...

When we hand wrote, we took a lot more care.  By today's standards, it was painfully slow.  Knowing it would take time, we often would spend considerable time thinking about what we would want to say.  With no delete key and no copy and paste, every word and phrase had meaning.

Today we have Bibles that we can search at will, using keywords.  A sad effect of this very useful function is that we now easily lose the context of Bible passages.  We also will usually skip the intro and the endings of Paul's pastoral letters and focus on the meat of the sandwich.  But Paul spent time baking that bread and put it there for a purpose.  Let's have a look at the way Paul greets other Christians in some of his letters...

"1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: 3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia: 2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters with me,  To the churches in Galatia:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen"

"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
2 To God’s holy people in Colossae, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father."


"1 Paul, Silas and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace to you.
2 We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. 3 We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ."


I am sure you are spotting the pattern by now. These letters were hotly anticipated. Travel was limited and some of these people might have only seen Paul once in their lifetime, if they were lucky. Letters were read publicly to an attentive audience. There was only one copy, so no forwarding to friends or saving it in your inbox to read later. Every word was important and Paul weighed it up carefully. He knew his audience well and the cultural context they were in. He adapted his teaching as any good teacher does, to connect with the audience. But consistently, he starts with these powerful words of affirmation.

What, by contrast, do we read in the opening words of so many blogs today (and I too am guilty)? How often do we read harsh, condemning words directed at other believers? How often are comments and replies equally vociferous?

In a day when many use the teachings of Paul against one another, perhaps we could all learn much, much more from this master baker of relationship building and affirmation.

Tuesday 26 November 2013

engagement with conservative evangelicals

I am finding engaging conservative evangelicals in conversation to be exhausting.

I have friends who are traditionalists, with whom I disagree on the topic of homosexuality.  However, we have a mutual respect and a shared love of God that does not diminish in the light of us disagreeing on this issue.  We respect each other's viewpoints, understanding where these views come from and why they are held.  And we continue to love one another and fellowship and serve God together. This, I believe, is an approach very true to the teachings of the Bible, particularly of the Apostle Paul, and is consistent with the prayer of Jesus as recorded in John 17:

"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one –  I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me"

Paul also highlights the fruit of the Spirit as being love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. However, the acts of the sinful nature are shown to include hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions.

My problem is with the more conservative wing of the Church.  Discussions with them (never truly discussions, they always seem to turn into heated debates and arguments) always seem to follow a particular pattern.  The order might change and there might be subtle shades, but broadly, the pattern is as follows:

1. They put forward a view that the Bible is unambiguously clear that God opposes homosexuality.  So, if you take one of the handful of passages and show an alternative view that leads to some ambiguity, rather than acknowledge this, they jump onto another passage.  If you then take this next passage and do likewise, the anger mounts against you and they start to talk of the overwhelming message of Scripture and the internal consistency of God's message.  Now, at this point, if they were to pause and acknowledge that yes, there is a different reading but that they don't agree on your interpretation, that would be fine.  It doesn't breach our relationship and we can agree to disagree and acknowledge that our actions have to have integrity with our reading of Scripture.

However, usually they believe your new interpretations are not consistent with their understanding of God and therefore are not likely.  But interestingly, here the argument has changed.  It is now no longer saying that things are unambiguously clear, but that there is a broad, overarching theme.  However, if this theme is built on the pillars of interpretation of a few verses, then it makes sense that a challenge to these verses can result in a challenge to the overarching (perceived) theme.  Conversations rarely get beyond shouting matches and the throwing of Bible verses at you, however.  I have also noticed that when you present an important Biblical principle, rather than addressing this, they will throw an apparently contradictory principle at you.  For example, if you quote a verse about loving your enemies or refer to passages where the Church was encouraged by Paul to work together despite differences, they will quote another passage about dealing with heretics, as if this in some way negated Paul's other teaching.

2. When a shift does occur from claiming individual verses back up the anti-homosexual position, a broader view is put forward that the Genesis template clearly shows marriage is to be between one man and one woman.  This is actually a good point.  However, where things unravel is when you say that this is the ONLY acceptable model for covenant marriage.  2 Sam 12:8 has a very uncomfortable passage for traditionalists.  God here is actively participating in polygamy.  Every time I have mentioned this passage to a traditionalist, I have only been met by silence and a jump to another argument.  Also, Jesus was single and Paul promotes celibacy (where those have that gift).  These are different ways of living that are a deviation from the argument that all men must marry one woman.  It shows that while it is A template, it is not necessarily the only acceptable model for human relationships.  When discussing God's participation in polygamy, I would much rather hear someone honestly say "I don't know why God did this".  This would be honest and shows us that we don't always know or understand the Bible at face value and we need to wrestle with these issues in prayer.

3.  Then some will angrily talk about the inability of 2 men to reproduce.  This is not a theological or Biblical argument, but is often used.  It is true.  But some married heterosexual couples are likewise unable to reproduce and some choose not to.  Are they in some way sinning by living together as a married couple?  Adoption is also an option to all these couples, and there are many moving testimonies from adopted children of the love they felt for having been "chosen" to be loved, in a way that is reminiscent of the Christian story.

4. Some talk of different gender roles and a hierarchy of male over female.  This does not sit comfortably with me at all, particularly in light of Galatians 3 ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus").  It is also not an argument about sexuality, but of power and dominance in a 2 person relationship.  There is also such diversity within gender groupings, that any argument that each gender contributes something unique to a relationship has little evidence to back this up.

5. Some worry about the harm caused to children if raised by gay parents.  Studies do not appear to back up these concerns.  In fact, there is more harm caused by divorce or being raised by a single parent according to studies.

6. Homosexuality is seen by some conservatives as a choice.  They believe that the issue we are discussing is purely one of sex.  Therefore, the act of sex is a choice and you can choose whether to have it with a man or a woman.  Presumably they would argue that if you want to have sex with someone (of the opposite gender), you would need to marry them first and then be allowed sex.    However, our studies of sexuality clearly show that sexual orientation is not a choice.  Ask people if they believe homosexual orientation is a choice and surprisingly, many will say "yes".  However, ask those same people when they chose their sexual orientation and you will likely be met with confusion, as they would think they always were and didn't ever make a conscious choice to be attracted to someone of the opposite gender.  As a heterosexual man, I never once made a choice to be sexually attracted to women.  It just happened naturally.  

The metaphor people use is also very interesting.  Conservatives like to talk of homosexuality as being like an addiction (e.g. an alcoholic).  The logic follows that you help an alcoholic to recover and not drink alcohol.  However, sexual orientation is more like being left handed, right handed, or in a few cases ambidextrous.  You do not force an orientation change.  Also, using one or the other is not inherently right or wrong, but it is what you do with your hands that is good or evil.

7.  Finally, a bemusing argument, often from a place of desperation to attempt to silence you, is that the Church has believed the traditionalist view for centuries and therefore why should we change it now?  The first clear answer is that we understand the issue of sexuality better now.  It is clearly not just a lustful orgy-like behaviour that society needs to condemn.  It is genuine same sex attraction that has the same perils, hopes, dreams, opportunities as heterosexual attraction.  A second answer is to point out that the Church has been spectacularly wrong in the past.  Take for example the flat earth or scientific discovery.  Just because people have a view for a long time doesn't make that view more valid than a new, enlightened view.  That is really no argument whatsoever.   We might as well say we have sinned for centuries, why should we stop now?

Where I would be in total agreement with a traditionalist, would be if they said that their conscience would not allow them to express their own homosexuality.  The Bible actually tells me what to do in that situation (see Romans 14).  I must not put a stumbling block in the way of my brother or sister.  Nor should any minister be forced to conduct a wedding against their conscience.  I would stand up and strongly defend the right of a traditionalist to act with integrity according to their conscience.  The question is, would a traditionalist stand up for me in similar situations?

What exhausts me is the constant arguments that go in circles, never listening to other views, not willing to even contemplate that there might be truth in another's position, and calling you a heretic or unsaved believer if you dare to disagree with their conservative view.  I have been accused of sneaky tricks, of heresy, of probably not being truly saved, of being confused.  Thankfully, praise God, I have also met some wonderful, peace-loving and gracious traditionalists, that I am proud to call my brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we disagree on homosexuality and if we might vote differently on issues (e.g. marriage). 

I genuinely am at a loss to know what to do with the other people though...

The words of Paul to Titus (Titus 3) ring in my ears and I keep asking God if there is another way: "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.  You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned."  I fear I have gone beyond the second warning in many conversations from people who wish to eject any believers from the Church on account of a different interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality, or who call for division and disunity, all in the name of God.

I would appreciate any wisdom from readers to know how we progress in this situation, where one party refuses to even listen and have fellowship with one who disagrees on a single issue of doctrine, in this case, the place of homosexuality in God's kingdom.

God bless

Sunday 24 November 2013

Same Sex Marriage, an overview

The Scottish government had a vote on the issue of legislation for same sex marriage.  There was a vote in favour by 98 to 15 and 5 abstentions.

As expected, there was jubilation from some quarters and dismay in others.  I would, as an Evangelical Christian, class myself in the former category.  I will explain more at the end, why this is so.  However, it is interesting to explore some of the reasons why there are groups who object.  In no particular order, a quick summary follows:

1.  Some religious groups feel marriage is commanded by God to be between only one man and one woman.  Some Christians believe that there are clear Bible passages that plainly oppose homosexuality, and therefore it would be clearly wrong, as God clearly is in opposition to homosexual practice (most in this camp believe God accepts homosexuals but only if they repent of their homosexuality and do not engage in any same sex activity).  While I understand and respect this position, I do not think the small handful of verses stand up to scrutiny.  I have outlined this in several places, e.g. http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/homosexuality-and-bible.html

2.  Again, from religious groups, there is a belief that a creation ordinance has a clear gender complementary role divide, which means marriage should be between one male and one female, as they are designed to complement each other.  Some go as far as to state there is a clear male "headship" and that to go against this would be to go against our design.  My problem with this argument is twofold.  Firstly, science has shown us that gender is a poor differentiator when we take into account personality difference.  Take for example the Myers Briggs personality test.  It categorises personality into one of 16 groups and has a serious body of scientific and statistical validation.  There are 4 scales in this measure.  In only one of these is there a significant gender difference.  Approximately 35-40% of men are "feelers" whereas 60-70% of women are "feelers" (this is a scale looking at how we make decisions).  While this sounds significant, it means that in a room of 10 men and 10 women, 4 men and 6 women would be in the feelers group, whereas 6 men and 4 women would be "thinkers".  Gender differences are likely to be much more a result of our social conditioning than any innate difference, certainly in terms of personality and temperament.  There is also an argument that the New Covenant in the New Testament has done away with the previous idea of men having a superior role to women as is backed up by Paul's words in Galatians 3: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".  Also, the previous covenant between God and man was marked by male only circumcision.  The new way of Christianity was baptism, and open to all.  This is a complex debate and there are passages in Paul's pastoral letters that require in depth understanding, where he appears to go against his views of equality in certain Church contexts.  Nonetheless, there are arguments that these were situation specific recommendations in the context of matriarchal pagan church influences and to do with order and peace in the churches of that day.

However, this is a slight digression, as my second point is that while there arguably might be a creation based template, it is naive to assume that any deviation from that template must inherently be sinful.  God nowhere says "this is the only acceptable form of marriage".  I write more about this here: http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/bible-is-not-anti-homosexual.html

3.  There is a rather strange argument occasionally put forward that if we allow gay people to marry, then it won't be long before we allow polygamy or incest to be legally recognised.  However, the incest argument falls down because for centuries, we have celebrated unions between one man and one woman.  At no point have we had a public outcry from brothers wishing to marry sisters, despite the fact they fit the one man one woman rule.  The reason is that society understands the health and genetic implications of inbreeding and we do not allow this union for health reasons and to protect unborn children.  There are complex rules about relatedness and these are not being renegotiated in any way.  Again, the case is not one about redefining marriage between two parties (to include multiple partners) but is instead looking at cases of sexual identity being homo rather than heterosexual.

4.  Some argue that men and women have sex to procreate and therefore marriage of same sex makes no sense, for biological reasons.  This argument makes far more sense than the incest argument, yet relies on the assumption that marriage is only for procreation.  However, procreation happens throughout the world without marriage being a prerequisite.  In fact, marriage in that sense is very UNbiological.  Marriage is about far more than just sex to have children.  That argument also devalues marriages where there are no children, either for fertility reasons or through choice.  Nowhere in the Bible do we read that not having children is sinful.  Also, many couples choose to adopt and there is evidence that there is no harm caused by same sex couples rearing children.  In fact, there is more harm caused by single parents or divorce (but again, this is not to say all children will suffer if raised without 2 parents).

In truth, I believe that those who oppose same sex marriage do so because deep down, they have a revulsion towards a man having sex with another man and this concept makes them feel deeply uncomfortable.  For the older generation, I think we have to give them some grace as the speed of change is society is phenomenal.  Not long ago women did not go out to parties without chaperons.  Now we see women outdrinking men on street corners.  The idea of decorum and previously understood gender roles is difficult for some to adapt to in a way that many younger audiences would find strange.  Attitudes towards gender will be very different in another 2 generations.

Those who object because of religious reasons might well also be using the Bible to back up their private revulsion.  However, many genuinely do believe God opposes homosexuality. I believe this is because of a misunderstood set of Bible passages, a naive understanding of the work of Bible translators and teaching from conservative groups that discourage critical thought and revisiting previously held assumptions.

There are some who are genuinely not homophobic and who have considered different viewpoints and still come to the conclusion that homosexual unions are not morally acceptable.  These people are few and far between in my experience, but those that are there are usually more willing to enter dialogue and discussion about ways to agree to disagree while focusing on more pressing spiritual matters.  I find myself having a deep respect for these people, and in fact, you the reader might be one of them :-)

To conclude, however, I believe that promoting same sex marriage is a golden opportunity for supporters of marriage (I am one) to emphasise the importance of love, faithfulness, commitment, lifelong support and caring.  It promotes a covenant relationship, which echoes the covenant relationship between Christ and his Church.  To extend this to those of same sex relationships is, I believe, an opportunity to promote and nurture an institution that helps bind the fabric of society.  There is nothing to fear and much to celebrate and anticipate with joy.

I write more about same sex marriage and the Bible here:  http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/a-biblical-rationale-for-same-sex.html

Tuesday 19 November 2013

Repentance

What comes to mind when you hear the word "repentance"?

The word originates from Latin and has a meaning of being sorry.  In a Christian context, this means being sorry for our sin and turning back to God.

But in a practical sense, what does this actually mean?  Paul says we all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23).  As Christians, we continue to sin (usually unintentionally, but sometimes knowingly).  And yet, the Christian message is that if we have faith in Jesus, we will be saved.  There is no weighing of scales to compare our hearts to the weight of a feather.  There is no pass mark for our actions that allow a certain percentage of sins to get through.

When we give our lives to Jesus as his followers, we are told that God comes and makes his home in us (John 14).  The Holy Spirit comes into us and we become temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6).  A process of renewal begins and our lives start to transform.

Yet we continue to sin.  

The hypocrisy of many Christians is to present ourselves as sin-free.  Only when our sin is revealed publicly does our witness come crashing down about us as we are exposed as liars and hypocrites.  Nor does God want us to constantly look down in shame, unable to get out of bed in the morning because of our awareness of our fallen nature.

So what analogy would be useful to help understand what repentance truly means?  There is no perfect image, but the one I find helpful is as follows:

Our lives are like sailing a small boat on the sea.  When we go with the current, we find ourselves drifting away from God.  When we repent, we set our course back to God and we seek God's strength to help on that journey.  There is a lovely proverb that says "in his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps." (Proverbs 16:9)

This proverb could be used to suggest that what we try to achieve is meaningless, as ultimately God decides what happens.  I prefer to read this as an affirmation of our relationship with God.  When we set our course to follow God (repenting of our previous course that is away from God) then God looks after the details and provides for our needs on the journey. 

As believers, we also travel in community, so other boats come alongside us and we share this journey together, helping one another.

The danger with some concepts of repentance is that they give an image of an angry God, waiting to punish us for every mistake we make along the way.  That is not the self sacrificing God who allowed his own son to die on a cross that we might be reunited with him for eternity. 

I hope this new metaphor helps some of you as you read this.  May the wind blow in your sails as we journey on a new course together. 

Sunday 17 November 2013

1 Corinthians 6, some musings

In the often heated debates on homosexuality, the passage in 1 Corinthians 6 is frequently quoted.  The passage is here:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."  1 Cor 6: 9-10

I have mentioned this passage in previous posts about the Bible and homosexuality (see here for example: http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/homosexuality-and-bible.html).  However, I would like to recap on this passage.

On the surface, it seems crystal clear, and those who like to refer to the "plain reading" of Scripture will no doubt think any attempt to consider this passage differently will be just doing theological gymnastics in order to satisfy a worldly viewpoint.

The problem is that if we don't apply any study and discernment to this passage, we have some other uncomfortable logic to apply.  The logic is as follows: anyone who slanders others will not be saved.  Also, anyone with an addiction to alcohol or food will not be saved.

Now immediately, most sane people will say "ah, but if these people repent of their ways then God will forgive".  But what if the person does not deal with their addiction in their lifetime?  What if the alcoholic is in denial as so many are?  What theological gymnastics must we make here to reconcile these words with those of the same author in Romans 3:28 "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law".

There are some who genuinely believe that unrepentant homosexuals will not achieve salvation, and they often use this passage to justify this view.  However, by unrepentant, they do not mean a repentant sinner who has put his or her faith in Jesus Christ, but they mean someone who is unrepentant about their sexuality.

When asked what of a man or woman who professes Jesus as Lord and Saviour who is also at peace with their (non-repressed) homosexuality, the reply is often that they cannot truly be in relationship with Jesus if they persevere in their so-called sin. This is in part because of a logic loop that says if you do X you are not saved, if you are saved you do not do X, therefore if you claim to be saved and do X you must not truly be saved.

Presumably, to have integrity of logic, this argument would also apply to an alcoholic or a greedy man or woman.

So where does this leave us now?  Well, it means that if this passage is to be read out of context at face value, then no greedy person or drunkard can be a saved Christian.  The only way for salvation is if the person stops being an alcoholic or greedy.

And that to me sounds scarily like salvation by works.

So is there another possible meaning of this passage?

Yes.

Paul is writing to a city known for its sexual promiscuity.  With over 12 pagan temples, including the infamous temple of Aphrodite, known for temple prostitution and having hundreds of sacred prostitutes, the Church was against a backdrop of licentious living.  Paul wants the church to stand out as a beacon of purity.  The chapter before he condemns the man who was having sex with his father's wife (a breach of the ten commandments and even considered shocking by the standards of the day).  He then addresses an issue of lawsuits among believers, and curiously, it is here that Paul mentions the passage I quoted above.   So why does Paul jump from telling people to not take other believers to court to condemning (apparently) homosexuality?

Well, Paul is contrasting the Church with the world outside, which in this context includes temple prostitution, orgies and the like.  Now, in that context, let's re-read the opening quote.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Paul is quite clearly referring to the pagan temple prostitution and licentious ways of the people of Corinth.  He then goes on to say "And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God".

When a person commits their life to Jesus, they are washed, sanctified and justified.  This includes homosexuals (and alcoholics and greedy folk and greengrocers and tax collectors and prime ministers... Who we were is irrelevant).

This to me is quite clearly (and plainly) not a list of unforgivable sins.  It is a comparison between the Church and the pagan idolatry outwith.  The offence is not being a practicing homosexual, it is worshipping false gods, rejecting Jesus and abusing sexuality in acts of worship (prostitution, both givers and receivers).  We must remember also that the word "homosexual" is an invention of the 19th century, and therefore is a choice of 20th century translators to best encapsulate the meaning of Paul in this passage.  Paul was describing the sexual acts within the temple orgies/prostitution (some translations called it sodomites).  In much of the 20th century, homosexuality was illegal and frowned upon by society as a whole.  It therefore is a good translation attempt.  In centuries to come as we appreciate homosexuality in a new light, Bible translators of the 21st and 22nd centuries will undoubtedly begin to rephrase this concept to help the modern reader understand Paul's usage - the primary job of a good translator.

Paul goes on to emphasise this point - "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?  Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute?  Never!"

It is understandable how at first glance, these verses appear to be denouncing all homosexuality, particularly when read out of context.  But with a little discernment we can see that the clearer reading of this passage is that Paul is telling the readers that as holy people, set apart for God (not like the temple prostitution rings around) then these people should have the maturity to resolve their own disputes internally without taking brothers and sisters to court.  Why else would Paul suddenly mention homosexuality in a response to legal disputes?  He also wants them to act honourably in all things, especially their relationships with one another.

The teachings of 1 Corinthians 7 can then be understood to include, rather than exclude homosexual Christians (Paul is not likely to have been thinking of homosexual Christians when writing that teaching, but we as Christians today need to consider how we apply his teachings to a wider range of issues in order to bring glory to God in all our relationships).

(To view my thoughts on the application of 1 Cor 7 in the same sex marriage debate, view this post:  http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/a-biblical-rationale-for-same-sex.html)

Our brothers and sisters in Christ who are homosexual are equally seeking to honour God in their relationships and as a Church we need to help them do so, without misapplying scriptures that back up our own prejudices (I include myself and my own prejudices).

This is not to say that all relationships (whatever our sexualities) are godly or God-honouring.  We each need case by case discernment with the help of the Holy Spirit.

It is time, however (in my personal opinion), to stop using verses like these out of context to cause immeasurable suffering to our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Sunday 10 November 2013

If you could know the future, would you choose to?

I am reading through the Game of Thrones series, and watching the DVD at the same time.

Then one day, I succumbed to temptation.

I looked up the internet to see what would happen in the future.  And I was paralysed.

I saw some things I liked, but also read about the suffering and even death of people I cared about.  Now I find my motivation to read on has been frozen.  I'm scared to progress to that future I know is inevitable.

And this got me musing...  Would I want God to tell me about the future?  My head says no!  But if I was sitting there with the forbidden fruit on offer, could I resist?  Of course, I don't think God would tempt me that way.  However, it helps me understand why God might not show us the future or answer all our questions when we demand to know.  How many of us long to know which job God wants us in, or where we are called to be.  Is this not some form of yearning to glimpse into the future?  The Old Testament spoke out strongly against fortune tellers and divination.  Perhaps this is in part to do with the power a prophetic word can have over someone's life.

But prophecy is not just about foretelling.  It is often about forth-telling.  It is hearing God's will for us today, in the here and now.

Perhaps, rather than longing for a glimpse into the future, I should direct more energy into seeking God in my today.  When has worrying about the future added even an hour to our lives?

Wednesday 30 October 2013

What was Jesus thinking?

As Christians, we are called.  Called to follow Jesus, the Son of God.

What does this mean, "to follow?"

I read it as a call to imitate his way of life - his love, his compassion, his mercy, his inclusiveness, his deep relationship with God the Father, his sacrificial love.

To me, this means we are called into an intimate relationship with God.  Many of us don't really appreciate what an intimate relationship is all about.  It means getting to know and allowing to be known.  As a human, this means the honesty of allowing God to see the real me, warts and all.

It means turning to God for advice on all kinds of issues, small and large.  It means reflecting on events, it means praying for loved ones (and we're called to love everyone).

It's wonderfully simple isn't it?

Or would be, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a human being.  You see, as a human being, I do some daft things.  I burn korans.  I burn Bibles that are not the King James.  I picket funerals with anti-gay slogans.  I write hateful blog posts about other believers.  I preach from the pulpit about purity while returning home to my pornography addiction.  I proudly support some causes while using that as an excuse to walk away from those who need my love.  I always have my gun ready to shoot down any opposing views.  I abuse others over the centuries and claim it to be biblically justified.  I wrap up my anger and hate in the phrase "in Christian love".  I destroy my environment.  I try to denounce science.  I block safety measures that save thousands of lives.  I encourage suffering.  I... cannot believe what I am writing, and yet I see it everywhere in every form.

What was Jesus thinking in asking us to represent Him on this earth?

And yet as a human, I also show love.  I give of my time, talents and possessions to reach out to the needy in the world.  I open my home to the homeless.  I give a listening ear to the lonely.  I touch the leper.  I walk with the vulnerable through danger zones, knowing (praying) that they will not harm me, a white western woman.  I am the man who stands before the innocent to take their unjust pain.  I pause and listen and turn to see the child that no-one else sees.

And when I see this, I understand why Jesus calls us to follow Him.  We are called to fill our lives with Jesus, so that our lives will shine a light in dark places and show people there is hope.  And some of these dark places are within my own soul.

The temptation we as Christians face the most I believe is to retaliate against other Christians.  We do so in anger at what we believe to be a misrepresentation of our Lord.  Ironically, we are often attacked by others for the same.

And yet we wrestle with these words from Jesus:

"A new command I give you: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

There is no if, there is no but. It includes all our brothers and sisters. It isn't easy, but neither was going to the cross, and yet we follow Him.

Friday 25 October 2013

Be encouraged in your gifts, be mindful of your weakness

"6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully" [Romans 12:6-8]

To my friends with the gift of prophesy, I encourage you to spend time in prayer to seek out the heart and mind of God. And then speak. Share with those to whom you are directed, and speak. Your words do not need to be long and flowing, you do not need to be in a pulpit. You have a gift of speaking forth the words of God and should touch the lives of others with them. But also, I encourage you to be mindful. Words can build up and they can tear down. Out of the same mouth can come blessing and curse. At times you will have words for others but will add your own, perhaps unintentionally. You should also ask God for a discerning heart to know how to give a message, when to give a message, what message to give (sometimes less is more) and if to give it at all. There are times when God reveals things to you so that you can pray for others.

To my friends with the gift of serving, I encourage you to give all your strength as if serving our Lord Jesus himself. When you work , do not seek the praise of man, but look for the pleasure of God upon you. Your service might go unnoticed by some, but it will be appreciated by God. Your gift frees up others to use theirs and you must never devalue what God has given you. But also, I encourage you to be mindful. Take care that your wonderful gift of serving does not subtly shift into a salvation by works. Hard work is a good thing, but it should not be a goal or a measure of faith. Take care not to judge others who do not see things the same way as you. Yours is a gift to be appreciated in others but never demanded.

To my friends with the gift of teaching, I give thanks for your faithfulness to God's Word. I encourage you to persevere in your own learning so that you have more bounty to share with others. Thank you for helping us understand more about the complexities of the Bible and for your dedication towards truth. But also, I encourage you to be mindful. Take care that you do not place truth above love, or try to rationalise harsh words that express your own anger and claim that these are only true words spoken in love. We all hurt at the misrepresentation of God, but we must love one another into a better place. Your gift is one to treasure and nurture, but take care that you do not lose sight of the wood for the trees.

To my friends with the gift of encouragement, how we need to hear your voice this day. Your words, spoken, written and unspoken are a lifeblood to us in our walk with God. The strength you give is more than just praise, it is courage in our hearts and strength to our bones. Other gifts can be worshipped or devalued. Yours is often invisible. But know today that you are appreciated and loved more than you will ever know in this life. But also, I encourage you to be mindful. Just as you see the needs of others and find a way to give them courage and strength, so you must nurture your own need of encouragement. It is not possible to love others if we do not also love ourselves. And when the pain and stress come, take special care that you do not turn your words to cause pain, as a cry of help to let others know you are wounded. Instead, turn to the ear that is always willing to listen and to the arms that are always there to comfort.

To my friends with the gift of giving, I pray that you will continue to contribute generously to the needs of others. Your giving is a light in a dark place and through your gift, the work of God can move with power in the Church. Many will not appreciate the spiritual nature of your gift, but know that yours is a gift of life to many. You do not give for reward, but you will see the fruits of your giving in the transformed lives of many. But also, I encourage you to be mindful. Take care of the temptation to give with ulterior motive. Your wealth or contribution is a gift from Christ to his bride and you are a channel for this love. Do not let others give you power that corrupts or praise that deflects from other areas that merit those words if encouragement. Know that in your giving you are giving from and into the love of Christ.

To my friends with a gift of leadership, I pray a blessing on you as you help steer the ship on its journey. Your gifts of planning, motivation, vision casting and organisation help us in ways that many take for granted and some even oppose. We all need to remind ourselves that your gift of looking ahead and guiding is as spiritual as any other and is equally spirit led. The work you do behind the scenes is a blessing to us all and know that God sees what goes on behind closed doors, in your studies and places if inspiration. But also, I encourage you to be mindful. Yours is a gift that can lead to an abuse of power. Remember that a gift is not the same as a role or position. Some will put you on a pedestal and will start to follow you, not the Lord you follow. Do not forget to develop and encourage the gifts of others and take care to avoid shining the spotlight on yourself. Just as you lead others, allow yourself to be led. Then God can use you in powerful ways to grow the Kingdom.

To my friends with the gift of showing mercy, I rejoice that you are the hands and feet of Christ. You are the reminder to the world that ours is not a faith of rules, judgement and condemnation, but one of mercy, love and compassion. Through your actions, the world can touch and feel the love of Christ. You exemplify the great commands of Christ, his old and new. But also, I encourage you to be mindful. Take care that your remember to show yourself the mercy and love you show others. And as you show mercy, do it cheerfully, not with sombre face or bitterness in your heart. Show your mercy with the same giving spirit of the woman and the jar of expensive perfume. Then the world will taste and see that the Lord is good.

And together, my dear brother and sister, we are the body of Christ on earth. Only together can we be complete, not lacking in any gift. Lord, bind us together in love. Give us strength to not only tolerate one another but to deeply love and value one another.

Amen.

Wednesday 16 October 2013

Is the Bible simple and straightforward to understand?

I was reading a debate recently where some people were describing the Bible as being clear.

Over the months, many have also used the expressions "the plain reading of Scripture" or "the Bible is unambiguously clear".  These are usually in the context of sin and homosexuality.

We do need to acknowledge the incredible hard work that Bible translators over the centuries have put into translating the original texts.  Anyone with a knowledge of translation will know that this is no easy task.   There is no such thing as a literal translation, as words and language have meaning that is bound up with their context and culture.  To give a simple example, take the French expression "je t'aime".  What does this mean?

In one context, it means "I love you".  In another context it means "I like you".  These different understandings could have profound implications in certain situations!  Some words do not translate at all into other languages.  Some have many words for snow or types of cloud or weather.

And then, there is historical context.  A word can change its meaning over time.  Take for example the word "gay".  Decades ago, this meant happy or bright.  Now it means homosexual.  In some contexts it is a fashion statement.

Bible translators have a very tricky job of not only finding the original meaning of a word in its original context, but they must then choose a word that conveys a similar meaning in the new context.  This is why we have countless Bible translations on our shelves and why there is no single "best translation".  You might be interested to know that the word "homosexual" does not feature in the Bible for example, but translators used that word to convey different meanings into a context where they felt it was the best word (do a word search online in the old King James Bible if you don't believe me!).

But another thing we must remember about the Bible is that it is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books, which include poetry, song, stories, historical documentation, biography, prophetic vision, pastoral letters and more.

When someone says "the Bible says..." they usually mean "my understanding of what God teaches us through the Bible is..."  At least, I hope they do.  Sometimes it feels like the Bible is a glove puppet that pops up and starts speaking to people from behind a pulpit.

We must also remember that the early Church did not have the Bible we know today.  They created much of the New Testament themselves, yet God clearly spoke to them in different ways.

In light of all these facts, we should be cautious when we hear the words "the Bible clearly says..."  Really, we are trying to discern the will of God through the Bible.  I personally believe that God inspired the writers and that God speaks to us today through the Bible and that the Bible translators take great care in their work.    However, it is clear that throughout the centuries, different understandings of what God says through the Bible have resulted in countless denominations, religious orders, divisions and even war.

This is not to say we should discard the Bible.  I have had profoundly moving spiritual experiences through devotional Bible studies.  The Bible is the first place I turn to after prayer when looking for guidance in life.  We can learn so much about God, Jesus, the Church and how to live lives as Christians through the amazing words of these sacred texts.

However, we worship a living God, not a book about a living God.  God speaks to us through the Bible, yes.  He also speaks to us in different ways and through different people.  The key is that each time we think we know what God would say, to return to God in prayer and ask him directly!  We need to check our initial interpretations for the consistency with the message, example and life of Jesus.  We need to discern through the Holy Spirit residing in us if we are on the right track.  We need to check things out with the community of believers.  These are all important safeguards in our walk as Christians.

The Bible is the most amazing book in the world.  Through it, God transformed my life and I love it dearly and I would fight for it to be freely available to all.   It is most certainly not simple and straightforward (and at times can be very unclear), but then neither is God and neither are we.  If the Bible were a simple textbook with all the answers, then we wouldn't need the gifts of teaching or preaching.  We would just need to hand everyone a copy and say "just do what it says".

Monday 14 October 2013

In God's image

I am currently reading a book by Timothy Keller - "Every Good Endeavour".  It is a fascinating look at the place of work in our lives.

However, a thought early on in the book has inspired another musing.  In the early creation story, God created the earth and cared for it and rested.  He made mankind and gave us the responsibility to do likewise - create, care and rest.

When Jesus (God incarnate) came, he called disciples to follow him.  This was more than just a giant conga line through Jerusalem.  It was learning from him and imitating him in his way of life and most importantly, in showing the same love to others that God shows to us.

I find it incredibly liberating and refreshing to remind myself that as a Christian, I am in God's image and I show the world what it means to be Christ-like.  Of course, I am a flawed human being, but even in my weakness God can use me to share love with others.

So, remembering that you are in God's image, I pray that today you will remember that Christian life is not about rules, failings, hard work or always being right.  Instead, it is about reflecting the love of God into the lives of others.

Go forth and love well.

Monday 7 October 2013

Understanding Attribution

Psychologists have long known about the concept of Attribution.  There is something deep in human nature that makes us want to attribute cause to things.

Have you ever stubbed your toe on some object and felt angry for a fleeting moment, wondering what you had ever done to hurt IT?

When thinking about cause, we tend to attribute things internally or externally.  By this, we mean, where was the control?  For example, if you see someone walking along the street and a piece of rubbish falls out of their pocket, do we think they just threw it down because they don't care about litter (internal cause) or do we assume they dropped it by accident or a gust of wind blew it away without their knowledge (external cause)?

Psychologically, we will use many clues to help us come to a quick judgement.  If it's a smiling, friendly elderly lady, we will probably assume it was an accident.  If it was a teenage Goth who was smoking and carrying a can of lager, we're more likely to assume it was an internal cause.  We could be wrong on both counts, but as humans, we instinctively try and attribute cause to our understanding of the world.  In part, it is because that feeling of control helps us feel safer - we like to understand the rules.

Another aspect of causality is whether something is perceived to be stable or temporary and specific or global.  For example, if someone drives aggressively behind you, we have a tendency to think that it is a bad driver (a stable, global statement).  However, it could be that they are in a hurry to get to their mother's funeral, and therefore it is a temporary situation.  It could also be that they misjudged their speed on that last stretch of road and it was only an isolated incident.

Interestingly though, it feels more comforting for us to think of them as a bad driver (we can understand that), whereas temporary glitches in normal behaviour are quite scary for us.  If going for surgery or sitting in the dentist chair, we don't like the idea that human beings might be occasionally irrational, inconsistent and subject to environmental factors.

So how does this affect matters of faith?

There are two areas I'd like to explore.  The first is about the Christian vs non-Christian dynamic, the second is between disagreeing Christians.

1.  As Christians, we can easily treat nonbelievers as a single, homogenous category.  However, there is huge diversity in each of us, and if we rely on too many assumptions, we might make significant mistakes.  Over the last few months I have been wrestling with my fear of telling people I am a Christian.  The reason?  I like them, and worry if they know I have a Christian faith then they will not want to know me any more.  I worry they will think I am a judgemental, irrational, homophobic hypocrite.  But who is they?  Nonbelievers are not one person.  There is a spectrum of belief and if I am embarrassed, might not some of my friends likewise be keeping their beliefs private?

There is also a risk that we mistakenly assume nonbelievers do not have a sense or morality or that they might try to act out of love or the best interests of others.  We need to remind ourselves that we are all created in God's image and many of our human motivations are wonderful ones.  This can easily be lost with a message the church sometimes gives that says "you are all sinners and need to repent and accept God's mercy".  For a start, it is "we" not "you".  Secondly, many people don't even know who God is or anything about his unfailing, boundless love.  His mercy is about experiencing that love so that we might be filled by that love and be in relationship with the God who loves us beyond all measure.

When relating to nonbelievers, I believe we need to take each person as an individual and pray for wisdom to know how to show God's love to that person.  There are no stock solutions or one off sermons and we cannot presume to judge their hearts or their spiritual journey.

2.  But the area that interests me more in terms of attribution errors is when I witness arguments among believers.  More conservative minded folk appear to love to argue and debate.  I find them argumentative and at times they forget the love they need to show or they rationalise love to be some kind of truth telling exercise.  You will notice perhaps that I have made some attributional statements there?  Often when I see a debate between believers, it can get quite ugly.  Often someone will say something, which another will disagree with strongly.  The first person nearly always defends their position and counters with a comment.  It will not be long before attacks become personal, and hurt people will start to make more global, stable and internal attributions about the other.  Instead of saying "I found that comment quite hurtful and disagree with..." we are more likely to witness something along the lines of "you are being judgemental and harsh and you are a poor witness to Christianity etc".  It won't be long before labels like liberal, judgemental, hypocritical, nasty etc. get banded about.

In the recent issue I blogged about in my previous post, 2 Christians are arguing and their blog titles are using words like "a public reply to the lies and slander being spread by...". Both bloggers are calling the other to repent.  What is most interesting however, is the comments of others.  Many are moving from disagreeing about details and facts to calling people liars.  This is a shift in attribution from temporary to stable, internal and global.  Telling something inaccurately does not make someone a liar... But as humans, we prefer that it does (at least, if it is someone else).  It's easy to back up a view we hold - all we need to do is hunt around for more evidence (and unwittingly ignore any examples of truth telling).

This I think is at the core of so many interpersonal conflicts.  Rather than take something in isolation and only focus on the issue at hand, we like to broaden to scope to fundamentally shift our attribution.  It is easier to dislike someone who says things we strongly disagree with than to accept that someone we like has views that might be abhorrent to us.  It is easier to categorise people into groups (liberals, traditionalists etc) than to wrestle with individually expressed views.  In other blogs I have at times challenged a more conservative view only to be told that I am probably not even a Christian.

We all have a desperate human need to understand the world.  Some of us will attribute good things in our lives as God's blessing on us, whereas bad things are a satanic attack or a punishment from God.  Yet in our quest to attribute cause (and blame) for things around us, we can be at risk of forgetting the greatest instruction Jesus gave us.  Love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (regardless of our circumstances) and love our neighbour as ourselves (if we allow ourselves off the hook for being tired, mistaken, having a bad day, meaning well etc., then do we forgive others in the same way?).

Next time you witness some bad driving, an action that offends you or read a Facebook comment or email that hurts, pause a moment, pray, and ask God to help see this situation through His eyes, not your own ones (that will desperately and in all likelihood inaccurately, be trying to attribute cause).

Saturday 5 October 2013

Crticising the person or criticising the method?

There has been a lot posted recently on a certain preacher who was arrested in a city in Scotland while preaching at people.

Depending on who you read, it is either a preacher arrested FOR preaching the gospel, or a preacher arrested for breach of the peace.

It has divided opinion and bloggers have taken to their computers in large numbers, as clearly I am moved to do.

But my area of interest today is not so much this incident but rather how we deal with such incidents.

For the record, I agree with much of the first 3/4 of the following blogger's article: http://theweeflea.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/persecuting-preachers-in-perth/ (the writer of the wee flea is much more conservative in his theology than I am on other issues).

The part where I have to pause is at the end of the post, where there is a personal (genuine and heartfelt I believe) plea to this preacher to repent.

It reminds me somewhat of the other news grabbing (but on a much wider scale) open letter to Miley Cyrus from Sinead O'Connor. A well meant open letter was written, which I actually believe has done a lot of good. However, when I read it, I knew immediately that the intended recipient would be one of the only people to not take it well, and so it proved to be the case.

The reason is that when things are public and personal, our response is usually one of defensive behaviour, and usually this becomes counteroffensive. Our pride prevents most of us from taking these things on board. The exception is perhaps in cases of extremely low self esteem where we automatically take on all negative comments (and filter out the positive ones).

Going back to our street preacher, the blogger above asks him to repent. Straight away, this is going to get his back up (and a few of his supporters and others have clearly responded in the comments section).

There is in fact a small unintentional irony in that the blogger rightly points out "you can’t preach if no one is listening!" However, a public posting like this has some similarities to public preaching. The intended recipient is not listening, because he is not there.

I believe these kinds of personal requests are best done face to face and in private, rather than in what can be a humiliating (and less effective) public call.

This is not to say it is wrong to highlight the flaws in the method. When Jesus spoke to people he was often interested in the details and gave constructive comments. However, to condemn a person is very different from constructively critiquing a method. The problem is that our constructive comments can easily be taken as condemnation if we are not very careful in how we express ourselves.

If we are seeking a change in someone's behaviour, I think we need to try and build relationship with that person first and inspire people from a position of love and trust. This is where I feel the street preacher failed to engage properly.

While the blogger of the wee flea was actually criticising the method (in a detailed and helpful manner), I don't feel the call to repentance will have the desired effect.

One thing that helps me greatly is to ask myself the question "how would I respond to a criticism of something dear to me?" By what method would I receive the feedback best and from whom? When giving critical feedback we need to ask ourselves how to give it, when to give it, where to give it and what exactly needs to be said and left unsaid.

To be clear, I am not (ironically) having a go at the wee flea blogger. We actually agree on most of what he is saying. Nor do I have a personal grudge against the street preacher (or Miley or Sinead!). But these events do give plenty pause for musing! 

God bless.

Wednesday 2 October 2013

Do we ever change our views when someone tells us we're wrong?

I occasionally visit a fairly conservative blog.  On occasion I feel moved to contribute to the conversation, but I find that as my views are typically more moderate and inclusive (particularly on issues regarding homosexuality), my posts are frequently shot down in flames. I recently posted the following comment: "The world has many needs and is calling out for the love of God, which we carry within our hearts to share." 

I was fairly flabbergasted to read a response that this was a "liberal statement" and that I was probably not even a Christian!

But it got me thinking.  On this other blog, people seem to be doing the text equivalent of shouting their views at one another.  I would genuinely be interested to know if this has ever resulted in someone changing their views?

Usually, when someone challenges us, our first instinct is to go on the defensive (or counter offensive).  Rarely does this seem to result in a change of view.  The exceptions are when there is a relationship already in existence, and the giver gives the message with a clearly positive tone, in love.  And no, I don't mean the harsh words that are often spoken "in Christian love" (but that are far from it!).

There is one blogger I read, and I am frequently willing to engage with his views and take points on board and I am surprisingly willing to adapt my own views after reading what he posts.  I think that it his style and genuine willingness to wrestle with issues and doubts and take points on board that make this so.

God bless

Saturday 28 September 2013

why I believe in...

The Virgin Birth and Miracles

I grew up hearing the Christmas story and reading about the miracles of Jesus.  Then I became a scientist and a Christian at almost the same time.

I remember hearing atheists using science as some kind of club to beat religion.  This always bemused me, as it is like using Mathematics as a weapon against English or Art.

For me, the universe is like a giant tapestry.  Look at it from one side and you see beauty, patterns, colours, stories and much more.  Look behind and you see a complex weave of thread and the "mechanics" behind it all.  To me, science is the exploration of what is going on behind the tapestry.  That some use that understanding to try to disprove that the tapestry was ever created has always bemused me.

I completely understand why many people are agnostic or atheist.  We are so influenced by our parents, friends, school teachers, role models etc. that each of us goes through life with the inherited views on much of what is around us.  Few of us take the time to challenge these things.  While I believe in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, I do so with a questioning faith.  Many times I've asked God "why?" and when I read something in the Bible I don't just accept it at face value, but I remind myself that it is a collection of translated sacred texts that need careful interpretation to discern what God would say to us through them.

I always understood why a non-believer would struggle to believe that the Virgin birth was a real event.  I completely understand why they would doubt that a resurrection or miracle could actually take place.

(On a side note, one of the things that I think damages Christian witness most is when a believer tries to prove God by describing some kind of miraculous event and they claim there is no other way it could have happened, but by God.  That is laying down a challenge to a scientific mind and where does it say in the Bible that the mechanics of all God's workings could never be understood?)

But what confused me most was Christians who did not believe in the Virgin birth or the resurrection.  There are some who see the virgin birth as just meaning that Mary was a young girl, and who think Joseph was probably the real father, but it didn't suit the writers so they wrote another angle into the story.  Some say the resurrection is a symbolic story rather than a literal one.

I wonder if this might in part be a counter response to the dogmatic unquestioning if-it's-in-the-Bible-it-must-be-true-and-needs-no-interpretation attitude of some?  Perhaps a way of reconciling a faith we love to a universe we (partly) understand is to reject literal understandings of much of the Bible.

However, as a scientist, I actually find that science helps me have more faith and I actually believe in a literal virgin birth and literal resurrection.

Firstly, there is an importance, I am led to believe, to a Jewish audience, that sin is passed down the generations through the male line from Adam.  The virgin birth would have been a proclamation to the Jews that this child, this man, was not born with sin (and therefore would be a perfect and flawless sacrifice when he gave himself up to take on all the sins of man, according to their custom of giving up meaningful sacrifices as part of their covenant with God to show their thanksgiving, their awareness and repentance of their sins and their total dependence on God).

Secondly, I have no problem theologically if science were one day to discover how God actually got Mary pregnant without a biological father.  There have been many "miraculous" things that science has begun to understand over the millennia.  Take for example the regular message that by trusting in God and lifting our anxieties to him, we find peace and comfort.  Psychology has shown us that the things we think about have an impact on our emotions.  There is a deeply mechanical (for want of a better word) process to prayer and faith, but this understanding doesn't diminish in the slightest our need for it or the wisdom God gives us in commanding it.

When faced with amazing "I can't believe it!" events, rather than jump to a conclusion that it probably didn't happen, I remind myself that if our earth were a few centimetres out of its orbit of the sun then life as we know it would not exist.  I remind myself that the beautiful child I see living in my house did not even exist a few years ago, but this sentient, conscious, delightful being was created into existence... It's a scientific miracle!

I remind myself of the beginning of our universe.  Either it was suddenly created out of nothing in a Big Bang, or it has always been and is always growing (growing into what we might also ask?).   The world around us is so full of amazing things we barely understand.  Each year we understand a fraction more through the wonders of science.  I remind myself to never try to prove God by something I don't understand ("if we can't understand, it must be God"), and I cringe when I hear Christians try to engage with others that way.  We don't demonstrate faith by arguments.  There is a place for logical arguments and apologetics but we demonstrate faith (and by this, I mean our relationship with God) by love.  It was the greatest commandment Jesus gave and remains the best form of evangelism.

I believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus because of the witnesses and accounts of the gospel.  It was also something he predicted and Jesus was an entirely trustworthy man.  It also was core to his message of salvation and hope.  But also, as a scientist, I have no reason to doubt that it could actually happen.  If my wife and I can create a child, if the sun can rise and set, if the world can actually support sentient life, if humanity can evolve into what we know it to be today, then why would I have a problem with Jesus being put to death, found to be dead (the piercing of his side and the fluids that emerged were physical proof he no longer lived), being buried and then rising again to show that God had conquered death and by putting our faith in Jesus we need never fear!

You see, I don't believe miracles are there to prove to a scientific mind that God must exist.  I think they are there to remind God's people that we can depend on him completely.  If Jesus can turn water into wine, then he can turn my despair into hope.  If Jesus can feed the multitudes on only a few small loaves and fish, then God can use a small number of Christians to feed the needs of a starving world (literally and metaphorically).

I actually think there is a danger in Christians beginning to doubt the miracles of God.  It is understandable to find them hard to believe (we are skeptical humans after all), but if we are not careful, we might start to doubt that we can actually depend on God.  We might lose confidence in hope.  We might doubt salvation.  We might drift away from the rock and find ourselves buffeted by the waves and storms with nothing to offer the world in terms of witness and confidence (a word that actually has faith at its root).

I don't write this to condemn or judge Christians who don't believe in miracles or the virgin birth.  But I do hope to encourage some who doubt because of reaction to the over confident bragging of some, that it is actually okay to believe in the miraculous without leaving our brains on standby, and we don't need to ever convince a world of miracles.  Leave that to God.  Instead, let us unite, whatever we believe on smaller issues, to show a world just how big and inclusive God's amazing love is!